_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML Understanding carriage
zkmon wrote 12 hours 1 min ago:
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.
IAmBroom wrote 4 hours 16 min ago:
We tried that. Northern people sometimes starve in the winter, and
people in arid locations starve during droughts.
Then the Babylonians invented supply chains.
listenfaster wrote 15 hours 57 min ago:
Sorry in advance for a short rant:
This might be to be the most âno sh!t Sherlockâ obvious thing
Iâve 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
doesnât need this new name âcarriageâ.
wbobeirne wrote 15 hours 39 min ago:
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.
wagwang wrote 17 hours 6 min ago:
Bruh what
> The solution, one that Netflix would probably benefit from, is to
offer to adopt more of a YouTube approach to carriageâallow 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.
anon7000 wrote 16 hours 55 min ago:
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 theyâre releasing to the public.
otterley wrote 13 hours 15 min ago:
The ability to exclude others is the essence of property rights.
Why should Disney have different rights than everyone else?
graemep wrote 8 hours 23 min ago:
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 wrote 3 hours 32 min ago:
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, theyâd 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 wrote 10 hours 33 min ago:
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 wrote 4 hours 13 min ago:
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.
tadfisher wrote 12 hours 31 min ago:
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.
otterley wrote 3 hours 27 min ago:
> 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 isnât producing new content
because they are permitted to control dissemination of their
works? That doesnât 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 wrote 9 hours 5 min ago:
Incentivizing creative works is not the same thing as
incentivize public creative works.
kd5bjo wrote 9 hours 37 min ago:
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. [1] .
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramou...
takira wrote 17 hours 26 min ago:
I'm excited to see some spin on this get incorporated into the next
season of The Studio.
cyberax wrote 17 hours 47 min ago:
It's fun to note that Netflix started producing its own content as a
hedge if Hollywood studios start withdrawing their content.
Haha.
DIR <- back to front page