Compulsory licensing for streaming should be a thing. It exists for radio, why not video? Let services get 1-2 years of exclusivity. After that it’s fair game for any streaming service to stream it. All services pay into a pool that gets refistributed to the rights holders. We have been doing that for decades for radio, for the EU blank media tax, etc. It’s a solved problem.
Yaaar 🏴☠️
The real answer here
An individual solution, for sure. But unless you get a large plurality to join in, it won’t change the landscape that we have.
👍
Seems like for most people they would be better off cancelling most streaming services and only renewing for a month or two when enough new content is there rather than having multiple ongoing subscriptions.
This is still the major benefit over old cable services. It is trivial to cancel. You can cancel right after signing up again and ride out the month. Not so much with old cable packages.
I think many people are afraid that they’re always going to find content they want is on a service they just let lapse. That isn’t even a big deal, just renew it then, but if it isn’t then you save money.
Disney makes it a little more enticing because their bundle is cheaper than Hulu or Disney Plus on their own, but if all the stuff you watch on a month is on Hulu then you’re not saving anything by keeping the unused Disney sub.
Hey, let’s make a startup! We charge users fixed fee and in return give them account in ONE streaming service. They can choose which one but and change them every month.
Mandatory yearly contacts incoming.
Startup time! We buy early subscriptions and rent them on monthly basis. €€€
Not rethink … break up.
🏴☠️
Blaming the shareholders is partly disingenuous. Yes the shareholder problem is real, but yes the corporation has power to address it directly. There is no law that says short term profit must be maximized.
And good riddance to the streaming services. We just don’t need them.
There is no law that says short term profit must be maximized.
There basically is.
If you read that Wikipedia page, you will find that it says the opposite of what you thought it said. Oops!
If you also read it you’ll find the quotes are controversial
Courts have often agreed with shareholders in shareholder lawsuits about such things
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But with the most recent round of services like Disney Plus, Hulu, Peacock, and Paramount Plus raising their prices — during Hollywood’s ongoing double labor strike, no less — to meet the demand of shareholders for never-ending profits, the time has come for all of us to seriously rethink our relationships with the platforms that have become “the new cable.”
Over the weekend, the Financial Times published a bit of analysis about the current state of streaming that should only come as a surprise to those who haven’t been paying attention to how most of the major Subscription Video On Demand (SVOD) platforms, and many smaller ones like Starz, Shudder, and BritBox, have hiked up their prices in the past year.
After years of burning through mountains of cash to fill their catalogs with original programming, the big SVOD services are now charging their subscribers more than ever because it’s increasingly difficult to draw in new customers — and because the mere perception of growth is no longer enough to keep their shareholders happy.
But much like the practice of memory-holing films and series just for tax write-offs, the push to goose subscription numbers by imposing new restrictions on old customers also highlights how this late stage of the streaming wars is being defined by the prioritization of profit margins over user experience.
Even though the streamers love being seen and celebrated as pop cultural tastemakers, Netflix — like its competition — is a company in the business of making money that owes much of its success to the way consumers have bought into the idea of it being absolutely necessary to keep up with every single new film or show that hits the internet.
To make things even trickier, the success of those streaming hits and others like them was undoubtedly influenced by the degree to which viewers were regularly flocking to social media platforms like Twitter to discuss them — a habit that feels like it’s on the decline in the era of Elon Musk’s X.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Did anyone said Stremio? No? I might have imagined it. All this time out at see and this is what you get.
I heard torrents.
I know it sounds naive but honestly I just wish I could consume media and when I like it I can just send them some money without any hassle.
Perhaps a monthly preset amount that is spread out over my consumption.
I know the pirate bay guys did something like that where you have a centralized subscription and can like blog posts and the like.
However I’d prefer something like crypto, but also convenient and controlled by a Foss program running on my own hardware.
Dreams am I right.
Minus the crypto (save for big maybe monero), I completely agree. I just don’t want to primarily support the middle men and would rather support the creators. I don’t mind giving them some money to distribute the media, but not even close to the lion’s share they get now.
Ya I was actually hesitant to write that. Let’s just say an open protocol for conveniently sending money.
It’s sad how certain words and technologies get saddled with reflexive opposition even when it makes perfect sense to use them. Nuclear power is another example.
Yah that’s unfortunate, because it’s always more nuanced. Maybe there is a way that works with nuclear.
I know it sounds naive but honestly I just wish I could consume media and when I like it I can just send them some money without any hassle.
So the artist gets a cut of every stream? Isn’t that just Spotify’s model, which is infamously kinda shit for the actual artists?
The artist can run their own website in this model. As long as it’s easy for me to send money in whatever way I please, using my own program.
How come there can be laws about manufacturers not selling directly to consumers for cars where it makes no fucking sense but not for media where it might actually be beneficial.
Laws regulating TV shows? I just don’t see any need for it. We will all be fine without that media. Read a book or take a walk or browse free online media.
Of course simultaneous price increases suggest a possible antitrust issue, and that should be dealt with (but don’t cross your fingers) along with all the other antitrust issues in other areas.
Laws around content producers distributing their own content so we end up with every company with it’s own streaming service. That way we would have 3rd party ones that have all the content and we can choose based on platform features rather than content being held hostage.
I’m sure it would be difficult and maybe impossible to do in practice but I can dream right.
deleted by creator
We all just rent stuff now and it’s super annoying since the company decides when the rent is over, not us. Despite paying for the service each month, we have no say in what stays and what disappears.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This color scheme is jarring! Reading mode to the rescue!
Yea after The Verge got their new “look” I now read everything on there in reading mode, its a sh!tshow, the person responsible should be shot in the face with a cream pie
And here I was thinking my 15 year old self was a dork for doing HTML-websites with color=“black” as background and color=“red” as font color…
