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....

> 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.

Incentivizing creative works is not the same thing as incentivize public creative works.