[xandrius]

Yeah but think of any other piece of media and how people might be forced to start a brand new subscription just to see it.

It's not about Mickey Mouse but it's about you wanting to watch the next season of something and having to make a choice: either submit to the monopoly or skip.

Consumer protection should be there to prevent this kind of abuse of IP.

Imagine if every single individual piece of art was in its own individual subscription-based location in the world ran by a different owner, being the only way to enjoy it. That'd be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

[philipallstar]

None of this is abuse. It's a leisure activity that you have to pay for, and people have the right to sell their work how they like. It's not exactly access to clean running water.

[account42]

They only have that right because society has deemed it beneficial for everyone to give them that right. If it is no longer beneficial overall then they should no longer have that right.

[philipallstar]

If you want to abolish private property in the name of watching things on Netflix then that's your choice, of course.

Unless we see the horror that lack of private property rights has visited on people over the centuries and deem your right to believe things to no longer be beneficial overall.

[account42]

Private property does not depend on copyright so your are arguing a strawman.

[dotancohen]

Actually, most art is housed in either private locations or paid museums. Certainly most well-known art. You pay the owner of e.g. the Louvre to see e.g. the Mona Lisa.

[troupo]

> You pay the owner of e.g. the Louvre to see e.g. the Mona Lisa.

That owner is the French state that heavily subsidises The Louvre. On top of that no one prevents you from taking pictures or videos of Mona Lisa, re-drawing it any way you like, and posting those photos and videos and drawings and what not anywhere.

Additionally, there's nothing preventing museums just exhibiting their collections anywhere, and they do that frequently.

Meanwhile Disney not only has exclusive rights to an insane amount of properties [1], they will sue you for breach of copyright.

[1] My favorite example is Winnie the Pooh. Disney had exclusive rights to the character and stories for 70 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh#Disney_exclusi...

So while (most) of the Western world was/is in the chokehold of Disney, other parts of the world had completely different takes on the character: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlk7O2-rnQs

[throw0101c]

> That owner is the French state that heavily subsidises The Louvre. On top of that no one prevents you from taking pictures or videos of Mona Lisa, re-drawing it any way you like, and posting those photos and videos and drawings and what not anywhere.

The Eiffel Tower copyright on the other hand:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Illumination_copy...

* https://www.travelandleisure.com/photography/illegal-to-take...

* https://www.headout.com/blog/eiffel-tower-copyright/

* https://www.rd.com/article/eiffel-tower-illegal-photos/

[troupo]

Omg. Now this is well and truly bullshit :)

[batiudrami]

There is tonnes of private art in the world you are simply not able to see at all.

Many of these TV shows also come to DVD/Blu-Ray eventually.