| |
| ▲ | tadfisher 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | kd5bjo 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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.... | |
| ▲ | otterley 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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 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. | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Incentivizing creative works is not the same thing as incentivize public creative works. |
| |
| ▲ | graemep 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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). | | |
| ▲ | otterley 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | As an attorney who specialized in IP practice in law school, I can tell you that your understanding of what a property right is is absolutely wrong. If you told a judge that copyright is not a property right, they’d stifle a laugh and advise you to come back with a lawyer, and your lawyer would, in turn, advise you to keep your legal opinions to yourself. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | nikanj 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not strictly true. An artist can refuse to license their work to a given station. That never happens in practice, but politicians being refused use of music has happened. So, true in practicality. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > An artist can refuse to license their work to a given station. 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. |
|
|
|
