A simpler word could have been "broker". A broker-less market is feasible as long as the producer and consumer don't need a platform or middleman to conduct their transaction. A farmer's market is an example, where buyers go to a farm and buy directly from the farmer. But then people wanted to consume stuff that is not produced locally. The supply chain is born.
Solution? remove the supply chain and consume local.
> 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.
The core probe is exclusivity agreements. Honestly think they should be illegal. Disney should not be allowed to choose who has access to view the content they’re releasing to the public.
Copyright is not a property right. It is a state granted monopoly that is supposed to provide incentives. It should therefore be designed to maximise incentives.
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).
The right is that of copyright, one that is granted by the public to incentivize the creative arts. Disney and other rights holders need to hold up their end of the bargain, so it's reasonable for the public to require wider dissemination of their works.
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.
There's some precedent for this: Back in the 40s, the movie studios were forced to sell their stake in theaters due to antitrust issues around exclusivity. Streaming services owning studios feels like the essentially the same situation.
Music has mandatory licensing: you can play any songs on your radio station as long as you pay the fixed, standardized fees. And yet the music industry is still alive
Sorry in advance for a short rant:
This might be to be the most ‘no sh!t Sherlock’ obvious thing I’ve seen Seth write, and there is stiff competition in other posts of his. Am I the only one who sees civilization in decline reading something so obvious? ;) basically: Art (all culture?) traditionally disseminates at the whim of those controlling distribution channels. Always has been the case, always will be. You can choose a partner to disseminate or DIY, which the internet made way easier. Of course. It doesn’t need this new name “carriage”.
Carriage is not a new name, the author plainly states that it's an existing industry term. And I think the closing paragraph where the author posits that Netflix could switch to an open marketplace model is a novel suggestion, if highly unlikely. Not sure where all this negativity comes from.
A simpler word could have been "broker". A broker-less market is feasible as long as the producer and consumer don't need a platform or middleman to conduct their transaction. A farmer's market is an example, where buyers go to a farm and buy directly from the farmer. But then people wanted to consume stuff that is not produced locally. The supply chain is born.
Solution? remove the supply chain and consume local.
It's fun to note that Netflix started producing its own content as a hedge if Hollywood studios start withdrawing their content.
Haha.
I'm excited to see some spin on this get incorporated into the next season of The Studio.
Bruh what
> 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.
The core probe is exclusivity agreements. Honestly think they should be illegal. Disney should not be allowed to choose who has access to view the content they’re releasing to the public.
The ability to exclude others is the essence of property rights. Why should Disney have different rights than everyone else?
Copyright is not a property right. It is a state granted monopoly that is supposed to provide incentives. It should therefore be designed to maximise incentives.
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).
The right is that of copyright, one that is granted by the public to incentivize the creative arts. Disney and other rights holders need to hold up their end of the bargain, so it's reasonable for the public to require wider dissemination of their works.
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.
There's some precedent for this: Back in the 40s, the movie studios were forced to sell their stake in theaters due to antitrust issues around exclusivity. Streaming services owning studios feels like the essentially the same situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
Incentivizing creative works is not the same thing as incentivize public creative works.
Music has mandatory licensing: you can play any songs on your radio station as long as you pay the fixed, standardized fees. And yet the music industry is still alive
Sorry in advance for a short rant: This might be to be the most ‘no sh!t Sherlock’ obvious thing I’ve seen Seth write, and there is stiff competition in other posts of his. Am I the only one who sees civilization in decline reading something so obvious? ;) basically: Art (all culture?) traditionally disseminates at the whim of those controlling distribution channels. Always has been the case, always will be. You can choose a partner to disseminate or DIY, which the internet made way easier. Of course. It doesn’t need this new name “carriage”.
Carriage is not a new name, the author plainly states that it's an existing industry term. And I think the closing paragraph where the author posits that Netflix could switch to an open marketplace model is a novel suggestion, if highly unlikely. Not sure where all this negativity comes from.