Understanding carriage
seths.blog
seths.blog
Haha.
Solution? remove the supply chain and consume local.
Then the Babylonians invented supply chains.
> The solution, one that Netflix would probably benefit from, is to offer to adopt more of a YouTube approach to carriage–allow anyone who produces video content to show it on Netflix. Pay them based on views.
The relationship is inverted; netflix pays IP owners a fortune to get the right to show stuff.
Disney still gets paid if their works are shown on Netflix; they choose exclusivity to build a moat around their streaming service, regardless of the quality of the service, which is a form of consumer abuse (albeit a mild one in the big picture).
Disney still requires you to disclose your age and gender to use the service, last I checked. This is concerning, and would be punished by a competitive streaming market were it not for exclusivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
Are you contending that Disney isn’t producing new content because they are permitted to control dissemination of their works? That doesn’t square with either reality or incentive.
Besides, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that on top of advancing the "Progress of...useful Arts" that unlimited dissemination is required to promote that goal. On the contrary, the Constitution allows Congress to provide authors the "exclusive Right to their respective Writings" -- which directly contradicts your argument.
So, true in practicality.
Via what means?
First, radio stations in the USA aren't required to pay royalties to a recording artist, only to the songwriter via a Performing Rights Organization (PRO) like ASCAP or BMI. It follows that recording artists don't even have a say in whether their recordings can be played on the radio.
Second, songwriters don't have any control over public performance once they've licensed their work to the PRO. It's all or nothing. Songwriters can withdraw their works from the PRO, but then they have to negotiate with public performers through some other means. Radio stations don't have the means to enter separate negotiations with every songwriter, so they'll likely forego it, which practically means no airplay for artists who haven't submitted to the PROs.
> politicians being refused use of music has happened
That's not radio, and different license terms apply for campaign events. See https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12775 for the details.
In any case lots of property rights have limitations and exclusions. Land might be subject to other people having rights to enter it (so you cannot exclude them), or mineral rights might be owned by someone else. There are legal restrictions in many places on what you can do with it. You can require a license in own some things (e.g. guns on most places).
Both are rights to exclude enforced in law, which is the essence of what property law is. As the owner of physical property, you can exclude others from occupying or using it (with the violation being trespass). As the owner of intellectual property, you can exclude others from copying it, making derivative works, etc (with violations also enforceable in law).
Yes, both types of property rights are subject to limitations, either by law or by contract (as in the easement and mineral rights examples you gave). But that doesn't change the essence of what they are.
The nature of copyright is that it is a monopoly right. It is almost indistinguishable from letters patent (e.g. in the case of the KJV Bible in the UK). I am less familiar with US law but I believe US copyright law is based on a clause in the constitution giving the federal government the power to grant monopolies?
The US constitution confers to Congress the power to grant copyrights and patents in Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
The operating word here is "exclusive" which, yes, is a monopoly right. But again, it's not different in essence from a property right, which is also a monopoly right.