Understanding carriage(seths.blog)
seths.blog
Understanding carriage
https://seths.blog/2025/12/understanding-carriage/
22 comments
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.
Solution? remove the supply chain and consume local.
I'm excited to see some spin on this get incorporated into the next season of The Studio.
[deleted]
Bruh what
> The solution, one that Netflix would probably benefit from, is to offer to adopt more of a YouTube approach to carriage–allow 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.
> The solution, one that Netflix would probably benefit from, is to offer to adopt more of a YouTube approach to carriage–allow 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.
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 they’re releasing to the public.
The ability to exclude others is the essence of property rights. Why should Disney have different rights than everyone else?
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.
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....
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
Legal definitions are often not the same as plain English, and wording used in legislation is often politicised.
The nature of copyright is that it is a monopoly right. It is almost indistinguishable from letters patent (e.g. in the case of the KJV Bible in the UK). I am less familiar with US law but I believe US copyright law is based on a clause in the constitution giving the federal government the power to grant monopolies?
The nature of copyright is that it is a monopoly right. It is almost indistinguishable from letters patent (e.g. in the case of the KJV Bible in the UK). I am less familiar with US law but I believe US copyright law is based on a clause in the constitution giving the federal government the power to grant monopolies?
A monopoly right and a property right are the same thing with different names. As a landowner, for example, you have the right to kick people off (evict from) your property. You have both a de facto and de jure monopoly to exploit your land.
The US constitution confers to Congress the power to grant copyrights and patents in Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
The operating word here is "exclusive" which, yes, is a monopoly right. But again, it's not different in essence from a property right, which is also a monopoly right.
The US constitution confers to Congress the power to grant copyrights and patents in Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
The operating word here is "exclusive" which, yes, is a monopoly right. But again, it's not different in essence from a property right, which is also a monopoly right.
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
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.
So, true in practicality.
> 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.
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.
Sorry in advance for a short rant:
This might be to be the most ‘no sh!t Sherlock’ obvious thing I’ve 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 doesn’t need this new name “carriage”.
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.
Haha.