> The fragmentation is both a flaw and a feature
It’d be purely a feature if we banned shared ownership of distribution and production, like we did with movie studios and movie theaters for decades.
It’d be purely a feature if we banned shared ownership of distribution and production, like we did with movie studios and movie theaters for decades.
Whether you know it or not, since the 1930s things have changed, TVs are popular, there is this thing called the internet and websites.
Do you also want to ban software developers and song writers from being able to publish their own work on websites?
Yes.
> Whether you know it or not, since the 1930s things have changed, TVs are popular, there is this thing called the internet and websites.
So?
> Do you also want to ban software developers and song writers from being able to publish their own work on websites?
Maybe. It doesn't appear to be a problem yet, but if it is then let's pursue that option.
Does that also mean if that I wanted to create my own Indy movie I couldn’t sell it on my own website?
How does it help the consumer for all content to have to go through a middle man where they get a cut?
And it matters because the law was there in the thirties when the only way to get movie content out was via the movie theaters. Now anyone can publish content
I mean, honestly, having app stores be separate from the phone maker sounds like a great idea. The monopoly that apple has on the app store is harmful to both producers and consumers of apps.
> Would you want it to be illegal for you to distribute any content
Isn't this already effectively the case in the phobe market? Not illegal per se, but practically speaking impossible.
Just because an extreme version of an idea is way too much, doesn't mean the more moderate versions are without merit.
Other ideas in this vein include things like requiring non-discrimantory licensing agreements (no "netflix" only licenses)
You haven’t thought through the consequences of giving the government more power in limiting what people can do on the web.
I have no opinion on this as it is not currently a problem and it is not relevant.
> Does that also mean if that I wanted to create my own Indy movie I couldn’t sell it on my own website?
Just like you can create your own movie and show it at your own venue, so can you sell it on your website. However studios cannot own movie theaters and should not own their own distribution platforms. Taking something and mincing it down to the smallest iteration and using that to prove that it is wrong is either obtuse or dishonest.
> How does it help the consumer for all content to have to go through a middle man where they get a cut?
Should drug companies own pharmacies? What about hospitals?
At a certain point it is not good for the consumer to let manufacturers control the distribution of their product.
So I can distribute my own video on my own website. So what if I get together with a group of college friends and we decide to sell our movies on a website we jointly own, should that be illegal?
If I am a news organization and do a show of re-enactments of true crime like CNN Headline News and sell it as a subscription, should that be illegal too?
And why just video producers? Should song writers also not be allowed to distribute those own content? Writers? Software developers?
Wouldn’t it be considered a violation of free speech if I wasn’t allowed to produce a video and distribute it myself?
Are you saying if I create a video on my phone I shouldn’t be allowed to sell it on my own website? I’m a producer and a distributor.
And now studios can own movie theaters…
https://www.dallasobserver.com/arts/studios-can-now-own-movi...
How do you define content producers and are you going to force them to allow anyone to distribute their content?
Are you going to apply the same standards to all content producers?
There was never a time that Netflix had the majority of the top content - especially movies
Sure you can watch all of the content you want just like you always did - you pay for it.
Are you arguing for a consumer first perspective or an ideological one? Because if you care about consumers you are not approaching dialog in any way that seems proactive to that. If it is ideological then your motive is just to win based on a belief that you are right. One of those things is productive and one is not.
Should the government also set mandatory licensing requirements for content and the amounts? Should the government force Disney to license a $100 million to produce marvel movie at the same cost as a $5 million Blumhouse movie?
Come up with a reasonable proposal where the government doesn’t allow you to distribute your own content.
I’m assuming you would apply those same standards to software developers, writers, song writers and any video content?
Why is video special? Why only say video producers can’t have subscriptions to their own content but writers can?
And the law that you are referring to is no longer a thing
Also who determines the terms for which licensing agreements have to be made? Does that apply to all video producers?
It just seemed like that’s what they were asking for as a consumer.
It would literally make no difference whatsoever.