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...
It’s actually not only not been extended, the actual consent decree has been sunset .
Back when it was decided, the only method to get your content in front of an audience was to ship physical media to a physical theater.
Now I can create a video from the device I have in my pocket that has much higher quality than was available in the 30s, upload it either to YouTube or an AWS S3 bucket and upload a yaml file that creates a CloudFront distribution (AWS’s CDN) and distribute it worldwide and create a web page that anyone with a $70 (unsubsidized) Android can watch.
Not only that Comcast - a cable company - owns both the modern distribution pipes that have far more reach than the studios ever had and a studio (Universal) and a broadcast TV and an Internet streaming service.
But there is no “monopoly” on either video creation or distribution or streaming.
I can’t believe someone is actually advocating that the government block foreign content over the internet because you don’t agree with producers being distributors. Are we going to create the “Great Wall of America”?
And who gets to decide what content that should be blocked?
So let’s take Fox News or any other news organization or even the Discovery network. They all create documentary content. Should they not be allowed to stream their own content? Wouldn’t it be against the freedom of speech and/or press to say that you can’t stream your own content via your own website?
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.
Well first that ruling was sunsetted three years for all the reasons I cited and was never a “law” binding new companies.
So now you want unelected judges to decide what can and can’t be streamed on the internet.
This is also not the 1930s. In 2024, movie distribution is not limited to physical meets theaters.
Your citation gets trotted out all of the time in these arguments like anyone in 2024 can’t put a video on a website and distribute it anywhere in the world. When the ruling was in effect, home video media didn’t even exist and even television was in its infancy.
And you still haven’t answered the question, do you also stop foreign companies from distributing thier own content ?
And there is always judge shopping, liberal judges would love to stop Fox News from distributing their own content on the internet as would conservative judges love to stop media owned by “woke” corporations
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusion#:~:text=Collusion%....