It is good, if the competing products/services are interchangeable and they need to compete on factors such as price, convenience, or reliability. For example, competing grocery stores, all of which offer by and large the same products. Or competing mechanics, all of which can perform service on your car.
Streaming services don’t do this. They have carved up the market and “compete” by making you choose which products you want more.
Imagine two grocery stores, one of which had all the ice cream, and the other had all the chocolate, and neither could carry things that the other stocked. That is what streaming services are doing.
Modern copyright law is essentially a state sanctioned monopoly.
Rights holders should be forced to license the content to anyone that wishes to distribute it. As it stands now, they can lock it in a vault for generations if they wanted.
You mean like Disney still does… they just purged 500 million dollars worth of content from Disney plus and there is no other legel way to view most of that content now untill Disney decides to wheel it back out again (content that got a physical release is obviously still available)
Case law states that if media is no longer available, it’s consumption is considered preservation and is thus completely legal. Nobody can argue lost profits for something that literally isn’t even on the market. Fun fact: this is the reason why Nintendo releases their old games on the E shop for way more than what they’re worth. Once it’s up there they get to do takedown requests of every ROM on the internet.
They didn’t explicitly say they are back vaulting things again but I wouldn’t be surprised if they put out some of the content they took down back on disney plus or home releases at some point
Competition on price sounds nice because it prevents excessive prices, but it’s also a root cause of poverty and environmental abuse. Cooperating is much better.
It is good, if the competing products/services are interchangeable and they need to compete on factors such as price, convenience, or reliability. For example, competing grocery stores, all of which offer by and large the same products. Or competing mechanics, all of which can perform service on your car.
Streaming services don’t do this. They have carved up the market and “compete” by making you choose which products you want more.
Imagine two grocery stores, one of which had all the ice cream, and the other had all the chocolate, and neither could carry things that the other stocked. That is what streaming services are doing.
Modern copyright law is essentially a state sanctioned monopoly.
Rights holders should be forced to license the content to anyone that wishes to distribute it. As it stands now, they can lock it in a vault for generations if they wanted.
Like Disney used to?
You mean like Disney still does… they just purged 500 million dollars worth of content from Disney plus and there is no other legel way to view most of that content now untill Disney decides to wheel it back out again (content that got a physical release is obviously still available)
Case law states that if media is no longer available, it’s consumption is considered preservation and is thus completely legal. Nobody can argue lost profits for something that literally isn’t even on the market. Fun fact: this is the reason why Nintendo releases their old games on the E shop for way more than what they’re worth. Once it’s up there they get to do takedown requests of every ROM on the internet.
I was not aware they’re back to vaulting things
They didn’t explicitly say they are back vaulting things again but I wouldn’t be surprised if they put out some of the content they took down back on disney plus or home releases at some point
Competition on price sounds nice because it prevents excessive prices, but it’s also a root cause of poverty and environmental abuse. Cooperating is much better.
Thank you for giving the much warranted economics lesson.