I know that every time we embed a Hulu video here or link to another content site that has geographic restrictions, our comments light up with complaints. There is something just naturally frustrating about some internet company deciding I can't see a video because of where I happen to be sitting physically. There's obviously no technological reason for it, and all it serves to do is anger people. But, of course, the reason for it is that the content world's old way of doing things was to offer up separate licenses in separate geographies -- back when that made sense. On the internet it doesn't make technological sense. The problem, as Michael Geist is noting, is that it still appears to make business sense for companies selling those rights.

Geist is careful to point out that the business model of geographic licensing of content is old but not necessarily obsolete. I'm going to ask the next obvious question: aren't they obsolete? The only reason that geographic restrictions used to make sense was because you needed to do deals with local gatekeepers to make that content available and to promote it. But when you're dealing with content on the internet, that's no longer true. The borderless nature of the internet takes down those barriers. Businesses should be rejoicing that the old baggage and blockades and gatekeepers -- and all associated expenses -- are no longer necessary. They can now distribute their content worldwide with no additional hassle. That should be celebrated. But, of course, since business models were structured under those old systems where gatekeepers mattered, the content providers are addicted to that structure, and the revenue promises that come with it. However, it seems like only a matter of time until businesses start to recognize the sheer inefficiency of doing things that way, and stop wasting so much time with geographic restrictions on a platform where such restrictions make no sense.

One of the most common themes of writing about the Internet is that it's going to make geography irrelevant. There's clearly something to this. I'm writing this post in St. Louis, and before it goes live it will be looked over by Mike, who's normally in the Bay Area but is in Scotland this week. Still, Tim Harford has an interesting essay arguing that the Internet can also make geography more important by increasing the value of living in a high-density area. He gives online dating as an example: in the old days, a single guy living in New York might have several million single women to choose from, but with no way to quickly sift through all those options, the New York dating scene wouldn't be noticeably better than other cities. But now, with online dating, people have much more sophisticated tools to sift through the options and find someone who perfectly matches their interests, age, religious and political beliefs, etc, before they ever meet. I've personally noticed the high cost of not living in a major city. I've met a number of people online through a shared interest in technology policy, and almost all of them live in the DC, San Francisco, or New York metropolitan areas. So while the Internet has made it possible for me to write from anywhere, it's also made me more acutely aware of what I'm missing by not living in a larger metro area.