This is one of the litany of bad things that happens when antitrust precident is ignored and we allow a small number of companies to become large enough to dominate the economy.
But commenters here want that right? They're rilling up against an API that allows data export and user ownership and demand that they're removed and all interoperability to be killed because "users are too stupid". This cements and entrenches monopolies because noone is allowed to compete or interoperate.
In sense, things like Apple Mail is a problem for them because it uses full access to GMail account to extract private data over API.
I find out interesting that the discussion on HN is narrowly focused on the technical/messaging accesss angle, rather than on the anticompetitive collusion. The collusion is the "big picture" root cause of so many downstream evils.
So you are saying that no one can distribute their own work on thier own website? Where do you draw the line? Can I not create my own video and put it on my website? Can I not work with friends and we all post our own video on our own website that we jointly own?
How do we stop foreign studios from distribution over the internet? Do we block them too?
Why stop at films? Should book authors also not be slowed to self publish? Software developers?
it's about scale, obviously. the sorts of ventures you make a limited liability corporation for. you want to protect yourself from the potential risks? Then participate in the market in a fair and non-abusive manner.
Same thing for publishing companies. individual authors can do whatever they like.
I ask the same question, if Netflix decides to incorporate in Canada are you going to make a law that forces ISPs to block them? Are large newspapers not allowed to produce their own content? Do you draw the line at newspapers and news organizations because of freedom of the press and the do you allow Netflix to produce thier own documentaries but not fictional shows?
blocking studio owned distributors from other jurisdictions makes sense, though I'm sure its the sort of thing that would happen on a case by case basis.
Newspapers in general don't syndicate most stories to begin with, so no I don't think it makes sense in that context.
by the way, this isn't some weird new policy. the equivalent applies to studios and movie theaters [1]. we just neglected to extend the policy to online distribution because the powers that be decided vertical monopolies are OK, actually.
[1] https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywo...
This slippery slope/where do you draw the line argument is very weak.
It's like saying me accidentally spilling a bit while doing a oil change in my garage is the same as BP spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude.
Scale matters. And "where you draw the line" can be defined loosely to be left up to interpretation at the time.
The law can be written in a way that leaves it up for interpretation. It's not a simple IFTTT statement, what's why judges exist and why they make rulings that get cited in other cases. It's a feature of our system that I don't need to answer all your needlessly pedantic questions and just leave it up to interpretation.
Because otherwise bureaucrates like you would cause everything to stall while looking into every contingency.
I also don't think you have to "pass a law" we already have laws on the book that can do this and, this might shock you, we have already used them to do almost exactly what you are saying here.
In sense, things like Apple Mail is a problem for them because it uses full access to GMail account to extract private data over API.