The state of streaming is... bad. It’s very bad. The first step in wanting to watch anything is a web search: “Where can I stream X?” Then you have to scroll past an AI summary with no answers, and then scroll past the sponsored links. After that, you find out that the thing you want to watch was made by a studio that doesn’t exist anymore or doesn’t have a streaming service. So, even though you subscribe to more streaming services than you could actually name, you will have to buy a digital copy to watch. A copy that, despite paying for it specifically, you do not actually own and might vanish in a few years. 

Then, after you paid to see something multiple times in multiple ways (theater ticket, VHS tape, DVD, etc.), the mega-corporations behind this nightmare will try to get Congress to pass laws to ensure you keep paying them. In the end, this is easier than making a product that works. Or, as someone put it on social media, these companies have forgotten “that their entire existence relies on being slightly more convenient than piracy.” 

It’s important to recognize this as we see more and more media mergers. These mergers are not about quality, they’re about control. 

In the old days, studios made a TV show. If the show was a hit, they increased how much they charged companies to place ads during the show. And if the show was a hit for long enough, they sold syndication rights to another channel. Then people could discover the show again, and maybe come back to watch it air live. In that model, the goal was to spread access to a program as much as possible to increase viewership and the number of revenue streams.  

Now, in the digital age, studios have picked up a Silicon Valley trait: putting all their eggs into the basket of “increasing the number of users.” To do that, they have to create scarcity. There has to be only one destination for the thing you’re looking for, and it has to be their own. And you shouldn’t be able to control the experience at all. They should.  

They’ve also moved away from creating buzzy new exclusives to get you to pay them. That requires risk and also, you know, paying creative people to make them. Instead, they’re consolidating.  

Media companies keep announcing mergers and acquisitions. They’ve been doing it for a long time, but it’s really ramped up in the last few years. And these mergers are bad for all the obvious reasons. There are the speech and censorship reasons that came to a head in, of all places, late night television. There are the labor issues. There are the concentration of power issues. There are the obvious problems that the fewer studios that exist the fewer chances good art gets to escape Hollywood and make it to our eyes and ears. But when it comes specifically to digital life there are these: consumer experience and ownership.  

First, the more content that comes under a single corporation’s control, the more they expect you to come to them for it. And the more they want to charge. And because there is less competition, the less they need to work to make their streaming app usable. They then enforce their hegemony by using the draconian copyright restrictions they’ve lobbied for to cripple smaller competitors, critics, and fair use.  

When everything is either Disney or NBCUniversal or Warner Brothers-Discovery-Paramount-CBS and everything is totally siloed, what need will they have to spend money improving any part of their product? Making things is hard, stopping others from proving how bad you are is easy, thanks to how broken copyright law is.  

Furthermore, because every company is chasing increasing subscriber numbers instead of multiple revenue streams, they have an interest in preventing you from ever again “owning” a copy of a work. This was always sort of part of the business plan, but it was on a scale of a) once every couple of years,  b) at least it came, in theory, with some new features or enhanced quality and c) you actually owned the copy you paid for. Now they want you to pay them every month for access to same copy. And, hey, the price is going to keep going up the fewer options you have. Or you will see more ads. Or start seeing ads where there weren’t any before.  

On the one hand, the increasing dependence on direct subscriber numbers does give users back some power. Jimmy Kimmel’s reinstatement by ABC was partly due to the fact that the company was about to announce a price hike for Disney+ and it couldn’t handle losing users due to the new price and due to popular outrage over Kimmel’s treatment.  

On the other hand, well, there's everything else. 

The latest kerfuffle is over the sale of Warner Brothers-Discovery, a company that was already the subject of a sale and merger resulting in the hyphen. Netflix was competiing against another recently merged media megazord of Paramount Skydance.  

Warner Brothers-Discovery accepted a bid from Netflix, enraging Paramount Skydance, which has now launched a hostile takeover.  

Now the optimum outcome is for neither of these takeovers to happen. There are already too few players in Hollywood. It does nothing for the health of the industry to allow either merger. A functioning antitrust regime would stop both the sale and the hostile takeover attempt, full stop. But Hollywood and the federal government are frequent collaborators, and the feds have little incentive to stop Hollywood’s behemoths from growing even further, as long as they continue to play their role pushing a specific view of American culture.    

The promise of the digital era was in part convenience. You never again had to look at TV listings to find out when something would be airing. Virtually unlimited digital storage meant everything would be at your fingertips. But then the corporations went to work to make sure it never happened. And with each and every merger, that promise gets further and further away.  

Note 12/10/2025: One line in this blog has been modified a few hours post-publication. The substance remains the same. 

As all things old are new again, a bill that would make obtaining bad patents easier and harder to challenge is being considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) would reverse over a decade of progress in fighting patent trolls and making the patent system more balanced.

PERA would overturn long-standing court decisions that have helped keep some of the most problematic patents in check. This includes the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision, which bars patents on abstract ideas. While Alice has not completely solved the problems of the patent system or patent trolling, it has led to the rejection of hundreds of low-quality software patents and, as a result, has allowed innovation and small businesses to grow.

Thanks to the Alice decision, courts have invalidated a rogue’s gallery of terrible software patents—such as patents on online photo contests, online bingo, upselling, matchmaking, and scavenger hunts. These patents didn’t describe real inventions—they merely applied old ideas to general-purpose computers. But PERA would wipe out the Alice framework and replace it with vague, hollow exceptions, taking us back to an era where patent trolls and large corporate patent-holders aggressively harassed software developers and small companies.

This bill, combined with recent changes that have restricted access to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), would create a perfect storm—giving patent trolls and major corporations with large patent portfolios free rein to squeeze out independent inventors and small businesses.

EFF is proud to join a letter, along with Engine, the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, Public Knowledge, and R Street, to the Senate Judiciary Committee opposing this poorly-timed and concerning bill. We urge the committee to instead focus on restoring the PTAB as the accessible, efficient check on patent quality that Congress intended.

There is a lot of bad on the internet and it seems to only be getting worse. But one of the things the internet did well, and is worth preserving, is nontraditional paths for creativity, journalism, and criticism. As governments and major corporations throw up more barriers to expression—and more and more gatekeepers try to control the internet—it’s important to learn how to crash through those gates. 

In EFF's interview series, Gate Crashing, we talk to people who have used the internet to take nontraditional paths to the very traditional worlds of journalism, creativity, and criticism. We hope it's both inspiring to see these people and enlightening for anyone trying to find voices they like online.  

Our mini-series will be dropping an episode each month closing out 2025 in style.

• Episode 1: Fanfiction Becomes Mainstream – Launching October 1*
• Episode 2: From DIY to Publishing – Launching November 1
• Episode 3: A New Path for Journalism – Launching December 1

Be sure to mark your calendar or check our socials on drop dates. If you have a friend or colleague that might be interested in watching our series, please forward this link: eff.org/gatecrashing

Check Out Episode 1

For over 35 years, EFF members have empowered attorneys, activists, and technologists to defend civil liberties and human rights online for everyone.

Tech should be a tool for the people, and we need you in this fight.

Donate Today

Jimmy Kimmel has been in the news a lot recently, which means the ongoing lawsuit against him by perennial late-night punching bag/convicted fraudster/former congressman George Santos flew under the radar. But what happened in that case is an essential illustration of the limits of both copyright law and the “fine print” terms of service on websites and apps. 

What happened was this: Kimmel and his staff saw that Santos was on Cameo, which allows people to purchase short videos from various public figures with requested language. Usually it’s something like “happy birthday” or “happy retirement.” In the case of Kimmel and his writers, they set out to see if there was anything they couldn’t get Santos to say on Cameo. For this to work, they obviously didn’t disclose that it was Jimmy Kimmel Live! asking for the videos.  

Santos did not like the segment, which aired clips of these videos, called “Will Santos Say It?”.  He sued Kimmel, ABC, and ABC’s parent company, Disney. He alleged both copyright infringement and breach of contract—the contract in this case being Cameo’s terms of service. He lost on all counts, twice: his case was dismissed at the district court level, and then that dismissal was upheld by an appeals court. 

On the copyright claim, Kimmel and Disney argued and won on the grounds of fair use. The court cited precedent that fair use excuses what might be strictly seen as infringement if such a finding would “stifle the very creativity” that copyright is meant to promote. In this case, the use of the videos was part of the ongoing commentary by Jimmy Kimmel Live! around whether there was anything Santos wouldn’t say for money. Santos tried to argue that since this was their purpose from the outset, the use wasn’t transformative. Which... isn’t how it works. Santos’ purpose was, presumably, to fulfill a request sent through the app. The show’s purpose was to collect enough examples of a behavior to show a pattern and comment on it.  

Santos tried to say that their not disclosing what the reason was invalidated the fair use argument because it was “deceptive.” But the court found that the record didn’t show that the deception was designed to replace the market for Santos’s Cameos. It bears repeating: commenting on the quality of a product or the person making it is not legally actionable interference with a business. If someone tells you that a movie, book, or, yes, Cameo isn’t worth anything because of its ubiquity or quality and shows you examples, that’s not a deceptive business practice. In fact, undercover quality checks and reviews are fairly standard practices! Is this a funnier and more entertaining example than a restaurant review? Yes. That doesn’t make it unprotected by fair use.  

It’s nice to have this case as a reminder that, despite everything, the major studios often argue, fair use protects everyone, including them. Don’t hold your breath on them remembering this the next time someone tries to make a YouTube review of a Hollywood movie using clips.  

Another claim from this case that is less obvious but just as important involves the Cameo terms of service. We often see contracts being used to restrict people’s fair use rights. Cameo offers different kinds of videos for purchase. The most well-known comes with a personal use license, the “happy birthdays,” and so on. They also offer a “commercial” use license, presumably if you want to use the videos to generate revenue, like you do with an ad or paid endorsement. However, in this case, the court found that the terms of service are a contract between a customer and Cameo, not between the customer and the video maker. Cameo’s terms of service explicitly lay out when their terms apply to the person selling a video, and they don’t create a situation where Santos can use those terms to sue Jimmy Kimmel Live! According to the court, the terms don’t even imply a shared understanding and contract between the two parties.  

It's so rare to find a situation where the wall of text that most terms of service consist of actually helps protect free expression; it’s a pleasant surprise to see it here.  

In general, we at EFF hate it when these kinds of contracts—you know the ones, where you hit accept after scrolling for ages just so you can use the app—are used to constrain users’ rights. Fair use is supposed to protect us all from overly strict interpretations of copyright law, but abusive terms of service can erode those rights. We’ll keep fighting for those rights and the people who use them, even if the one exercising fair use is Disney.  

When a technology can have a conversation with you, it’s natural to anthropomorphize that technology—to see it as a person. It’s tempting to see a chatbot as a thinking, speaking robot, but this gives the technology too much credit. This can also lead people—including judges in cases about AI chatbots—to overlook the human expressive choices connected to the words that chatbots produce. If chatbot outputs had no First Amendment protections, the government could potentially ban chatbots that criticize the administration or reflect viewpoints the administration disagrees with.

In fact, the output of chatbots can reflect not only the expressive choices of their creators and users, but also implicates users’ right to receive information. That’s why EFF and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) have filed an amicus brief in Garcia v. Character Technologies explaining how large language models work and the various kinds of protected speech at stake.

Among the questions in this case is the extent to which free speech protections extend to the creation, dissemination, and receipt of chatbot outputs. Our brief explains how the expressive choices of a chatbot developer can shape its output, such as during reinforcement learning, when humans are instructed to give positive feedback to responses that align with the scientific consensus around climate change and negative feedback for denying it (or vice versa). This chain of human expressive decisions extends from early stages of selecting training data to crafting a system prompt. A user’s instructions are also reflected in chatbot output. Far from being the speech of a robot, chatbot output often reflects human expression that is entitled to First Amendment protection.

In addition, the right to receive speech in itself is protected—even when the speaker would have no independent right to say it. Users have a right to access the information chatbots provide.

None of this is to suggest that chatbots cannot be regulated or that the harms they cause cannot be addressed. The First Amendment simply requires that those regulations be appropriately tailored to the harm to avoid unduly burdening the right to express oneself through the medium of a chatbot, or to receive the information it provides.

We hope that our brief will be helpful to the court as the case progresses, as the judge decided not to send the question up on appeal at this time.

Read our brief below.