6 ms·

> how they ruined the opportunity presented netflix didn't really ruin it themselves (at least, not completely) - the owner of the licensed content did, by wan

by chii 11mo ago

> how they ruined the opportunity presented netflix didn't really ruin it themselves (at least, not completely) - the owner of the licensed content did, by wanting a bigger cut of the pie. Disney, for example, didn't feel they're paid enough, and so stopped licensing the content out to netflix and instead created a competing service. I think this is a regulatory issue, because each piece of content is an effective island of monopoly. The state needs to make some changes to how content is licensed to prevent monopoly. An example policy would be to force content production studios from exclusive licensing - only broad and available licensing (so any streaming service can pay a known price and obtain the content). Something similar exists with cinemas and movie producers (of course not quite the same). Why couldn't the same or similar be for streaming?

bambax 11mo ago
Yes there should be something like a "mechanical license". Content owners would set their own price but it would be the same for everyone and they shouldn't have the power to pick their licensees.
- mcny 11mo ago
  The idea of a mechanical license sounds perfect. Sorry to go off a tangent but my mind immediately went to healthcare as I have never heard of a mechanical license before. can the same idea be applied to healthcare? for example, hospitals and doctors can set their own rates but these rates have to be public and they can't charge one insurance lower rate? If they charge anyone a lower rate, they have to charge the same rate for everyone.
  - dpark 11mo ago
    > these rates have to be public and they can't charge one insurance lower rate? If they charge anyone a lower rate, they have to charge the same rate for everyone. The problem with this is that it takes away only half of the negotiation. Doctors are now obliged to charge $X consistently but insurance is not obliged to pay it. So the negotiation process seems broken, and seems like it would cause a lot of bad faith negotiations from the insurers. “Eh, we’ll pay you minimum wage. Don’t like it? We’ll just wait until someone else finds your actual minimum and then you can pay us that.” It’s also not clear what happens if Doctor A charges 10% more than Doctor B at the same medical facility. If you see Doctor A, can your insurance decline that even though they would have paid Doctor B’s rate? Of course the current process is broken too.
- mcintyre1994 11mo ago
  Wouldn’t Disney just set an insanely high license fee in this case though? If they’re just paying it to themselves then they can make it high enough that nobody else can justify paying it.
  - rusk 11mo ago
    I don’t think such an obvious scheme could escape the view of the monopoly laws could it?
    - philipallstar 11mo ago
      I don't think you can have a monopoly on stuff you own. That's like saying I have a monopoly on my own house.
      - rusk 11mo ago
        Ha. Guess you’ve not much grasp on how competition law works huh
        philipallstar 11mo ago
        I'm glad one of us explained our perspective, at least.
        rusk 11mo ago
        That’s what I come here for. To have stupid people who haven’t read up on their topic explain their perspective to me.
  - chii 11mo ago
    This problem was also an issue for movies and theaters. The "fix" is to ensure theaters (the distributors) cannot be owned by, nor can they own production studios. So under this rule, if disney wanted to have their own streaming service and used a high licensing fee to try stop competitors from their content, they'd pay high taxes due to the high licensing fees making huge (fake) profits for the parent company - it'd end in losses, as the streaming service (as a separate company) cannot bill their cost onto the parent company (to offset the profit). It's as if the tax man gets to sit in the middle, and siphon part of that license fee for free. Disney shareholders would never stand for that, and so they won't do it.
- rusk 11mo ago
  This also solves the sports coverage issues. The clubs still make money but it’s the media companies that must compete on quality of service, punditry etc rather than it being an exclusive license to make money
- akho 11mo ago
  Or just enforce United States v. Paramount Pictures.
dotancohen 11mo ago
> The state needs to make some changes to how content is licensed to prevent monopoly. Why? Nobody _needs_ Mickey Mouse. If the price for Mickey Mouse is too high, just don't buy it. Now you could argue that some (much) older works are part of culture, and being exposed to that culture is necessary to function in society. But that then becomes an issue of how long copyright is necessary or reasonable. New works most certainly should be allowed to be monopolized by their creators - even if that means that some potential consumers are priced out of experiencing them. You don't need to see every Disney movie. In fact, not seeing some of them will raise the bar to make better movies and will cause competition to emerge.
- xandrius 11mo ago
  Yeah but think of any other piece of media and how people might be forced to start a brand new subscription just to see it. It's not about Mickey Mouse but it's about you wanting to watch the next season of something and having to make a choice: either submit to the monopoly or skip. Consumer protection should be there to prevent this kind of abuse of IP. Imagine if every single individual piece of art was in its own individual subscription-based location in the world ran by a different owner, being the only way to enjoy it. That'd be ridiculous, wouldn't it?
  - batiudrami 11mo ago
    There is tonnes of private art in the world you are simply not able to see at all. Many of these TV shows also come to DVD/Blu-Ray eventually.
  - philipallstar 11mo ago
    None of this is abuse. It's a leisure activity that you have to pay for, and people have the right to sell their work how they like. It's not exactly access to clean running water.
    - account42 11mo ago
      They only have that right because society has deemed it beneficial for everyone to give them that right. If it is no longer beneficial overall then they should no longer have that right.
Sander_Marechal 11mo ago
It also exist for e.g. radio. It's called compulsory licensing and people have been doing it for decades.
contrarian1234 11mo ago
I mean.. if Netflix offered Disney more money then they wouldn't have felt it necessary to launch their own service. I think they simply underpayed or overplayed their cards. It's hard to imagine Disney with it's own service is getting the same amount of people viewing its content. Having the services fractured just ends up with everyone making less money. Both the streaming services and the IP holders Its possible Disney just completely overestimates how much they can make on their own - but market forces should correct for that eventually. We aren't privy to the accounting that went in to the decisions. They currently are making some amount of money off of their streaming service. If Netflix could offer substantially more than that amount (and more customers this way), then I don't see why they wouldn't shut it down
- troupo 11mo ago
  > if Netflix offered Disney more money then they wouldn't have felt it necessary to launch their own service Oh. "Just" offer them more money. Where would that money come from, exactly? > Its possible Disney just completely overestimates how much they can make on their own You underestimate how much content Disney owns, and how much of it is basically free for them ar this time
helsinkiandrew 11mo ago
> The state needs to make some changes to how content is licensed to prevent monopoly That sounds similar to the 1984 Cable Communications Act (where large cable operators were required to lease channels to others, separating content delivery from content creation) but in reverse! requiring content producers to licence content to distributors
bbatha 11mo ago
Don't forget shortening copyrights would have a major impact on this issue as well! 25 year copyright would make most of these libraries public domain. Then the price would truly reflect what we would all like to be subsidizing: the new stuff. Does the rights to Friends being traded around for the Nth time really benefit anyone?

by chii 11mo ago

bambax 11mo ago

Yes there should be something like a "mechanical license". Content owners would set their own price but it would be the same for everyone and they shouldn't have the power to pick their licensees.

mcny 11mo ago
The idea of a mechanical license sounds perfect. Sorry to go off a tangent but my mind immediately went to healthcare as I have never heard of a mechanical license before. can the same idea be applied to healthcare? for example, hospitals and doctors can set their own rates but these rates have to be public and they can't charge one insurance lower rate? If they charge anyone a lower rate, they have to charge the same rate for everyone.
- dpark 11mo ago
  > these rates have to be public and they can't charge one insurance lower rate? If they charge anyone a lower rate, they have to charge the same rate for everyone. The problem with this is that it takes away only half of the negotiation. Doctors are now obliged to charge $X consistently but insurance is not obliged to pay it. So the negotiation process seems broken, and seems like it would cause a lot of bad faith negotiations from the insurers. “Eh, we’ll pay you minimum wage. Don’t like it? We’ll just wait until someone else finds your actual minimum and then you can pay us that.” It’s also not clear what happens if Doctor A charges 10% more than Doctor B at the same medical facility. If you see Doctor A, can your insurance decline that even though they would have paid Doctor B’s rate? Of course the current process is broken too.
mcintyre1994 11mo ago
Wouldn’t Disney just set an insanely high license fee in this case though? If they’re just paying it to themselves then they can make it high enough that nobody else can justify paying it.
- rusk 11mo ago
  I don’t think such an obvious scheme could escape the view of the monopoly laws could it?
  - philipallstar 11mo ago
    I don't think you can have a monopoly on stuff you own. That's like saying I have a monopoly on my own house.
    - rusk 11mo ago
      Ha. Guess you’ve not much grasp on how competition law works huh
      - philipallstar 11mo ago
        I'm glad one of us explained our perspective, at least.
        rusk 11mo ago
        That’s what I come here for. To have stupid people who haven’t read up on their topic explain their perspective to me.
- chii 11mo ago
  This problem was also an issue for movies and theaters. The "fix" is to ensure theaters (the distributors) cannot be owned by, nor can they own production studios. So under this rule, if disney wanted to have their own streaming service and used a high licensing fee to try stop competitors from their content, they'd pay high taxes due to the high licensing fees making huge (fake) profits for the parent company - it'd end in losses, as the streaming service (as a separate company) cannot bill their cost onto the parent company (to offset the profit). It's as if the tax man gets to sit in the middle, and siphon part of that license fee for free. Disney shareholders would never stand for that, and so they won't do it.
rusk 11mo ago
This also solves the sports coverage issues. The clubs still make money but it’s the media companies that must compete on quality of service, punditry etc rather than it being an exclusive license to make money
akho 11mo ago
Or just enforce United States v. Paramount Pictures.

dotancohen 11mo ago

> The state needs to make some changes to how content is licensed to prevent monopoly. Why? Nobody _needs_ Mickey Mouse. If the price for Mickey Mouse is too high, just don't buy it. Now you could argue that some (much) older works are part of culture, and being exposed to that culture is necessary to function in society. But that then becomes an issue of how long copyright is necessary or reasonable. New works most certainly should be allowed to be monopolized by their creators - even if that means that some potential consumers are priced out of experiencing them. You don't need to see every Disney movie. In fact, not seeing some of them will raise the bar to make better movies and will cause competition to emerge.

xandrius 11mo ago
Yeah but think of any other piece of media and how people might be forced to start a brand new subscription just to see it. It's not about Mickey Mouse but it's about you wanting to watch the next season of something and having to make a choice: either submit to the monopoly or skip. Consumer protection should be there to prevent this kind of abuse of IP. Imagine if every single individual piece of art was in its own individual subscription-based location in the world ran by a different owner, being the only way to enjoy it. That'd be ridiculous, wouldn't it?
- batiudrami 11mo ago
  There is tonnes of private art in the world you are simply not able to see at all. Many of these TV shows also come to DVD/Blu-Ray eventually.
- philipallstar 11mo ago
  None of this is abuse. It's a leisure activity that you have to pay for, and people have the right to sell their work how they like. It's not exactly access to clean running water.
  - account42 11mo ago
    They only have that right because society has deemed it beneficial for everyone to give them that right. If it is no longer beneficial overall then they should no longer have that right.

Sander_Marechal 11mo ago

It also exist for e.g. radio. It's called compulsory licensing and people have been doing it for decades.

contrarian1234 11mo ago

I mean.. if Netflix offered Disney more money then they wouldn't have felt it necessary to launch their own service. I think they simply underpayed or overplayed their cards. It's hard to imagine Disney with it's own service is getting the same amount of people viewing its content. Having the services fractured just ends up with everyone making less money. Both the streaming services and the IP holders Its possible Disney just completely overestimates how much they can make on their own - but market forces should correct for that eventually. We aren't privy to the accounting that went in to the decisions. They currently are making some amount of money off of their streaming service. If Netflix could offer substantially more than that amount (and more customers this way), then I don't see why they wouldn't shut it down

troupo 11mo ago
> if Netflix offered Disney more money then they wouldn't have felt it necessary to launch their own service Oh. "Just" offer them more money. Where would that money come from, exactly? > Its possible Disney just completely overestimates how much they can make on their own You underestimate how much content Disney owns, and how much of it is basically free for them ar this time

helsinkiandrew 11mo ago

> The state needs to make some changes to how content is licensed to prevent monopoly That sounds similar to the 1984 Cable Communications Act (where large cable operators were required to lease channels to others, separating content delivery from content creation) but in reverse! requiring content producers to licence content to distributors

bbatha 11mo ago

Don't forget shortening copyrights would have a major impact on this issue as well! 25 year copyright would make most of these libraries public domain. Then the price would truly reflect what we would all like to be subsidizing: the new stuff. Does the rights to Friends being traded around for the Nth time really benefit anyone?