dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
64
share rss forum feed


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

seems reasonable

If as a retail business owner you can pay the makers of the most desirable widgets to let you be the exclusive OK widget outlet because it earn YOU more than it costs you, you would do it.

If as the owner of OK widgets Inc. someone pays you for exclusive rights and that results in greater profit then putting them in every store you can find, you would do it.

I'm not sure why anyone believes they have the RIGHT to buy any content/product/object the owner chooses not to sell you.

The owner also gets to choose package size and flavors offered. very desirable products earn higher prices, last month's chopped liver, not so much.

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

But that isn't exactly what they're doing. They aren't asking for exclusive distribution rights or even exclusive distribution rights within a geographic region; what they're asking for is that a specific class of competitor be denied distribution rights. If TW is OK with a programmer selling to U-Verse or FiOS systems that compete with them, but they demand agreements banning Internet distribution, then it looks less like they want exclusive rights and more like they're trying to strangle a competitor.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
But it also could be seen as protecting their exclusivity rights as internet area restrictions rarely work well, obviously wireline systems like U-verse or FiOS serve specific locations. not sure how much TW overlaps with those 2, but I could see restriction on them as well.
Exclusive distribution has been around longer than video entertainment, film, recording and theater companies have always had preferred/exclusive outlets. non-exclusive distribution only came about when cheap reproducible media allowed mass marketing of reproductions.
Broadcast and syndication rights have always been separate and distinct from physical copy sales. ie owning a physical copy does not permit broadcast of public display.

Again, the owner could sell the right to NEVER release a given title, and probably would if the guaranteed return was higher than the likely public return AND the rights the hold permit that

You might see it as a Disney film/show but when you see the credits "a type W production in association with" and so on , is about the complex set of arrangements as to who owns what rights in return for }{ distribution , reproduction, marketing etc. and how much they each get.
Basically so complex they formed the xxIA's to keep track for them, managing disputes and violations.