[mappu]

It's the modern-day version of United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. where movie studios were banned from vertically integrating with theatres.

However I note on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... that the decree has just been sunset with the reasoning that ""the antitrust restriction was no longer necessary as the old model could never be recreated in contemporary settings"" - but it seems really like the exact same model,

[roughly]

> "the antitrust restriction was no longer necessary as the old model could never be recreated in contemporary settings"

For some reason* everyone seems to think monopolism was this quaint thing of the past, and not the thing that every market everywhere sprints towards as fast as the technology of the era will allow without some kind of restraint or regulation.

(*"deeply motivated ideological reasoning")

[taylodl]

It's almost as though the "free market" tries as hard as it can to not be free.

[lotsofpulp]

Why would the public need multiple distributors for the same content?

Theaters take tons of staff and logistics to operate. A streaming service is comparably simple (once the initial system is setup) and can deploy all content to all customers within seconds with the efforts of minimal people and overhead.

[arrosenberg]

Where exclusive distribution exists there is little or no competition on price, service or quality. Why bother - they own the content, if you want to watch, you will put up with whatever.

I still put up with listening to Joe Buck call the World Series because Fox has exclusive rights to the broadcast. I would pay money to hear just about anyone else call it, including an ML powered Vin Scullybot (RIP).

Alas, I cannot, for a lack of FRAND licensing.

[lotsofpulp]

How much control a content maker should have is a tough line to delineate.

MLB choose to give Fox exclusive rights, and Fox chose to give exclusive announcing to Joe Buck. Ideally, you could just go to MLB.com and choose whichever announcer you want, or some other equivalent system.

I would lean towards MLB having the right to sell their games how they want, but they also benefit from taxpayer funded stadiums, so I would not mind the government being able to force certain terms like FRAND on them.

[arrosenberg]

You are entitled to that opinion, but exclusive distribution is antithetical to the idea of competitive enterprise. If we are going to continue to go that route, America should stop pretending we care about robust markets.

[lotsofpulp]

I do not see why exclusive distribution is always a bad thing, unless one is also claiming that a manufacturer has no right to sell directly to end users, such as Tesla.

Would a carpenter be able to only distribute their furniture directly to their customer? A hotel be not be able to exclusively take reservations from their hotel guests? An independent videographer not be able to sell their own videos however they want?

I think the solution here is to reduce copyright to 10 years. Or maybe 15. Then there is no more “exclusive” distribution.

[arrosenberg]

In our combined scenario a carpenter can sell to anybody as long as they sell to everybody at the same price for the same type of buyers (retail/wholesale).

The solution is to mandate non discriminatory licensing, everything else you suggested is a workaround to avoid that step.

[Gigachad]

I think the main issue will be that smaller producers and studios won’t be able to make successful content because all of the users and subscriptions will be held by the big players. And even if they can get a licensing deal to put their content on another platform, it won’t be as favourable as Disney gets on their own platform.

[lotsofpulp]

Why does a content creator automatically deserve the audience of Disney at a price they determine to be fair? They are free to sell their media directly to anyone on the planet. They can put it in Google Play Store or Apple TV app for purchase or rent. Or for free on YouTube if they want ad revenue.

There is no barrier to distribution these days. The only limitation is quality of content. If a content creator makes something good enough at a price point people will accept, then customers can easily pay it.

[Gigachad]

Because in general we have found that giant megacorporations building up monopolies and walling in customers has not been a desirable thing. In general its preferable that product producers and marketplaces be run by separate entities, which was largely the case until new technology came in.

[lotsofpulp]

The time we were walled in was when all you media was delivered via cable or satellite of broadcast channels, which is what executives at those companies decided to show you.

No one is walled in now. If a content producer in Tajikistan made something that blew everyone away, everyone can watch it around the world without having to go through the bosses at Disney and Comcast and Netflix.

By and large, people like their curators. For example, I have no interest in sifting through content to see if it is worth watching or not. So I let my sources mention a show or movie’s name a bunch of times before I decide to watch it.

Others depend on the fact that it u in a on Disney or Netflix or Apple TV to be the filtering mechanism. Others do not mind wading through YouTube or TikTok filth.

The power is in the consumer’s hands.

[arrosenberg]

Thats not true. Even if you put your content online, that doesn’t mean it will get in front of people. Disney, through its mass and various distribution levers, can control a significant percentage of what Americans watch on a screen, which isn’t healthy for democracy or capitalism.

[lotsofpulp]

There are 8B people in the world, there is no way everyone has time to watch everything. There will be a filtering mechanism for everyone.

The important thing is that it can get in front of everyone. Which the internet enables very easily.

If the content is high quality, word will spread, people will share links to it, and everyone will have the opportunity to see it. This was not the case before the internet.

The distributor is irrelevant nowadays. Today, Disney’s role is to curate.

[arrosenberg]

> The distributor is irrelevant nowadays. Today, Disney’s role is to curate.

Again, that's laughable nonsense. If I want to stream a Marvel movie, Netflix' curation is irrelevant, because you can ONLY find it on Disney. That's not curation, that's distribution.

> If the content is high quality, word will spread, people will share links to it, and everyone will have the opportunity to see it. This was not the case before the internet.

This isn't true - Rocky Horror Picture Show? That's the just the first one that comes to mind. There are so many cult classics from the 60s-80s.

> There are 8B people in the world, there is no way everyone has time to watch everything. There will be a filtering mechanism for everyone.

Right now it's whoever owns the exclusive license for a piece of content. That's my entire point - consumers aren't choosing the winners, content owners are.

[choudharism]

Oh wow, TIL. Sometimes history rhymes too hard.