<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>media business on Policymaker.net</title>
    <link>https://policymaker.net/tags/media-business/</link>
    <description>Recent content in media business on Policymaker.net</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://policymaker.net/tags/media-business/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Disney&#39;s Billion-Dollar OpenAI Deal Raises the Question of Who Gets Locked Out</title>
      <link>https://policymaker.net/disneys-billion-dollar-openai-deal-raises-the-question-of-who-gets-locked-out/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://policymaker.net/disneys-billion-dollar-openai-deal-raises-the-question-of-who-gets-locked-out/</guid>
      <description>Disney&amp;rsquo;s investment in OpenAI, reported at around a billion dollars, has been discussed mostly as a content deal. Legal scholars looking at it have raised a different concern, and it deserves more attention than the headline number.
The worry is enclosure. When the largest content owners sign exclusive or near-exclusive arrangements with the largest AI companies, the effect isn&amp;rsquo;t just a transfer of money. It removes material from the pool available to everyone else and raises the entry price for anyone trying to build a competing system.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
