4 ms·

> 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 h

> 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      If you want to abolish private property in the name of watching things on Netflix then that's your choice, of course. Unless we see the horror that lack of private property rights has visited on people over the centuries and deem your right to believe things to no longer be beneficial overall.
      - account42 11mo ago
        Private property does not depend on copyright so your are arguing a strawman.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  Actually, most art is housed in either private locations or paid museums. Certainly most well-known art. You pay the owner of e.g. the Louvre to see e.g. the Mona Lisa.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > You pay the owner of e.g. the Louvre to see e.g. the Mona Lisa. That owner is the French state that heavily subsidises The Louvre. On top of that no one prevents you from taking pictures or videos of Mona Lisa, re-drawing it any way you like, and posting those photos and videos and drawings and what not anywhere. Additionally, there's nothing preventing museums just exhibiting their collections anywhere, and they do that frequently. Meanwhile Disney not only has exclusive rights to an insane amount of properties [1], they will sue you for breach of copyright. [1] My favorite example is Winnie the Pooh. Disney had exclusive rights to the character and stories for 70 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh#Disney_exclusivity_(1953–2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh#Disney_exclusi... So while (most) of the Western world was/is in the chokehold of Disney, other parts of the world had completely different takes on the character: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlk7O2-rnQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlk7O2-rnQs
    - throw0101c 1y ago
      > That owner is the French state that heavily subsidises The Louvre. On top of that no one prevents you from taking pictures or videos of Mona Lisa, re-drawing it any way you like, and posting those photos and videos and drawings and what not anywhere. The Eiffel Tower copyright on the other hand: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Illumination_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Illumination_copy... * https://www.travelandleisure.com/photography/illegal-to-take-eiffel-tower-photos-at-night https://www.travelandleisure.com/photography/illegal-to-take... * https://www.headout.com/blog/eiffel-tower-copyright/ https://www.headout.com/blog/eiffel-tower-copyright/ * https://www.rd.com/article/eiffel-tower-illegal-photos/ https://www.rd.com/article/eiffel-tower-illegal-photos/
      - troupo 1y ago
troupo 1y ago
> Why? Nobody _needs_ Mickey Mouse. If the price for Mickey Mouse is too high, just don't buy it. As if Disney only owned original content like Mickey Mouse. Or as if Disney didn't own huge swaths of culture.
- Levitating 1y ago
  Hot take, we don't _need_ Marvel or Star Wars either.
  - troupo 1y ago
    We don't need many things. Basically everything in our culture is things we don't need. And yet the next time you find yourself watching that cozy Christmas movie you fondly remember, chances are its owned by Disney. As is that book you read to your kids. Etc.
- watwut 1y ago
  You can happily ignore Disney. You are elevating it to status it does not have to have. Yes copyright should be shorter. Yes, these companies abuse artists to the maximum they can away with. But there is zero reason to create state monopoly around this.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > You can happily ignore Disney. You are elevating it to status it does not have to have. I'm not eleveating Disney to anything. It already is at that level. It owns huge swaths of, well, everything spanning back decades. For example there was a minor viral news that Winnie the Pooh finally entered public domain. Well, Disney owned it exclusively from 1953 to 2021. All of it, from print to video. Pooh is just the most famous and advertised example. Since Disney owns most of movie and TV production in the States, through that alone they own rights to a huge number of written works. That's before we go into how many audio and visual media they own. Disney isn't just Mickey Mouse and Marvel. There was an article on HN yesterday on how the author "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" finally got the rights back after 35 years: https://pluralistic.net/2025/11/18/im-not-bad/ https://pluralistic.net/2025/11/18/im-not-bad/ Next time you watch a movie you like or even read a book you like there's a very high chance it's owned by Disney (or some other huge license holder). Or if you can't find that movie or book you like anywhere? Same reason. > But there is zero reason to create state monopoly around this. I didn't say anything about this or imply anything of the kind. Besides, copyright literally exists only due to state exercising its power.
b112 1y ago
Why? Nobody _needs_ Mickey Mouse. If the price for Mickey Mouse is too high, just don't buy it. That's not the point. The parent was saying "if you own content and display content, you must license it", not "the price needs to be reasonable". Typically, there are ways to do this. One way is forcing a company's distribution and streaming to be separate, and this already exists in some other parts of the market. So if Disney sells Mickey Mouse content $x to its own streaming service for $5, they have to do the same for Netflix. Disney can still set the price. It just has to pay it as well, and that reflects on its own balance sheet. The problems involved in regulating this have already been solved in other markets, it's a solved issue. Now, you can typically enter volume sales agreements still. So Disney streaming can buy 100k 'streaming options' for $4 if they hit the volume. But that means the same agreement has to be available to, say Netflix. Of course, the same will be true for any Netflix created content! Nothing is perfect, but this is the sort of common carry stuff that separates out 'cable companies' from 'TV studios', and there's been loads of legislation about this over the years.
- throw0101c 1y ago
  > That's not the point. The parent was saying "if you own content and display content, you must license it", not "the price needs to be reasonable". Or perhaps creation and display/distribution cannot be done by the same entity / conglomerate.
  - edmundsauto 1y ago
    FWIW, I think this is what led to the car dealership world we live in.
    - dotancohen 11mo ago
      That is because cars require maintenance and parts, so laws were enacted which ensured that a liable party would be located in the end user's jurisdiction. Streaming services are not critical infrastructure that require an active supply chain.
  - dotancohen 11mo ago
account42 1y ago
You got this the wrong way around: If no one needs Mickey Mouse then why should we so severely restrict everyone's speech to encourage its creation.
- dotancohen 11mo ago
  I agree completely. I address that in the mention of culture.
mvdtnz 1y ago
Your system simply makes society worse for the benefit of a handful of companies. So, why? To make society better.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
>Why? I don't really care how streaming shakes down, except for how companies dodge paying creators. But it's been clear for decades the DMCA and fair use laws needs a huge overhaul for the modern internet works. You make a 45 minute documentary, but some 10 second sample of a VEVO pop song can get your content taken down anyway? All fanart is technically under a gray area as well. All that is something that would benefit from reviewing content licensing.
hulitu 11mo ago
> 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 No. When people start using their brains, they become a danger for society. That's why their brain shall have access only to strictly necessary things like cheap violence and cheap emotions. /s

xandrius 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    If you want to abolish private property in the name of watching things on Netflix then that's your choice, of course. Unless we see the horror that lack of private property rights has visited on people over the centuries and deem your right to believe things to no longer be beneficial overall.
    - account42 11mo ago
      Private property does not depend on copyright so your are arguing a strawman.
dotancohen 1y ago
Actually, most art is housed in either private locations or paid museums. Certainly most well-known art. You pay the owner of e.g. the Louvre to see e.g. the Mona Lisa.
- troupo 1y ago
  > You pay the owner of e.g. the Louvre to see e.g. the Mona Lisa. That owner is the French state that heavily subsidises The Louvre. On top of that no one prevents you from taking pictures or videos of Mona Lisa, re-drawing it any way you like, and posting those photos and videos and drawings and what not anywhere. Additionally, there's nothing preventing museums just exhibiting their collections anywhere, and they do that frequently. Meanwhile Disney not only has exclusive rights to an insane amount of properties [1], they will sue you for breach of copyright. [1] My favorite example is Winnie the Pooh. Disney had exclusive rights to the character and stories for 70 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh#Disney_exclusivity_(1953–2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh#Disney_exclusi... So while (most) of the Western world was/is in the chokehold of Disney, other parts of the world had completely different takes on the character: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlk7O2-rnQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlk7O2-rnQs
  - throw0101c 1y ago
    > That owner is the French state that heavily subsidises The Louvre. On top of that no one prevents you from taking pictures or videos of Mona Lisa, re-drawing it any way you like, and posting those photos and videos and drawings and what not anywhere. The Eiffel Tower copyright on the other hand: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Illumination_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Illumination_copy... * https://www.travelandleisure.com/photography/illegal-to-take-eiffel-tower-photos-at-night https://www.travelandleisure.com/photography/illegal-to-take... * https://www.headout.com/blog/eiffel-tower-copyright/ https://www.headout.com/blog/eiffel-tower-copyright/ * https://www.rd.com/article/eiffel-tower-illegal-photos/ https://www.rd.com/article/eiffel-tower-illegal-photos/
    - troupo 1y ago

troupo 1y ago

> Why? Nobody _needs_ Mickey Mouse. If the price for Mickey Mouse is too high, just don't buy it. As if Disney only owned original content like Mickey Mouse. Or as if Disney didn't own huge swaths of culture.

Levitating 1y ago
Hot take, we don't _need_ Marvel or Star Wars either.
- troupo 1y ago
  We don't need many things. Basically everything in our culture is things we don't need. And yet the next time you find yourself watching that cozy Christmas movie you fondly remember, chances are its owned by Disney. As is that book you read to your kids. Etc.
watwut 1y ago
You can happily ignore Disney. You are elevating it to status it does not have to have. Yes copyright should be shorter. Yes, these companies abuse artists to the maximum they can away with. But there is zero reason to create state monopoly around this.
- troupo 1y ago
  > You can happily ignore Disney. You are elevating it to status it does not have to have. I'm not eleveating Disney to anything. It already is at that level. It owns huge swaths of, well, everything spanning back decades. For example there was a minor viral news that Winnie the Pooh finally entered public domain. Well, Disney owned it exclusively from 1953 to 2021. All of it, from print to video. Pooh is just the most famous and advertised example. Since Disney owns most of movie and TV production in the States, through that alone they own rights to a huge number of written works. That's before we go into how many audio and visual media they own. Disney isn't just Mickey Mouse and Marvel. There was an article on HN yesterday on how the author "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" finally got the rights back after 35 years: https://pluralistic.net/2025/11/18/im-not-bad/ https://pluralistic.net/2025/11/18/im-not-bad/ Next time you watch a movie you like or even read a book you like there's a very high chance it's owned by Disney (or some other huge license holder). Or if you can't find that movie or book you like anywhere? Same reason. > But there is zero reason to create state monopoly around this. I didn't say anything about this or imply anything of the kind. Besides, copyright literally exists only due to state exercising its power.

b112 1y ago

Why? Nobody _needs_ Mickey Mouse. If the price for Mickey Mouse is too high, just don't buy it. That's not the point. The parent was saying "if you own content and display content, you must license it", not "the price needs to be reasonable". Typically, there are ways to do this. One way is forcing a company's distribution and streaming to be separate, and this already exists in some other parts of the market. So if Disney sells Mickey Mouse content $x to its own streaming service for $5, they have to do the same for Netflix. Disney can still set the price. It just has to pay it as well, and that reflects on its own balance sheet. The problems involved in regulating this have already been solved in other markets, it's a solved issue. Now, you can typically enter volume sales agreements still. So Disney streaming can buy 100k 'streaming options' for $4 if they hit the volume. But that means the same agreement has to be available to, say Netflix. Of course, the same will be true for any Netflix created content! Nothing is perfect, but this is the sort of common carry stuff that separates out 'cable companies' from 'TV studios', and there's been loads of legislation about this over the years.

throw0101c 1y ago
> That's not the point. The parent was saying "if you own content and display content, you must license it", not "the price needs to be reasonable". Or perhaps creation and display/distribution cannot be done by the same entity / conglomerate.
- edmundsauto 1y ago
  FWIW, I think this is what led to the car dealership world we live in.
  - dotancohen 11mo ago
    That is because cars require maintenance and parts, so laws were enacted which ensured that a liable party would be located in the end user's jurisdiction. Streaming services are not critical infrastructure that require an active supply chain.
- dotancohen 11mo ago

account42 1y ago

You got this the wrong way around: If no one needs Mickey Mouse then why should we so severely restrict everyone's speech to encourage its creation.

dotancohen 11mo ago
I agree completely. I address that in the mention of culture.

mvdtnz 1y ago

Your system simply makes society worse for the benefit of a handful of companies. So, why? To make society better.

johnnyanmac 1y ago

>Why? I don't really care how streaming shakes down, except for how companies dodge paying creators. But it's been clear for decades the DMCA and fair use laws needs a huge overhaul for the modern internet works. You make a 45 minute documentary, but some 10 second sample of a VEVO pop song can get your content taken down anyway? All fanart is technically under a gray area as well. All that is something that would benefit from reviewing content licensing.

hulitu 11mo ago

> 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 No. When people start using their brains, they become a danger for society. That's why their brain shall have access only to strictly necessary things like cheap violence and cheap emotions. /s