Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
History of the film industry
The history of motion pictures
History of the film industry
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1947) case deals with monopolies and antitrust laws. I chose the trusts/monopolies topic due to my interest in finance and economics. Since elementary school, I have been fascinated by John D. Rockefeller’s story about his oil monopoly. This history has caused me to be interested in monopolies and trusts. I began enjoy reading about the elite who obtained their wealth illegally. After reading and watching The Great Gatsby and watching the movie Catch Me If You Can, I have been fascinated with counterfeit wealth and how people may have gotten away with breaking the law. My favorite thing about APUSH is learning how the economy has changed over time and how that has affected the lifestyle of the people and the power of the government. This Paramount case deals with government regulation of business and how it implements the notion of free competition by attacking monopolies.
I am interested in how corporate and finance laws are implemented and how much government is involved in business. This case involves with monopolies in the motion pictures industry. As learned in APUSH, the motion pictures industry was extremely popular during the twentieth century and there was a lot of news surrounding that area of American life. I had originally had chosen the court case Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), which also had to do with monopolies, but there wasn’t any antitrust laws during that time period to research. That was the first time monopolies were challenged in court. Over a hundred years later, the monopoly of the movie production industry was challenged through the same idea of antitrust. The topic of monopolies and trusts even plays an important role in society today as it shapes government regul...
... middle of paper ...
...ducers file for Supreme Court amicus curiae. Retrieved , from http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountcase_5amicus1947.htm
Hodak, G. (2012). May 3, 1948: Court Rules on Hollywood Antitrust Case. ABA Journal, 98(5), 1.
The Consent Decree of 1940 - The Paramount Case. (n.d.). The Consent Decree of 1940 - The Paramount Case. Retrieved , from http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountcase_3consent1940.htm
The Hollywood Studios in Federal Court - The Paramount case. (n.d.). The Hollywood Studios in Federal Court - The Paramount case. Retrieved , from http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountcase_4equity1945.htm
The Supreme Court verdict that brought an end to the Hollywood studio system. (n.d.).The Supreme Court verdict that brought an end to the Hollywood studio system. Retrieved , from http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountcase_6supreme1948.htm
However, after the dust settled, it was widely accepted that the blacklist was unjust, which enabled many film workers to pursue the movie studios in civil courts through the 1950’s for unpaid contracts and wages (Lewis, 2008). While the studios were initially impacted by the Paramount decision, the breadth of competition and independent successes of smaller studios gave rise to the advancement of innovative filmmaking that may not have been possible if it were not for the Paramount decision. Filmmaking is one of the riskiest and most profitable ventures in modern day society, and without these events, the studios and the film workers may not share the successes that they do
In the case of Affleck and Damon v. Booth the primary nature of the case was in regards to their fourth amendment rights being broken; no probable cause for Booth and others to search and maintain their assets in the state of Georgia. In the District court, the ruling past onto both parties was that the case was dismissed due to Booth having no personal jurisdiction in the state of Nevada. This therefore was passed up to the Circuit court of Appeals whom overturned the lower courts decision based on the factors of the case encompassed more than the initial seizure. As both parties are not in agreement with where the trial shall be held the Supreme Court now will make a final decision based on issues to be ruled upon, material facts, and legal principles in practice.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
“NEW YORK TIMES v. UNITED STATES.” The Oyez Project. llT Chicago-Kent College Of Law, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
Beginning the mid 1920s, Hollywood’s ostensibly all-powerful film studios controlled the American film industry, creating a period of film history now recognized as “Classical Hollywood”. Distinguished by a practical, workmanlike, “invisible” method of filmmaking- whose purpose was to demand as little attention to the camera as possible, Classical Hollywood cinema supported undeviating storylines (with the occasional flashback being an exception), an observance of a the three act structure, frontality, and visibly identified goals for the “hero” to work toward and well-defined conflict/story resolution, most commonly illustrated with the employment of the “happy ending”. Studios understood precisely what an audience desired, and accommodated their wants and needs, resulting in films that were generally all the same, starring similar (sometimes the same) actors, crafted in a similar manner. It became the principal style throughout the western world against which all other styles were judged. While there have been some deviations and experiments with the format in the past 50 plus ye...
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
U.S. Supreme Court. (1940). State of Wyoming v. State of Colorado (309 U.S. 572 (1940), No. 10) from
The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2014, May 3). MGM Studios v. Grokster. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_480
Supreme Court of the United States, (2000). United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98-1682.html
Renwick, J. (2013, July 30). Portion Cap Rule Appeals Court Ruling. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_05505.htm
GANNETT CO. v. DEPASQUALE. (n.d.).The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1301
Thompson, K 2003, ‘The struggle for the expanding american film industry’, in Film history : an introduction, 2nd ed, McGraw-Hill, Boston, pp. 37-54
"Romer v. Evans." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437703853.html
ix Beit v. Probate and Family Court Department, 434 N.E.2d 642 (1982), at 643, citing The Trial at 290.