Hacker News Reader

Comment by chii | Hacker News Reader

> how they ruined the opportunity presented

netflix didn't really ruin it themselves (at least, not completely) - the owner of the licensed content did, by wanting a bigger cut of the pie. Disney, for example, didn't feel they're paid enough, and so stopped licensing the content out to netflix and instead created a competing service.

I think this is a regulatory issue, because each piece of content is an effective island of monopoly. The state needs to make some changes to how content is licensed to prevent monopoly. An example policy would be to force content production studios from exclusive licensing - only broad and available licensing (so any streaming service can pay a known price and obtain the content).

Something similar exists with cinemas and movie producers (of course not quite the same). Why couldn't the same or similar be for streaming?

View on HN

  > The state needs to make some changes to how content is licensed to prevent monopoly.

Why? Nobody _needs_ Mickey Mouse. If the price for Mickey Mouse is too high, just don't buy it.

Now you could argue that some (much) older works are part of culture, and being exposed to that culture is necessary to function in society. But that then becomes an issue of how long copyright is necessary or reasonable. New works most certainly should be allowed to be monopolized by their creators - even if that means that some potential consumers are priced out of experiencing them.

You don't need to see every Disney movie. In fact, not seeing some of them will raise the bar to make better movies and will cause competition to emerge.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

> 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

> 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/

Omg. Now this is well and truly bullshit :)

> Why? Nobody _needs_ Mickey Mouse. If the price for Mickey Mouse is too high, just don't buy it.

As if Disney only owned original content like Mickey Mouse. Or as if Disney didn't own huge swaths of culture.

Hot take, we don't _need_ Marvel or Star Wars either.

We don't need many things. Basically everything in our culture is things we don't need.

And yet the next time you find yourself watching that cozy Christmas movie you fondly remember, chances are its owned by Disney. As is that book you read to your kids. Etc.

You can happily ignore Disney. You are elevating it to status it does not have to have.

Yes copyright should be shorter. Yes, these companies abuse artists to the maximum they can away with. But there is zero reason to create state monopoly around this.

> You can happily ignore Disney. You are elevating it to status it does not have to have.

I'm not eleveating Disney to anything. It already is at that level. It owns huge swaths of, well, everything spanning back decades.

For example there was a minor viral news that Winnie the Pooh finally entered public domain. Well, Disney owned it exclusively from 1953 to 2021. All of it, from print to video.

Pooh is just the most famous and advertised example. Since Disney owns most of movie and TV production in the States, through that alone they own rights to a huge number of written works. That's before we go into how many audio and visual media they own.

Disney isn't just Mickey Mouse and Marvel. There was an article on HN yesterday on how the author "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" finally got the rights back after 35 years: https://pluralistic.net/2025/11/18/im-not-bad/

Next time you watch a movie you like or even read a book you like there's a very high chance it's owned by Disney (or some other huge license holder).

Or if you can't find that movie or book you like anywhere? Same reason.

> But there is zero reason to create state monopoly around this.

I didn't say anything about this or imply anything of the kind.

Besides, copyright literally exists only due to state exercising its power.

There are hundreds minor viral news about a lot of stuff daily. I am not even trying to keep up with it all.

> Next time you watch a movie you like or even read a book you like there's a very high chance it's owned by Disney (or some other huge license holder).

And in all seriousness, very likely not, because the ones you keep mentioning are not the stuff I would read or my kids would read. My kids do watch some superheroes, I dont because I find that super boring. Like I said, you can happily ignore the Disney.

I agree that they abuse artists to the max, that artists should have more rights and corporations less of them. But, Disney is really not necessary and ignoring it is perfectly workable strategy.

> There are hundreds minor viral news about a lot of stuff daily. I am not even trying to keep up with it all.

Yup. The gist of my text was that it was viral news, and not Disney owning exclusive copyright on a chunk of human culture for 70 years.

> the ones you keep mentioning are not the stuff I would read or my kids would read.

Yes, because all examples should be 100% directly applicable to you, and you alone, and if a few examples don't, then nothing matters.

> My kids do watch some superheroes, I dont

"It's something my kids would never read but look this is exactly what my kids are interested in but it's completely irrelevant because I, me, I, mine".

And yes Disney is not just superheroes. And for better or worse superheroes are a huge part of the American culture, and Disney owns a huge chunk of it (either through direct ownership of Marvel, or through licenses and deals it got when acquiring US TV and film producers).

> But, Disney is really not necessary and ignoring it is perfectly workable strategy.

Yup. "I never" somehow turned into "my kids watch superheroes" but you didn't even catch on to that.

BTW, if you have favorite movies, a lot of them are owned by Disney. If not by Disney, but then by some other huge conglomerate. The books you read are owned by a few huge publishing houses. Most music you listen to is owned by at most 4 companies etc.

Disney is just a very convenient example.

Why? Nobody _needs_ Mickey Mouse. If the price for Mickey Mouse is too high, just don't buy it.

That's not the point. The parent was saying "if you own content and display content, you must license it", not "the price needs to be reasonable".

Typically, there are ways to do this. One way is forcing a company's distribution and streaming to be separate, and this already exists in some other parts of the market.

So if Disney sells Mickey Mouse content $x to its own streaming service for $5, they have to do the same for Netflix. Disney can still set the price. It just has to pay it as well, and that reflects on its own balance sheet. The problems involved in regulating this have already been solved in other markets, it's a solved issue.

Now, you can typically enter volume sales agreements still. So Disney streaming can buy 100k 'streaming options' for $4 if they hit the volume. But that means the same agreement has to be available to, say Netflix.

Of course, the same will be true for any Netflix created content!

Nothing is perfect, but this is the sort of common carry stuff that separates out 'cable companies' from 'TV studios', and there's been loads of legislation about this over the years.

> That's not the point. The parent was saying "if you own content and display content, you must license it", not "the price needs to be reasonable".

Or perhaps creation and display/distribution cannot be done by the same entity / conglomerate.

FWIW, I think this is what led to the car dealership world we live in.

That is because cars require maintenance and parts, so laws were enacted which ensured that a liable party would be located in the end user's jurisdiction.

Streaming services are not critical infrastructure that require an active supply chain.

  > Or perhaps creation and display/distribution cannot be done by the same entity / conglomerate.

So if I as an artist paint a painting, I could not sell it in my small personal gallery by the beach? That is ridiculous.

> So if I as an artist paint a painting, I could not sell it in my small personal gallery by the beach? That is ridiculous.

It is so ridiculous that it is how movies were made and distributed in the US for decades:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system#The_end_of_the_s...

Everything like this has been worked out, handled, discussed, passed into laws, challenged by courts, all of it.

Typically, the size of the entity has some bearing on things. There are hundreds of pieces of legislation, which only affect companies (for example), with 50+ employees. Whatever complaint you have, or edge case you mention, it can be handled.

We are obviously discussing Disney here. So when people discuss Disney, and large-corp distribution, suddenly running in and applying the logic to a single person, is what is ridiculous.

You got this the wrong way around: If no one needs Mickey Mouse then why should we so severely restrict everyone's speech to encourage its creation.

I agree completely. I address that in the mention of culture.

Your system simply makes society worse for the benefit of a handful of companies. So, why? To make society better.

>Why?

I don't really care how streaming shakes down, except for how companies dodge paying creators.

But it's been clear for decades the DMCA and fair use laws needs a huge overhaul for the modern internet works. You make a 45 minute documentary, but some 10 second sample of a VEVO pop song can get your content taken down anyway? All fanart is technically under a gray area as well. All that is something that would benefit from reviewing content licensing.

> Now you could argue that some (much) older works are part of culture, and being exposed to that culture is necessary to function in society

No. When people start using their brains, they become a danger for society. That's why their brain shall have access only to strictly necessary things like cheap violence and cheap emotions. /s

Yes there should be something like a "mechanical license". Content owners would set their own price but it would be the same for everyone and they shouldn't have the power to pick their licensees.

The idea of a mechanical license sounds perfect. Sorry to go off a tangent but my mind immediately went to healthcare as I have never heard of a mechanical license before.

can the same idea be applied to healthcare? for example, hospitals and doctors can set their own rates but these rates have to be public and they can't charge one insurance lower rate? If they charge anyone a lower rate, they have to charge the same rate for everyone.

> these rates have to be public and they can't charge one insurance lower rate? If they charge anyone a lower rate, they have to charge the same rate for everyone.

The problem with this is that it takes away only half of the negotiation. Doctors are now obliged to charge $X consistently but insurance is not obliged to pay it. So the negotiation process seems broken, and seems like it would cause a lot of bad faith negotiations from the insurers. “Eh, we’ll pay you minimum wage. Don’t like it? We’ll just wait until someone else finds your actual minimum and then you can pay us that.”

It’s also not clear what happens if Doctor A charges 10% more than Doctor B at the same medical facility. If you see Doctor A, can your insurance decline that even though they would have paid Doctor B’s rate?

Of course the current process is broken too.

Wouldn’t Disney just set an insanely high license fee in this case though? If they’re just paying it to themselves then they can make it high enough that nobody else can justify paying it.

I don’t think such an obvious scheme could escape the view of the monopoly laws could it?

I don't think you can have a monopoly on stuff you own. That's like saying I have a monopoly on my own house.

Ha. Guess you’ve not much grasp on how competition law works huh

I'm glad one of us explained our perspective, at least.

That’s what I come here for. To have stupid people who haven’t read up on their topic explain their perspective to me.

This problem was also an issue for movies and theaters. The "fix" is to ensure theaters (the distributors) cannot be owned by, nor can they own production studios.

So under this rule, if disney wanted to have their own streaming service and used a high licensing fee to try stop competitors from their content, they'd pay high taxes due to the high licensing fees making huge (fake) profits for the parent company - it'd end in losses, as the streaming service (as a separate company) cannot bill their cost onto the parent company (to offset the profit). It's as if the tax man gets to sit in the middle, and siphon part of that license fee for free. Disney shareholders would never stand for that, and so they won't do it.

Could borrow the concept of FRAND (Fair, Reasonable And Non Discrimatory IIRC) from tech companies licensing patents?

I don't know much about it and I do not think it is perfect, but from what I remember from discussions here it prevents certain forms of abuse.

This also solves the sports coverage issues. The clubs still make money but it’s the media companies that must compete on quality of service, punditry etc rather than it being an exclusive license to make money

Or just enforce United States v. Paramount Pictures.

> The state needs to make some changes to how content is licensed to prevent monopoly

That sounds similar to the 1984 Cable Communications Act (where large cable operators were required to lease channels to others, separating content delivery from content creation) but in reverse! requiring content producers to licence content to distributors

Don't forget shortening copyrights would have a major impact on this issue as well! 25 year copyright would make most of these libraries public domain. Then the price would truly reflect what we would all like to be subsidizing: the new stuff.

Does the rights to Friends being traded around for the Nth time really benefit anyone?

It also exist for e.g. radio. It's called compulsory licensing and people have been doing it for decades.

I mean.. if Netflix offered Disney more money then they wouldn't have felt it necessary to launch their own service. I think they simply underpayed or overplayed their cards. It's hard to imagine Disney with it's own service is getting the same amount of people viewing its content.

Having the services fractured just ends up with everyone making less money. Both the streaming services and the IP holders

Its possible Disney just completely overestimates how much they can make on their own - but market forces should correct for that eventually. We aren't privy to the accounting that went in to the decisions. They currently are making some amount of money off of their streaming service. If Netflix could offer substantially more than that amount (and more customers this way), then I don't see why they wouldn't shut it down

> if Netflix offered Disney more money then they wouldn't have felt it necessary to launch their own service

Oh. "Just" offer them more money. Where would that money come from, exactly?

> Its possible Disney just completely overestimates how much they can make on their own

You underestimate how much content Disney owns, and how much of it is basically free for them ar this time

Reply on news.ycombinator.com