Yes let the government step in what could possibly go wrong?
More generally: yes, close government intervention is needed maintain a healthy market, no, free markets don't spring up spontaneously.
Also, video and audio recording and editing equipment was expensive. Now many people carry around a device capable of recording 4K video in their pocket and can get video and audio editing equipment free that producers could only dream of when those cases were adjudicated.
With the plethora of streaming services, there is no “monopoly”.
Do you also think we should apply rules to automobiles that were relevant to horses?
How is it a “monopoly” when there are more than half a dozen players. A “vertical monopoly” is another HN fiction. Are all game console makers a “monopoly”? Shouid the local TV stations not be allowed to produce news only on their channels? Should ESPN not be allowed to produce “ESPN Tonight”?
Are you saying that it should be illegal for any distributor to also produce shows?
Let’s not stop at TV. It should also be illegal for websites to pay writers to produce content and newspapers to hire reporters and editors to produce exclusive content.
You're missing the point. The proposal is to split competition in the single integrated market of content+distribution into two separate markets, one for content and a separate one for distribution.
The point is that by bundling the two of them together you're reducing competition, because just by simple mathematics there are fewer companies capable of both compared to companies that specialise in one. Content production is a hard industry, so is distribution.
> Are you saying that it should be illegal for any distributor to also produce shows?
The proposal is that distributors will have to split their business into two independent businesses. If there's a local news channel, then it gets split into a local news producer and a general distributor that also distributes other things.
The internet has already done that for the most part though, it used to be that newspapers were the exclusive distributors and thus could maintain a local monopoly on local news. The internet swept that away and now anybody could get local news from anywhere else on earth.
The linked article is lamenting that the trend is reversing, such that distributors are once again the same people as the content producers.
> Let’s not stop at TV. It should also be illegal for websites to pay writers to produce content and newspapers to hire reporters and editors to produce exclusive content.
That's a strawman. Nobody's saying it should extend past TV, please debate the idea on its own merits.
Yes, because it’s utterly stupid when you think about it and say that no content distributor should be able to fund the production of their own content. No one wants to be a commodity and that doesn’t make sense any market to not have something to differentiate your product.
Streaming content and being a pipe is the definition of “undifferentiated heavy lifting”. Both Netflix and Disney run on AWS infrastructure and now anyone with the money can throw money at a company like BAMTech to set up the infrastructure. Then you just have a monopoly on who actually carries the traffic. What’s to stop AWS, Azurs or GCP from just offering their own streaming service and undercutting the competition?
In other words, what you suggest now leads to a monopsony - where you have many sellers of content and a few buyers with more power and it would lead to consolidation.
Currently if a producer wants to create a show, he can negotiate with 9 different sellers.
Look no further than music distribution, you have basically two major players in music streaming - Spotify and Apple Music - and it’s a shitty business to be in as a standalone business
GPL can only exist because of government regulations and action when those regulations are violated.
I guess If copyright seized to exist you could take GPL code and modify it without sharing back, but the users would also not be required to pay you for using it, so…
also GPL is mostly trying to fight closed-source code which is just as possible without the current copyright system, it can still be kept private like any trade secret. GPL relies on the system to force releasing source.
Still I am an adult and yes would vote with my wallet regardless.