> I am pointing out an inefficiency, a suboptimal economic resolution of the kind a more competitive market dynamic would tend to minimise. The primary reason i

> I am pointing out an inefficiency, a suboptimal economic resolution of the kind a more competitive market dynamic would tend to minimise. The primary reason intermediaries pay extra for exclusivity is exclusivity, cutting out their competition. This doesn't generally happen in markets with enough buyers and sellers. I am pointing out that your claim is fundamentally contradictory. You assert that universal access would not "defund", but your universal access idea is predicated on a free market driving down the cost of access across the board. It realistically cannot be both. You can't have Netflix bundle Amazon content and vice versa and not expect a drop in total revenue. Sure, you'd expect some additional subscribers, but you'd also expect current dual-subscribers to cancel one of their subscriptions[1], and you'd also expect Netflix and Amazon to be reduced to competing primarily on price, driving revenue down. Exclusives drive an increase in funding because they encourage the market to pay for more than one option. > If there were only two or three retailers in a market, they'd be cutting exclusivity deals with wholesalers or manufacturers of goods. It happens all the time. Crate and Barrel sells exclusive furniture designs. So does every other furniture store. It's not hurting the market and in fact increases choice because most retailers actively pursue the creation of new exclusives. [1] There aren't a lot of people paying for HBO Go and HBO Now. Once you've got access to the content, you don't pay for it in other ways as well.