Streaming Across Borders: The Legal and Economic Dimensions of Territorial Content Licensing

Written by: Jocelyn Oentoro and Josephine Vivian Christy

---

Introduction

A subscriber in Jakarta and a subscriber in Los Angeles can open the same app, pay for the same brand, and land in two completely different libraries. This is the paradox at the heart of global streaming: Netflix operates as a single, borderless platform, yet the content it delivers is fractured along national lines. The reason lies not in technology but in law: copyright is territorial, while streaming is not. Netflix is a subscription-based streaming service that allows users to watch TV shows and movies on an internet-connected device. Each Netflix plan determines the number of devices you can watch Netflix on at the same time and whether you can watch in High Definition (HD), Full High Definition (FHD), or Ultra High Definition (UHD) at each a different price. Its global growth is a big factor in the company’s success. It expanded to over 190 countries in 2017, making it one of the most widely accessible media services in history. 

White tablet showing a popular streaming service ("Netflix") on the app store - Souvik Banerjee via Unsplash

Territorial Nature of Copyright Law

Copyright law does not operate globally. Each country runs its own system, meaning that the rights to a creative work are governed separately under the laws of each individual nation. The foundational instrument governing this system is the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which is an international treaty signed in 1886 that requires its 180+ member countries to recognize and protect each other's copyrighted works. Rather than imposing a single unified copyright code, the Convention operates through two core mechanisms: national treatment, which requires each member country to protect foreign works the same way it protects its own citizens works, and minimum standards, which set a baseline of protections, such as a minimum copyright duration, that every member must provide. Other than the ones stated, each country remains free to define the specific content and duration of protection under its own legislation

Rights holders sell their content one country at a time, cutting separate deals with different distributors in different markets for the same title. For a platform like Netflix, this means negotiating separate licensing agreements across its operating territories, which inevitably produces the fragmented content libraries that subscribers encounter today.

Streaming and the Globalization of Content

The rise of global streaming platforms has fundamentally changed how audiences consume content. Services such as Netflix are accessible from virtually anywhere in the world, creating an expectation that entertainment has no borders. However, this expectation often clashes with the reality of territorial restrictions. When a user searches for a title and finds it unavailable in their region, they are not encountering a technical error, but encountering the limits of the licensing agreements. Netflix may operate globally, but the rights it holds are local. A show available in the United States may be licensed to a different broadcaster in Indonesia, or not licensed for streaming at all in certain markets.

Legal and Economic Implications

The territorial licensing system underlies global streaming services, which produce significant legal and economic consequences. Here, copyright protection operates on a country-by-country basis, which means that streaming platforms such as Netflix must negotiate their licensing rights separately for each jurisdiction. That alone has created a market fragmentation, where the same platform offers different content libraries across countries, depending entirely on its contractual arrangements that have been agreed to. Although such fragmentation may appear inefficient in an increasingly borderless digital environment, it is not necessarily detrimental, as territorial exclusivity still remains as a fundamental mechanism which is used for financing film and television products. It can furthermore be seen through its territorial pre-sale  agreements, that enable producers to secure investment, reduce financial risk, and also to encourage distributors to invest in the marketing and the distribution of content within their licensed territories. Nevertheless, these economic benefits come at the cost of fragmented digital markets, where technological advances have largely eliminated geographical barriers, but legal and contractual restrictions continue to limit cross-border access. 

Moreover, territorial licensing also contributes to unequal access to digital content, as subscribers who pay similar subscription fees may receive substantially different access to its content, which is solely based on their geographic location. Furthermore, this can be seen on how a subscriber in the United States may have access to contents which are unavailable in Indonesia or other jurisdictions, while Indonesia or other jurisdictions may have access to contents which are not unavailable in the United States. These restrictions alone are enforced through geo-blocking technologies, which often frustrate consumer expectations of borderless digital access and encourage them to use VPNs or other unauthorized streaming methods to access their desired content. As such, the territorial model increasingly conflicts with the global nature of internet-based entertainment consumption. 

Another major implication concerns contractual control by dominant distributors and streaming platforms. Here, large companies possess substantial bargaining power, which enables them to secure exclusive licensing agreements that could strengthen the market concentration and limit further competition. Such territorial exclusivity has furthermore attracted scrutiny under competition law, particularly within the European Union, where regulators have challenged agreements restricting cross-border access. As a result, territorial licensing is no longer viewed as purely a private contractual matter, but has increasingly been seen as an issue that affects consumer rights, market integration, and also digital competition policy.

Rethinking International Copyright Frameworks

The globalization of streaming services has also been an intensified debate over whether existing international copyright frameworks remain suitable for the digital era. International agreements such as the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty have attempted to modernize copyright law for online distribution by recognizing digital communication rights. However, copyright enforcement still depends largely on the national legal systems, which means that streaming services must continue navigating the fragmented territorial regulations despite operating on a global infrastructure.

Regional harmonization efforts, particularly within the European Union has demonstrated attempts to reduce territorial barriers, while still trying to preserve their copyright protections. This can furthermore be seen through its EU Portability Regulation, which allows subscribers to access their streaming services while temporarily being present in another State. Moreover, scholars have proposed a multi-territorial or a regional licensing system that would simplify rights clearance, reduce transaction costs, and provide a more equal access to content across jurisdictions.

Nevertheless, fully abandoning such territorial licensing would remain difficult, as territorial exclusivity continues to play an important role in financial audiovisual productions and also in protecting local creative industries. Moreover, excessive liberalization could weaken smaller regional broadcasters and concentrate even greater power in multinational streaming platforms. Consequently, future reforms will most likely require balancing the creators' economic rights with the public's expectations of global digital access through a more flexible cross-border licensing system, rather than eliminating such territoriality entirely. 

Conclusion

The rise of global streaming platforms such as Netflix has transformed entertainment consumption by creating expectations of instant and borderless digital access. However, despite having Netflix operating globally, streaming services remain constrained by the territorial nature of copyright law, where rights are licensed and enforced separately in each jurisdiction. This has resulted in fragmented content libraries across countries, which are driven not by technological limitations but by contractual licensing arrangements. Moreover, territorial licensing has also created broader legal economic consequences, which include market fragmentation, consumer inequality, geo-blocking practices, and the increase of market concentration among dominant streaming platforms

Whereas happening at the same time, the globalization of streaming services has exposed the limitations of existing international copyright frameworks in the digital area. Although international treaties and regional harmonization efforts have attempted to modernize copyright protections and improve cross-border access, territorial fragmentation has still continued to persist. Therefore, future reforms must balance creators' economic rights with their public expectations for greater digital accessibility.