| > 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? |