[waveBidder]

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.

[JustExAWS]

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?

[waveBidder]

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...

[scarface_74]

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?

[waveBidder]

> 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.

I think you're vastly underestimating the degree to which corporate players see a different world than you or I. I'm not talking about limits on personal actions. I'm talking about corporate, and even there for the most part publicly traded corporations.

> 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.

I mean, do you seriously think I don't want Comcast dismantled and sold for parts? I agree its worse, but it's a somewhat different conversation.

> But there is no “monopoly” on either video creation or distribution or streaming.

Vertical monopolies are still monopolies. If the only place you can get Disney movies is directly from Disney's own service, that's a form of monopoly. Fwiw, I'm relatively sympathetic to netflix; if it weren't for movie studios getting into the distribution business, they probably would be doing quite well right now, having a significant headstart on how to do distribution.

> And who gets to decide what content that should be blocked?

Any company which owns their own distribution network and preferentially distributes over that. Seems like the sort of thing the courts and FCC can work out. Will it work very well? probably not, but the point is to add enough friction that its easier for those producers to sell on the open market instead of forcing users to buy their entire bundle, or none of it at all, not to exclude them from the market.

> 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?

No. Those programs should be syndicatable by anyone else who wants to distribute them, at the cost that they charge their own network for.

The point isn't to stifle speech, it's to stop networks from bundling together a bunch of terrible garbage with their best products to force users to buy junk they don't want.

[scarface_74]

> I'm not talking about limits on personal actions. I'm talking about corporate, and even there for the most part publicly traded corporations.

The now defunct consent decree was put in place specifically because small players couldn’t distribute movies anywhere besides theaters. That is not the world we live in today. Anyone can distribute movies worldwide by doing just as I said without an intermediary. I literally have a bash shell script and a CloudFormation template on my work computer right now that creates a static website hosted on S3 distributed via CloudFront where I could make any video I have available to anyone in the world.

> it weren't for movie studios getting into the distribution business, they probably would be doing quite well right now, having a significant headstart on how to do distribution.

There is no moat around video distribution. To a first approximation, anyone can distribute video at scale and create an entire streaming service using services available on AWS combined with a third party company that specializes in it. Do you think that all of these streaming companies have the in house expertise to do this at scale?

Hell, I know how to use AWS services to distribute content, transcode it and distribute it to millions of people around the world. Would it be cost effective at scale? Probably not. (former AWS ProServe employee).

> Any company which owns their own distribution network and preferentially distributes over that. Seems like the sort of thing the courts and FCC can work out

You really want the FCC and courts to have the power to block content on the internet and force all ISP’s to block foreign traffic?

You didn’t address the part about how this would work for international content, are we going to give the FCC the power to block international content on the internet?

> the only place you can get Disney movies is directly from Disney's own service, that's a form of monopoly

That is by no legal definition a monopoly and actually Epic just loss a case against Apple in court trying to argue that Apple had a monopoly on the App Store. In that case the NY Times has a “monopoly” on thier content? Every producer has a monopoly on what they create.

> No. Those programs should be syndicatable by anyone else who wants to distribute them, at the cost that they charge their own network for.

You really don’t want to let any content producer to be the sole distributor of their content? Does that include software developers? Should they also have to go through an App Store instead of exclusive distribution on thier own website?