IMP and LN are competitors in the live music industry. Bothpromote concert tours and operate concert venues,

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

IMP and LN are competitors in the live music industry. Bothpromote concert tours and operate concert venues, but they differin geographic reach. Plaintiff IMP is a regional player thatpromotes concerts and works with venues in the Washington, DC andBaltimore, MD area. Defendant LN is a national promoter thatprovides services to artists throughout the country. It owns,leases, or holds exclusive booking rights at venues across theUnited States. LN has expanded over time by acquiring other concertpromoters as well as Ticketmaster, a major ticket sales anddistribution company.

In addition to promoting concerts, IMP and LN both operateoutdoor amphitheaters. IMP manages and operates Merriweather PostPavilion in Columbia, Maryland, and LN owns Nissan Pavilion (nowcalled Jiffy Lube Live) in Bristow, Virginia. Merriweather has aseating capacity of roughly 19,000 with 5,000 fixed seats, whileNissan has a capacity for 25,000 with 10,000 fixed seats. Concertvenues range in size from small clubs with a capacity of about1,000 to sports stadiums seating over 60,000.

Artists select venues based on their capacity, revenuepotential, and the option of playing outdoors. TheWashington–Baltimore area has a number of concert venues other thanMerriweather and Nissan. Among the other venues are the FileneCenter at Wolf Trap (7,000 person amphitheater), the First MarinerArena (14,000 person arena), the Patriot Center (10,000 personarena), the Pier Six Pavilion (4,200 person amphitheater), and theVerizon Center (19,000 person arena). Notwithstanding the abundanceof options, Merriweather has more than held its own. Between 2006and 2012, it hosted an impressive line-up of prominent artists,including Bob Dylan, John Legend, Maroon 5, Nickelback, Nine InchNails, Sheryl Crow, Taylor Swift, The Black Eyed Peas, and The Fray(doubled revenue from 11 million to 22 million in the sametimeframe).

The basics of the music concert industry are easily described.IMP and LN compete for the business of artists, vying to promotetheir concerts and showcase them in their venues. Promoters, innegotiation with artists, work on financing concerts, arrangingdates and locations, securing venues, and advertising. In terms ofcompensation, the artist typically receives either a minimumguaranteed payment or an agreed-upon percentage of the gross ticketsales.

Artists have two main options for organizing the individualconcerts that make up their tours. One approach is to use adifferent local promoter for each location and secure venuesthrough the promoters. Alternatively, an artist can work with anational promoter such as LN for most or all of the tour. The twooptions frequently offer different modes of compensation. “Artistswho contract with one or a few national promoters to organize theirtours often receive a guaranteed payment from the promoter based onthe number of shows organized by that promoter. Artists whocontract ‘locally’ and book with several promoters in various partsof the country will often receive instead a percentage of the grossticket sales from each concert.”

Plaintiff (IMP) brought suit alleging that LN had violated § 1and § 2 of the Sherman Act and parallel Maryland antitrust lawthrough monopolization, tying arrangements, and exclusive dealing.The result of LN's conduct, claims IMP, was the foreclosure ofcompetition in the concert promotion and venue markets.

Do you agree/disagree with IMP's claim? (350 - 500 words).