Yo, ho! Yo ho! A pirates life for me...

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/15615735

It was inevitable...

Funny @sh.itjust.works

481 31

You're viewing a single thread.

78 comments

Theoretically, having multiple streaming platforms should be good, as it prevents a monopoly. Problem is, they all have monopolies, on specific shows. Choosing the streaming services you want isn't about choosing the better product, but on which shows you have. All streaming shows should have all shows available. That's the only way to properly decide which service is worth paying for
- But then they'd have to compete on features and usability, and no company wants that. They prefer to set up roadblocks and extract tolls.
  
  Imagine selling a service by virtue of the quality of your service. Ridiculous
  
  can’t get rich by doin stupid shit like that lol
- Back in the days there was a law that movie studios couldn’t also have movie theaters to avoid this specific issue. Now they found the loophole.
  
  Exactly right! Maybe the EU will save us all. It seems somehow monopolistic that Disney+ is the exclusive official streaming service for so much. I guess this is why Netflix put so much into Netflix originals.
  I'd like to at least see some requirements for open licensing of shows, such as maybe a sunset period or something.
  
  Yes. They could have the equivalent of theatrical release exclusive and when it would normally go to DVD get a global streaming license.
  
  I was gonna include that in my original comment, but decided to just end it there for the sake of brevity, but yes, exactly this
- I think we should make publisher/distributer combos illegal, that'll solve the problem real quick.
  Want to run a streaming platform? Great, you just can't be a publisher too
  Want to make/publish content? Great, you just can't run your own streaming platform
  It's how it used to work for the longest time until Comcrap bought TW (Or was it TW buying Comcrap?)
  
  "Cool, Netflix streaming and Natflix publishing are now subsidiaries of Notflix inc. Soon to launch their new 18+ streaming service, Nutflix.."
  
  Nutflix when?
  
  Well a well written law would be able to deal with that, but even if my idea had a chance of becoming law, its final text probably would be loopholed to death unfortunately
  
  This is rooted in the early days of cinema, in which theaters were also owned by the studios, and so would only show the stuff the studio produced. Was gonna go into it in my comment, but decided against it to keep it short. Another commenter also mentioned it, and that's pretty much what I'm proposing. I'm suggesting specifically that they have to show everything in order to also avoid exclusivity deals. Part of that, though, would also be to just not let Netflix produce its own content, but if it didn't, you'd be able to watch it on amazon anyway
- Woah there! Having the privilege to choose a streaming service that has a show you want. Those are some bold assumptions. We over here at anime land have former illegal streaming services with exclusive global licenses, even though they only operate nationally. Pirates overseas can't watch their favorite anime of the season legally. They must either use a VPN to pay for a service that'll ban them for VPN usage, or pirate the anime.
  
  As an anime watcher, this would extend to anime as well
- And pretty much none of the services are the better product.
  
  Then they better step up their game. Compete with each other by improving their services, or lowering the prices to draw in customers
- This sounds like they have to compete for your money and produce better shows, which is good for consumers. You can subscribe to service X, watch the show you're interested in, and unsubscribe. Netflix releases all episodes at once, with other platforms you can simply wait till the show ends before subscribing.
  I don't argue that you should do exactly that instead of pirating. But I don't see why somebody should be subscribed to all these services.
  
  Well my point is they wouldn't be subscribed to all the services. They'd pick one. You wanna watch "Show A". None of these platforms are allowed to have exclusivity rights to it. So do you choose Netflix? Hulu? Amazon? It's up to you, since you don't have to choose only the one that has it. Now your decision to give money to Netflix, for example, is based on the fact that the service they're providing--UI, ease of access, streaming speed--instead of them being the only ones who have "Show A"
  
  You could implement this for some shows and movies, but there's one big problem. Disney shouldn't have exclusivity rights to their own IPs? Netflix should have to give everyone else the shows they pay for and produce?
  I get where you're coming from in theory, but in practice it doesn't make sense. It would be like saying Nintendo must release their games on xbox and playstation.
  
  My issue is that Disney should then not have its own streaming platform, and that, yeah, Netflix shouldn't make its own shows
  Now as for the videogame comparison, I've heard it before, but developing for different consoles is not the same. Making a game for switch hardware, and for xbox hardware requires multiple versions of the game. You don't film multiple versions of a movie for different platforms. It's part of why I don't think all games should be available on all platforms. I believe that they shouldn't have to be on all platforms, and that it should be up to developers which consoles to make games for, but yeah, that means that there are gonna be exclusivity deals. Would be nice to avoid, so that if Fromsoft decides to make BB2, they have the free reign to make it for PC, but my point is that game development is more complicated than movie streaming
  Anyway, yeah, I think Disney+ can go fuck itself right back from the muck it crawled out of, and that Netflix has to stop making its own stuff (Or allow competitors to use it)
- Its just cable with more steps.
  
  I mean, yeah. If I can watch Cartoon Network regardless of my cable provider, then I'm choosing them based on how well they provide for me that cable. They do good work, get reliable cables, fix outages quickly, are affordable, fucking great
- isn't about choosing the better product, but on which shows you have.
  But you can argue that part of what makes a streaming service a good product, is the literal product they produce, their content.
  
  A streaming service's product is the service of streaming stuff to you. It's not a studio. Studios make those products. The streaming services give you a platform to watch them. Their product is their website
  
  So then they're a publisher not a streaming service.
  
  They’re a publisher whose content is hosted on their own streaming service. It’s classic vertical integration.
  I think the current model is better actually, because then the streaming services have to compete with each other on content, user experience, and price.
  This way, you only need to subscribe to the streaming services that have the shows you’re currently watching, and can cancel whenever you’re done with those shows, until the next one comes along.
  If a streaming service bundles multiple studios shows together, then you’re paying for a ton of content you may not even care about, just like how cable is.
  At the end of the day, unless someone is watching hours and hours of tv a day, it’s unlikely they need to simultaneously subscribe to 7 streaming services.

78 comments