zlacker

> These companies are approaching monopoly powers and using it to squeeze consumers.

This doesn’t compute. Firstly, multiple companies cannot simultaneously have monopoly power of the same resource. Secondly, there is by just one company who controls the majority or all content. In fact, having to subscribe to multiple services proves that there are multiple companies who provide tv shows and movies.

>>andsoi+(OP)
> Firstly, multiple companies cannot simultaneously have monopoly power of the same resource.

Sure they can; it's called a cartel when that happens.

The major content publishers have acted in concert to kneecap Netflix; pulling licensed content, no longer licensing popular new content, etc.

>>ceejay+n2
So you're saying you WANT Netflix to be a monopoly and have all of the licensed content and new shows?

>>andsoi+(OP)
What your missing is that this is not (generally) the same resource. The resource is individual shows, which are copyrighted and therefore a monopoly. Back when copyright holders didn't recognize the online streaming market and sold off their licenses cheaply, Netflix was awesome. Now that publishers have found out they can charge consumers directly and be the only place to watch a given show, consumers are being squeezed.

>>motoxp+L7
If we had something like the Paramount Decree for streaming/tv anyone would be able to license those shows and we'd have actual choices.

>>andsoi+(OP)
People often say monopoly when talking about general anti-competitive behavior/abusing market position. If you want to nitpick on that point, that's up to you I guess, but you must know that changing how people talk about this is completely hopeless at this point, right?

>>motoxp+L7
From a consumer standpoint, life was much better when that was the case. One app, one service, pretty much anything I want to watch. Per-network streaming services were just a glint in some executive's eye, and things were good.

The current state of things is confusing, expensive, and user hostile.

I was trying to figure out how to watch Rick & Morty S6 the other night. It'll be on Hulu, but not for months. It'll be on HBO Max, too, but it's only downloadable for offline viewing on Hulu. Wanna watch it now? Need a cable subscription, even though Adult Swim's website says "now available on HBO Max".

I like the idea of any streaming service being able to license any show, if they can pay the fee. Another comment mentioned the Paramount Decree as a similar example.

>>motoxp+L7
In my perfect world we would decouple content libraries from the technologies, services, interfaces, etc. that go into serving the content. The former is largely a curation and legal-rights negotiation task. The latter is a technical and interface design task. It kind of sucks that we're held hostage to bad UX or technology to access good content or vice versa. It's definitely not a great situation for the consumer and is a classic case of market failure owing to the (albeit limited) monopoly powers of the rights holders.

>>motoxp+L7
If we disallow exclusive licenses then that's not as much of a problem.

>>andsoi+(OP)
That's because the word he meant to use was cartel

>>motoxp+L7
You assume that the only legitimate arrangement is that a piece of content can only be available on a single platform. Wouldn't we think it is weird if each book could only be sold by exactly one book seller?

What if the platforms competed on offering a better user experience or other affordances or price?

If there were some way to break the normalization of exclusive distribution, that would tilt things back in favor of the consumer, but I won't hold my breath for the legislation.

>>narava+6m
We did something similar, for similar reasons, with movie studios and movie theaters. Movie studios couldn't own theaters until very recently (a couple years ago, I think).

Production companies shouldn't be able to own streaming platforms, and streaming platforms shouldn't be able to become production companies.

>>andsoi+(OP)

  monopoly power of the same resource

they can because it's not a resource in first place, it's infinite.

>>ceejay+oj
Streaming service providers should be legally prohibited from exclusive ownership of content: anything they put on their platform should have compulsory licensing at the same rate they paid.

>>cwkoss+KC
I think that exclusivity clauses for many platforms should be made illegal or atleast severely limited in duration.

>>motoxp+L7
Does that have to be the case? Look at music streaming. 90% of the content is on 90% of the platforms. They compete more on things app features, devices supported, price and quality delivered than content. In the video streaming side there's loads of competitors but almost zero overlap between them.

>>ceejay+oj
What you're describing is competition. It is an entire industry on content creators selling their creations to the highest bidder. The thing that streaming enabled was for the small documentary filmmaker to sell their work to a large studio (family member did just this). I don't think it's their fault that their is ALSO intense competition above them in the stack, which is what you're saying is the bad experience.

You're arguing there is TOO MUCH competition not too little and that a centralizing force needs to help improve consumer experience. Fair, but not your original point.

>>cwkoss+KC
And are you also thinking that content creators should not be allowed to distribute their own content? (which is what streaming services are these days... the direct-to-customer channel by a studio).

>>andsoi+ys4
I think the world would be a better place if streaming platforms and content producers were required to be separate legal entities that cannot collude, price fix, or trade in exclusive rights. If content is good, every streaming platform should have the opportunity to acquire those rights at the same terms.