3 ms·

Whatever theoretical money they definitely lose through their control-freak tendencies is small potatoes compared to the unending money stream that their lust f

Whatever theoretical money they definitely lose through their control-freak tendencies is small potatoes compared to the unending money stream that their lust for control all-but-guarantees them. I get your point, and it's a very valid point, but they already make shitloads of cash, their RoI is huge, they -collectively- control and maintain the rights to a really rather good golden goose, and they are still good at acquiring and securing the rights to new stuff that is in demand (whether manufactured or genuine). > If there is healthy competition, they can always ditch one and chose a competitor which balances this issue. In a healthy market, creators should distribute all their content through all available distributors. Perhaps my brain is poisoned by looking at this through the eyes of Big Media. How would this work? Remember a few things: * There really aren't that many companies in Big Media, but they've managed to amass quite a lot of power, and influence, and a fair bit of money. * If all media that is made available is made available through all channels at the same wholesale price, then retail sellers can only distinguish themselves through ease of use, lower overhead (which enables lower retail price), or other "value-adding" things like social networking integration. What's to prevent the five or ten real media distribution heavyweights that would inevitably emerge from doing the very same thing that Big Media currently does to everyone: using strong-arm tactics and back-room collusion to keep Big Media weak and in a position where the distributors set the price?

shmerl 11y ago
> they already make shitloads of cash And I don't understand why they wouldn't to make more. Removing all those pesky restrictions would just give them even more sales than they already get. All I can guess is like I said above - they value control over reach and profit (calling them control freaks was very appropriate ;)). > Perhaps my brain is poisoned by looking at this through the eyes of Big Media. How would this work? I'm looking at it simply from perspective of potential creator. Most of the time I personally don't care about "big media" and its dull commercial mass market art. But going back to creators - for me it seems pretty simple. Let's say someone wrote music, a book or made a film or computer game or whatever other artistic work. They need to break even and profit to be able to create more art. So, the way the do it is by reaching as many people as possible, right? And distributors come in play and help them to increase that reach. The more distributors they use, the more potential people they'll reach. Any kind of exclusives would mean lower reach for them. Pretty straightforward, no? > If all media that is made available is made available through all channels at the same wholesale price, then retail sellers can only distinguish themselves through ease of use, lower overhead (which enables lower retail price), or other "value-adding" things like social networking integration. Distributors can compete on features like you said. Exclusives of course give them an advantage, but only they benefit. It hurts both creators and people who are forced to use certain distributor to get what they want. For instance, many computer games (which is probably one of the most successful art forms for independent creators today) are released through as many distributors as possible, obviously to increase reach. > What's to prevent the five or ten real media distribution heavyweights that would inevitably emerge from doing the very same thing that Big Media currently does to everyone: using strong-arm tactics and back-room collusion to keep Big Media weak and in a position where the distributors set the price? Good question. In theory competition + anti-trust laws should prevent that. Collusion and price fixing are really illegal. But if competition is strong, they won't be interested in doing it anyway. In practice I agree that anti-trust laws are rarely enforced, and bad players manipulate the market way too often.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > And I don't understand why they wouldn't to make more. In the long run, the industry as a whole might make more money, but it's certain that each individual company wouldn't. As you say, investigations into collusion and price fixing are substantially more rare than they should be. If Big Media loses the ability to refuse to grant parts of their catalog to one distributor or another, enough distributors to matter can easily band together to force reductions in media licensing fees. > I'm looking at it simply from perspective of potential creator. Ah. Well, that (in all seriousness) is a useful and valid conversation to have, but you asked why a site that streamed media controlled by Big Media wouldn't do the obvious thing and let you download what you stream. The answer is that Big Media won't let them; sometimes under any circumstances, other times unless the site pays a lot more than they pay for just streaming rights. I agree that the state of Big Media's licensing regime is really rather bad for society overall, but it's fantastically good for Big Media.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    Big media control over creators is gradually eroding with crowdfunding providing more independence for creators. But as long as people support bad practices with their money (i.e. buy stuff from DRMed services and the like) they'll of course feed the machine :)

shmerl 11y ago

> they already make shitloads of cash And I don't understand why they wouldn't to make more. Removing all those pesky restrictions would just give them even more sales than they already get. All I can guess is like I said above - they value control over reach and profit (calling them control freaks was very appropriate ;)). > Perhaps my brain is poisoned by looking at this through the eyes of Big Media. How would this work? I'm looking at it simply from perspective of potential creator. Most of the time I personally don't care about "big media" and its dull commercial mass market art. But going back to creators - for me it seems pretty simple. Let's say someone wrote music, a book or made a film or computer game or whatever other artistic work. They need to break even and profit to be able to create more art. So, the way the do it is by reaching as many people as possible, right? And distributors come in play and help them to increase that reach. The more distributors they use, the more potential people they'll reach. Any kind of exclusives would mean lower reach for them. Pretty straightforward, no? > If all media that is made available is made available through all channels at the same wholesale price, then retail sellers can only distinguish themselves through ease of use, lower overhead (which enables lower retail price), or other "value-adding" things like social networking integration. Distributors can compete on features like you said. Exclusives of course give them an advantage, but only they benefit. It hurts both creators and people who are forced to use certain distributor to get what they want. For instance, many computer games (which is probably one of the most successful art forms for independent creators today) are released through as many distributors as possible, obviously to increase reach. > What's to prevent the five or ten real media distribution heavyweights that would inevitably emerge from doing the very same thing that Big Media currently does to everyone: using strong-arm tactics and back-room collusion to keep Big Media weak and in a position where the distributors set the price? Good question. In theory competition + anti-trust laws should prevent that. Collusion and price fixing are really illegal. But if competition is strong, they won't be interested in doing it anyway. In practice I agree that anti-trust laws are rarely enforced, and bad players manipulate the market way too often.

simoncion 11y ago
> And I don't understand why they wouldn't to make more. In the long run, the industry as a whole might make more money, but it's certain that each individual company wouldn't. As you say, investigations into collusion and price fixing are substantially more rare than they should be. If Big Media loses the ability to refuse to grant parts of their catalog to one distributor or another, enough distributors to matter can easily band together to force reductions in media licensing fees. > I'm looking at it simply from perspective of potential creator. Ah. Well, that (in all seriousness) is a useful and valid conversation to have, but you asked why a site that streamed media controlled by Big Media wouldn't do the obvious thing and let you download what you stream. The answer is that Big Media won't let them; sometimes under any circumstances, other times unless the site pays a lot more than they pay for just streaming rights. I agree that the state of Big Media's licensing regime is really rather bad for society overall, but it's fantastically good for Big Media.
- shmerl 11y ago
  Big media control over creators is gradually eroding with crowdfunding providing more independence for creators. But as long as people support bad practices with their money (i.e. buy stuff from DRMed services and the like) they'll of course feed the machine :)