So here’s an unpopular opinion, but this isn’t a bad thing. It’s just not enough.
The biggest reason that legal, paid Streaming is so shitty these days, the reason people miss old Netflix, is that everything is spread across so many different platforms now. Back in the day, just having Netflix meant you had just about everything, and if you wanted more still you could get Hulu… and that was it. One, maybe two subscriptions, and you’re set. But now? Now you need half a dozen subscriptions and you’re still picking what things you won’t get. If content was more centralized again, that wouldn’t be a problem.
And if content was more centralized, that centralized platform would have PLENTY of subscribers, they wouldn’t need to add commercials and hike prices just to stay afloat. I mean… they’d do it anyway because capitalism enshittifies everything, but it wouldn’t be a do or fail situation for them.
The only thing I ever used the Paramount streaming for was Trek. I wouldn’t complain if Trek, ALL Trek, migrated to somewhere else that has other things I like, too.
We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem," he said. "If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate’s service is more valuable.
-Gabe Newell
IMO, we really need an update to copyright law covering streaming. Think of how Redbox would just buy DVDs even though studios wanted them to wait about 2 months.
Streaming services should have a similar option. Then they’d need to compete on features, not on the streaming equivalent of “you can only watch this movie if you buy a Betamax player”.
The problem is that the people who hold the rights don’t want to share. They want that sweet, sweet, monthly subscription income. They don’t want to compete because that means they’ll potentially earn less and have to spend more.
I tell people about fmovies every chance I get because it has just about anything you are looking for. I’ve only run into a few titles they don’t have.
No registration, completely free, and easy to use.
It’s odd that people are against monopolies, generally speaking, but for streaming services we would prefer if there were a few giant companies which owned it all.
I’m not disagreeing with the above, just thought it was curious.
Compare Movie/TV-show streaming to the Music streaming industry. Spotify/Tidal/Apple/Amazon all offer access to the same music (more or less). They compete on features/quality/apps/prices/etc. They don’t compete based on their exclusive libraries. Somehow the music industry can survive in that model. Video streaming needs to do the same. Stop the exclusivity. This way, monopolies are not needed in video streaming.
People aren’t clamoring for a monopoly, they are asking for interoperability. I didn’t need a single VHS rental store to be the only place I could get Ernest Scared Stupid, but I did need to be able to get Ernest Goes to Jail at every VHS rental store.
All we’d really need to do that is just make it a law that contracts aren’t exclusive.
If shows were sold to multiple streaming services legally, then those services would compete based on the actual service they offer, and not the content they have.
In other words, make streaming services the customers for shows, instead of individuals, and then let people be their customers.
As it is, a streaming service is pretty comparable to a car dealership.
That’s not all we’d need to do though. Too many cases of the content rights holders also owning a streaming service means they’d just not sign any contracts. Disney, paramount, NBC, hell even Netflix owns content. We need to also break up so that right holders can’t also control the means of distribution.
No, my problem is that we have this system where each piece of content is its own monopoly. That exclusivity means that people need to use a specific service to access that content.
The whole “I wish it was all on one platform” isn’t really wishing for only a single platform to exist, but wishing that one platform could host all of the content. Ideally, there would be multiple ones doing this and differentiating themselves from each other in some way and, well, competing on their platform itself rather than “I paid a bunch of money so that you have to come here if you want to see anything Marvel.”
I think two or three viable platforms was kind of the sweet spot. It’s not all dominated by one, but I also don’t have to shop around and subscribe to five different things if I want to get what I want legally. But you’re right that it’s a sticky issue that just doesn’t seem to have a good answer.
The solution is mandatory licensing at fixed rates for media that is no longer under production. Make it so the only way to have exclusive content is to commit to continuing that content.
This is why I own most of star trek on dvd. Cant take that away from me.
I was so disappointed when the HD remasters stopped. I snapped up TOS, Animated, TNG, and all the movies on Blu-ray (replacing DVDs in the case of the movies and TNG) despite them being available on Netflix at the time. I was really looking forward to catching up with DS9 and Voyager the same way since I was only able to catch them sporadically when they were airing… but no, it seems these are doomed to remain in SD purgatory.
There is a group has who completed an upscaling remaster of DS9. It’s very very well done (though could be better with better source material from the producers).
They are working on Voyager now that DS9 is done. They’ve completed season 1 of voyager so far.
Im a special case. I do retro gaming so I still have a classic tube TV. SD content looks amazing when viewed on a CRT. I had to housesit for Someone and brought my TNG set only to be shocked at how terrible it looked on their 55" LCD.
I’ve also hung onto my old CRT (and consoles, players, etc.), I just haven’t had anywhere to hook it up for the past decade plus. My Blu-ray player does a pretty good job at upscaling, but you’re right - SD is going to look a lot better on the originally targeted hardware.
I mean, that’s a kind of shitty take. The point they’re making, that IP hoarding is making streaming fuck awful, is correct. They had a time in the recent past where that wasn’t the case and were trying to make an argument for why that should be again.
Content being centralized doesn’t require a monopoly, it requires the separation between streaming services and IP creators (like early Netflix). That would disincentivize the IP hoarding without requiring a monopoly.
Ya know, like movie theaters or video rental stores (when those existed). By allowing for vertical integration, you get Disney Movie Theaters, which only show Disney movies, and that blows (which is why any IP streaming service blows). Movie theaters, instead, show every movie coming out right now and that’s how streaming services should be. That way, the only way to compete is with app quality and price. Ya know, things customers actually give a fuck about.
I understand that the first person didn’t want a media monopoly, but your explanation and examples with movie theaters and rental stores really made the difference clear.
Streaming services should compete on quality of the platform, pricing and features, not exclusives. If every tv series and movie were available on every platforms, prices would drop and quality would increase, as the platforms try and be the best, it’s the contrary of monopoly because people can freely choose. Now they don’t care about being the best, they try and get exclusive rights for something you like watching so you have no other (legal) way to do it, right now it’s already a monopoly, a segregated one, but still a monopoly, because you have no choice.
Why on earth would capitalist companies do that though? That would guarantee most companies would not realize shareholder value.
Who gives a shit what they do? Piracy has never been easier or better than it is right now. Instead of being annoyed at their stupidity start teaching people you know how to use vpns and torrents.
Media companies used to be terrified of torrents. Now they don’t care anymore. It would nice to get that back
How much money does Netflix spend on trash series just to hope to get some exclusive? And how much money does Paramount+ spend on a broken platform full of issues?
Maybe if netflix spent those money on acquiring more IP, and producers like Paramount gave their IP to different streaming, they would make more money? I don’t have an answer to this question because it’s of course very complicated, what I’m saying is it doesn’t have to be like this.
How platforms are now is after a continuous growth over half a decade, it’s probably not sistainable to keep the same price with the same business model, so somwthing will have to change eventually
I’m not criticizing your rationale or anything. I’m just trying to get across how far from what you think things “should” be like and how they really are.
Imagine the infuriating arguments you have with boomer/geriatric family at Thanksgiving. except they’re in charge and have all the money and you’re constantly fighting their shortsighted thinking, racist bias, greed and ignorance…
That’s how decisions are made for these platforms.
We’re absolutely going ro see more and more ads on for-pay platforms because one of these geriatric greed monsters saw that another of their cohort made their hoard bigger last quarter so now they want that. Like a toddler who failed the marshmallow test. They don’t about your arguments. They have all the money so their clearly know much more than you.
I certainly won’t claim special insider knowledge as some anon on the Internet… but if you knew someone in the Industry you’d get similar stories.
I think there are a ton of valid arguments that they have far too much control of the music streaming market. At least enough power to affect the licensing costs and artist incomes.
There have been more than a few anti trust claims made against them.
Do I think they’re too big and have an outsized influence? Yes. Definitely.
At the moment at lot of what they’ve done have benefited consumers though, but that doesn’t mean that will always be true.
Never trust a profit driven business to work in your best interest.
So here’s an unpopular opinion, but this isn’t a bad thing. It’s just not enough.
The biggest reason that legal, paid Streaming is so shitty these days, the reason people miss old Netflix, is that everything is spread across so many different platforms now. Back in the day, just having Netflix meant you had just about everything, and if you wanted more still you could get Hulu… and that was it. One, maybe two subscriptions, and you’re set. But now? Now you need half a dozen subscriptions and you’re still picking what things you won’t get. If content was more centralized again, that wouldn’t be a problem.
And if content was more centralized, that centralized platform would have PLENTY of subscribers, they wouldn’t need to add commercials and hike prices just to stay afloat. I mean… they’d do it anyway because capitalism enshittifies everything, but it wouldn’t be a do or fail situation for them.
The only thing I ever used the Paramount streaming for was Trek. I wouldn’t complain if Trek, ALL Trek, migrated to somewhere else that has other things I like, too.
IMO, we really need an update to copyright law covering streaming. Think of how Redbox would just buy DVDs even though studios wanted them to wait about 2 months.
Streaming services should have a similar option. Then they’d need to compete on features, not on the streaming equivalent of “you can only watch this movie if you buy a Betamax player”.
The problem is that the people who hold the rights don’t want to share. They want that sweet, sweet, monthly subscription income. They don’t want to compete because that means they’ll potentially earn less and have to spend more.
I tell people about fmovies every chance I get because it has just about anything you are looking for. I’ve only run into a few titles they don’t have.
No registration, completely free, and easy to use.
It’s odd that people are against monopolies, generally speaking, but for streaming services we would prefer if there were a few giant companies which owned it all.
I’m not disagreeing with the above, just thought it was curious.
Compare Movie/TV-show streaming to the Music streaming industry. Spotify/Tidal/Apple/Amazon all offer access to the same music (more or less). They compete on features/quality/apps/prices/etc. They don’t compete based on their exclusive libraries. Somehow the music industry can survive in that model. Video streaming needs to do the same. Stop the exclusivity. This way, monopolies are not needed in video streaming.
People aren’t clamoring for a monopoly, they are asking for interoperability. I didn’t need a single VHS rental store to be the only place I could get Ernest Scared Stupid, but I did need to be able to get Ernest Goes to Jail at every VHS rental store.
I’m clamoring for more miak.
A mother’s love
All we’d really need to do that is just make it a law that contracts aren’t exclusive.
If shows were sold to multiple streaming services legally, then those services would compete based on the actual service they offer, and not the content they have.
In other words, make streaming services the customers for shows, instead of individuals, and then let people be their customers.
As it is, a streaming service is pretty comparable to a car dealership.
That’s not all we’d need to do though. Too many cases of the content rights holders also owning a streaming service means they’d just not sign any contracts. Disney, paramount, NBC, hell even Netflix owns content. We need to also break up so that right holders can’t also control the means of distribution.
No, my problem is that we have this system where each piece of content is its own monopoly. That exclusivity means that people need to use a specific service to access that content.
The whole “I wish it was all on one platform” isn’t really wishing for only a single platform to exist, but wishing that one platform could host all of the content. Ideally, there would be multiple ones doing this and differentiating themselves from each other in some way and, well, competing on their platform itself rather than “I paid a bunch of money so that you have to come here if you want to see anything Marvel.”
I think two or three viable platforms was kind of the sweet spot. It’s not all dominated by one, but I also don’t have to shop around and subscribe to five different things if I want to get what I want legally. But you’re right that it’s a sticky issue that just doesn’t seem to have a good answer.
The solution is mandatory licensing at fixed rates for media that is no longer under production. Make it so the only way to have exclusive content is to commit to continuing that content.
This is why I own most of star trek on dvd. Cant take that away from me.
Its also very difficult to find complete torrent for the series. Just too much content that nobody wants to host the wild file sizes
I was so disappointed when the HD remasters stopped. I snapped up TOS, Animated, TNG, and all the movies on Blu-ray (replacing DVDs in the case of the movies and TNG) despite them being available on Netflix at the time. I was really looking forward to catching up with DS9 and Voyager the same way since I was only able to catch them sporadically when they were airing… but no, it seems these are doomed to remain in SD purgatory.
There is a group has who completed an upscaling remaster of DS9. It’s very very well done (though could be better with better source material from the producers).
They are working on Voyager now that DS9 is done. They’ve completed season 1 of voyager so far.
https://ds9redefined.wordpress.com/
Thanks, I’ll have to keep that in mind. We just started season 5 of TNG so it shouldn’t be too much longer before DS9 is up.
If there a way to download that version?
They have instructions in Discord (https://discord.gg/qceXKtsM)
Im a special case. I do retro gaming so I still have a classic tube TV. SD content looks amazing when viewed on a CRT. I had to housesit for Someone and brought my TNG set only to be shocked at how terrible it looked on their 55" LCD.
I’ve also hung onto my old CRT (and consoles, players, etc.), I just haven’t had anywhere to hook it up for the past decade plus. My Blu-ray player does a pretty good job at upscaling, but you’re right - SD is going to look a lot better on the originally targeted hardware.
So you’re saying you want a media company that has a monopoly?
I mean, that’s a kind of shitty take. The point they’re making, that IP hoarding is making streaming fuck awful, is correct. They had a time in the recent past where that wasn’t the case and were trying to make an argument for why that should be again.
Content being centralized doesn’t require a monopoly, it requires the separation between streaming services and IP creators (like early Netflix). That would disincentivize the IP hoarding without requiring a monopoly.
Ya know, like movie theaters or video rental stores (when those existed). By allowing for vertical integration, you get Disney Movie Theaters, which only show Disney movies, and that blows (which is why any IP streaming service blows). Movie theaters, instead, show every movie coming out right now and that’s how streaming services should be. That way, the only way to compete is with app quality and price. Ya know, things customers actually give a fuck about.
I understand that the first person didn’t want a media monopoly, but your explanation and examples with movie theaters and rental stores really made the difference clear.
Streaming services should compete on quality of the platform, pricing and features, not exclusives. If every tv series and movie were available on every platforms, prices would drop and quality would increase, as the platforms try and be the best, it’s the contrary of monopoly because people can freely choose. Now they don’t care about being the best, they try and get exclusive rights for something you like watching so you have no other (legal) way to do it, right now it’s already a monopoly, a segregated one, but still a monopoly, because you have no choice.
Why on earth would capitalist companies do that though? That would guarantee most companies would not realize shareholder value.
Who gives a shit what they do? Piracy has never been easier or better than it is right now. Instead of being annoyed at their stupidity start teaching people you know how to use vpns and torrents.
Media companies used to be terrified of torrents. Now they don’t care anymore. It would nice to get that back
How much money does Netflix spend on trash series just to hope to get some exclusive? And how much money does Paramount+ spend on a broken platform full of issues?
Maybe if netflix spent those money on acquiring more IP, and producers like Paramount gave their IP to different streaming, they would make more money? I don’t have an answer to this question because it’s of course very complicated, what I’m saying is it doesn’t have to be like this.
How platforms are now is after a continuous growth over half a decade, it’s probably not sistainable to keep the same price with the same business model, so somwthing will have to change eventually
I’m not criticizing your rationale or anything. I’m just trying to get across how far from what you think things “should” be like and how they really are.
Imagine the infuriating arguments you have with boomer/geriatric family at Thanksgiving. except they’re in charge and have all the money and you’re constantly fighting their shortsighted thinking, racist bias, greed and ignorance…
That’s how decisions are made for these platforms.
We’re absolutely going ro see more and more ads on for-pay platforms because one of these geriatric greed monsters saw that another of their cohort made their hoard bigger last quarter so now they want that. Like a toddler who failed the marshmallow test. They don’t about your arguments. They have all the money so their clearly know much more than you.
I certainly won’t claim special insider knowledge as some anon on the Internet… but if you knew someone in the Industry you’d get similar stories.
I can listen to pretty much any song I want on Spotify. Does Spotify have a monopoly?
I think there are a ton of valid arguments that they have far too much control of the music streaming market. At least enough power to affect the licensing costs and artist incomes.
There have been more than a few anti trust claims made against them.
Do I think they’re too big and have an outsized influence? Yes. Definitely.
At the moment at lot of what they’ve done have benefited consumers though, but that doesn’t mean that will always be true.
Never trust a profit driven business to work in your best interest.