So you are saying that no one can distribute their own work on thier own website? Where do you draw the line? Can I not create my own video and put it on my website? Can I not work with friends and we all post our own video on our own website that we jointly own?
How do we stop foreign studios from distribution over the internet? Do we block them too?
Why stop at films? Should book authors also not be slowed to self publish? Software developers?
it's about scale, obviously. the sorts of ventures you make a limited liability corporation for. you want to protect yourself from the potential risks? Then participate in the market in a fair and non-abusive manner.
Same thing for publishing companies. individual authors can do whatever they like.
I ask the same question, if Netflix decides to incorporate in Canada are you going to make a law that forces ISPs to block them? Are large newspapers not allowed to produce their own content? Do you draw the line at newspapers and news organizations because of freedom of the press and the do you allow Netflix to produce thier own documentaries but not fictional shows?
blocking studio owned distributors from other jurisdictions makes sense, though I'm sure its the sort of thing that would happen on a case by case basis.
Newspapers in general don't syndicate most stories to begin with, so no I don't think it makes sense in that context.
by the way, this isn't some weird new policy. the equivalent applies to studios and movie theaters [1]. we just neglected to extend the policy to online distribution because the powers that be decided vertical monopolies are OK, actually.
[1] https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywo...
It’s actually not only not been extended, the actual consent decree has been sunset .
Back when it was decided, the only method to get your content in front of an audience was to ship physical media to a physical theater.
Now I can create a video from the device I have in my pocket that has much higher quality than was available in the 30s, upload it either to YouTube or an AWS S3 bucket and upload a yaml file that creates a CloudFront distribution (AWS’s CDN) and distribute it worldwide and create a web page that anyone with a $70 (unsubsidized) Android can watch.
Not only that Comcast - a cable company - owns both the modern distribution pipes that have far more reach than the studios ever had and a studio (Universal) and a broadcast TV and an Internet streaming service.
But there is no “monopoly” on either video creation or distribution or streaming.
I can’t believe someone is actually advocating that the government block foreign content over the internet because you don’t agree with producers being distributors. Are we going to create the “Great Wall of America”?
And who gets to decide what content that should be blocked?
So let’s take Fox News or any other news organization or even the Discovery network. They all create documentary content. Should they not be allowed to stream their own content? Wouldn’t it be against the freedom of speech and/or press to say that you can’t stream your own content via your own website?
> Now I can create a video from the device I have in my pocket that has much higher quality than was available in the 30s, upload it either to YouTube or an AWS S3 bucket and upload a yaml file that creates a CloudFront distribution (AWS’s CDN) and distribute it worldwide and create a web page that anyone with a $70 (unsubsidized) Android can watch.
I think you're vastly underestimating the degree to which corporate players see a different world than you or I. I'm not talking about limits on personal actions. I'm talking about corporate, and even there for the most part publicly traded corporations.
> Not only that Comcast - a cable company - owns both the modern distribution pipes that have far more reach than the studios ever had and a studio (Universal) and a broadcast TV and an Internet streaming service.
I mean, do you seriously think I don't want Comcast dismantled and sold for parts? I agree its worse, but it's a somewhat different conversation.
> But there is no “monopoly” on either video creation or distribution or streaming.
Vertical monopolies are still monopolies. If the only place you can get Disney movies is directly from Disney's own service, that's a form of monopoly. Fwiw, I'm relatively sympathetic to netflix; if it weren't for movie studios getting into the distribution business, they probably would be doing quite well right now, having a significant headstart on how to do distribution.
> And who gets to decide what content that should be blocked?
Any company which owns their own distribution network and preferentially distributes over that. Seems like the sort of thing the courts and FCC can work out. Will it work very well? probably not, but the point is to add enough friction that its easier for those producers to sell on the open market instead of forcing users to buy their entire bundle, or none of it at all, not to exclude them from the market.
> So let’s take Fox News or any other news organization or even the Discovery network. They all create documentary content. Should they not be allowed to stream their own content? Wouldn’t it be against the freedom of speech and/or press to say that you can’t stream your own content via your own website?
No. Those programs should be syndicatable by anyone else who wants to distribute them, at the cost that they charge their own network for.
The point isn't to stifle speech, it's to stop networks from bundling together a bunch of terrible garbage with their best products to force users to buy junk they don't want.
> I'm not talking about limits on personal actions. I'm talking about corporate, and even there for the most part publicly traded corporations.
The now defunct consent decree was put in place specifically because small players couldn’t distribute movies anywhere besides theaters. That is not the world we live in today. Anyone can distribute movies worldwide by doing just as I said without an intermediary. I literally have a bash shell script and a CloudFormation template on my work computer right now that creates a static website hosted on S3 distributed via CloudFront where I could make any video I have available to anyone in the world.
> it weren't for movie studios getting into the distribution business, they probably would be doing quite well right now, having a significant headstart on how to do distribution.
There is no moat around video distribution. To a first approximation, anyone can distribute video at scale and create an entire streaming service using services available on AWS combined with a third party company that specializes in it. Do you think that all of these streaming companies have the in house expertise to do this at scale?
Hell, I know how to use AWS services to distribute content, transcode it and distribute it to millions of people around the world. Would it be cost effective at scale? Probably not. (former AWS ProServe employee).
> Any company which owns their own distribution network and preferentially distributes over that. Seems like the sort of thing the courts and FCC can work out
You really want the FCC and courts to have the power to block content on the internet and force all ISP’s to block foreign traffic?
You didn’t address the part about how this would work for international content, are we going to give the FCC the power to block international content on the internet?
> the only place you can get Disney movies is directly from Disney's own service, that's a form of monopoly
That is by no legal definition a monopoly and actually Epic just loss a case against Apple in court trying to argue that Apple had a monopoly on the App Store. In that case the NY Times has a “monopoly” on thier content? Every producer has a monopoly on what they create.
> No. Those programs should be syndicatable by anyone else who wants to distribute them, at the cost that they charge their own network for.
You really don’t want to let any content producer to be the sole distributor of their content? Does that include software developers? Should they also have to go through an App Store instead of exclusive distribution on thier own website?
This slippery slope/where do you draw the line argument is very weak.
It's like saying me accidentally spilling a bit while doing a oil change in my garage is the same as BP spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude.
Scale matters. And "where you draw the line" can be defined loosely to be left up to interpretation at the time.
The law can be written in a way that leaves it up for interpretation. It's not a simple IFTTT statement, what's why judges exist and why they make rulings that get cited in other cases. It's a feature of our system that I don't need to answer all your needlessly pedantic questions and just leave it up to interpretation.
Because otherwise bureaucrates like you would cause everything to stall while looking into every contingency.
I also don't think you have to "pass a law" we already have laws on the book that can do this and, this might shock you, we have already used them to do almost exactly what you are saying here.
Well first that ruling was sunsetted three years for all the reasons I cited and was never a “law” binding new companies.
So now you want unelected judges to decide what can and can’t be streamed on the internet.
This is also not the 1930s. In 2024, movie distribution is not limited to physical meets theaters.
Your citation gets trotted out all of the time in these arguments like anyone in 2024 can’t put a video on a website and distribute it anywhere in the world. When the ruling was in effect, home video media didn’t even exist and even television was in its infancy.
And you still haven’t answered the question, do you also stop foreign companies from distributing thier own content ?
And there is always judge shopping, liberal judges would love to stop Fox News from distributing their own content on the internet as would conservative judges love to stop media owned by “woke” corporations
> Your citation gets trotted out all of the time in these arguments like anyone in 2024 can’t put a video on a website and distribute it anywhere in the world.
It's about scale, if you didn't read my first message then that's fine but just so you can ignore it again.
Me spilling 1 oz oil in my front yard is different that BP spilling millions of gallons.
Similarly Apple and Netflix teaming up is different than me and my local theater teaming up. If you don't like anti trust that's fine but don't act like it's impossible to understand.
But first, no one was talking about Apple and Netflix teaming up. Those are two competitors and independent companies in the same space - streaming.
The discussion was about vertical integration where one company gets to distribute its own content. It was specifically decided Epic vs Apple that a monopoly isn’t being in control of your own content. Nintendo is also not considered a “monopoly” because you can only play most of their IP on thier own hardware
You also failed to answer any of the questions
1. Should we not allow any large content producer to distribute their own content exclusively on their own website and how is video different than audio, news, books, software, physical merchandise, etc? A second part of that conversation does that also apply to news content? Religious content? Documentaries like what CNN does?
2. For digital media, should we block foreign companies that are vertically integrated from being able to be accessed by people in the US?
3. If Netflix reincorporated in Canada should we force all US ISPs not to do business with them? Should we block them like the TikTok ban that is being proposed?
I'm not answering your questions because they are stupid and you are just trying to cause inaction by being overly verbose.
> But first, no one was talking about Apple and Netflix teaming up.
I said Apple instead of Facebook to show how needlessly pedantic you are. There is absolutely no difference between Apple and Facebook here the point is the scale of the company (as I have said)
I wish you to have a needlessly pedantic life and I hope we never cross paths again.
and you still didn’t answer my very real questions.
If the US bans vertical integration for companies headquartered in the US, do they also block people from accessing content over the internet that is produced by vertically integrated players that is created overseas?
Exactly what type of content should not be allowed to be self distributed? News? Religious content? Fictional content? Documentaries? Trailers? Physical goods?
Do you want the government deciding what private corporations can distribute over the internet and do you want to block foreign content that doesn’t follow those rules?
And you still didn’t answer the question. Do you think that government regulators should block foreign content on the internet if they find that content producers are also distributors?
Where do yoh draw the line about what type of media should be able to be distributed on the internet?
Are you going to fine companies for putting their own content on thier own website without going through an intermediary and how does that help consumers when every part of the delivery chain is also going to want to make a profit and thus increasing prices?
My ideas are fleshed out just fine, you are being needlessly pedantic. Noone needs to enumerate every contingency to agree with a law passing or being enforced.
Yes details matter. And you don’t pass a law without thinking through those things - the obvious one is that you would have to block sites outside of the US that don’t follow the law
