4 ms·

I understand that I'm a minority but the point remains: Why would the movie industry follow the streaming model when Spotify shows that nobody's earninng a livi

I understand that I'm a minority but the point remains: Why would the movie industry follow the streaming model when Spotify shows that nobody's earninng a living with that solution?

iamben 11y ago
Because we're not going to go back to DVDs. And eventually, something like popcorntime will just become the ubiquitous, go to solution that ultimately hurts them further, because it'll do what can't be done legally.
- thirdsun 11y ago
  I still don't see how this makes streaming an unavoidable development, or a desirable one from the creator's perspective. Nobody wants to bring back DVDs - I haven't bought a CD in years, but that doesn't stop me from buying a lot of music as digital, lossless download. I can't do the same with movies. That's the problem I'm facing with the movie industry and the solution is easy: Allow me to buy DRM-free, high quality video files and we're good - that is a very legal and easy solution. Just because streaming is popular with users, it doesn't have to make financial sense - in fact it doesn't. Just ask most people working in music.
  - iamben 11y ago
    DRM free, high quality videos will get bought once, shared with friends, etc. And I'd suspect a whole load of people will just go back to torrenting (or whatever is popular at the time) because they know they'll find a perfect copy straight away. If you give them the model to buy and play immediately (the convenience of a streaming service), you're just iTunes. Or you may as well stream. You can't argue that for John Everyman, Netflix/Spotify/etc. are super convenient. I make one payment a month, of a set fee for which I have budgeted. I open the app, I choose, I press play. Or I don't. I can do it once a month, or all day long. I understand your point regarding financial sense and artists, but times change. Just ask most people driving taxis. They'll tell you Uber is destroying an industry. It may be. But we're all using it. I don't know the answer. But clinging on to something that's slipping away, rather than letting go and channeling your energy elsewhere usually hurts more in the long run.
pjc50 11y ago
Spotify isn't competing with other industry distribution methods. Distribution is a solved problem: there's no technical reason why anyone can't listen to any recorded music ever whenever they want for near-zero distribution cost, through torrents. "Only allowing distribution methods that get paid" is the problem. The content industries are now in the business of preventing distribution, which turns into an eternal war on the open internet. The streaming model de-escalates this and provides a way of paying for convenience.
- thirdsun 11y ago
  > provides a way of paying for convenience That's the problem: 10 bucks a month, ad supported or simply torrenting...it hardly matters unless people keep buying (not renting) content. You're not going to save any artist who depends on it, no matter how good you feel about your legally flawless Spotify subscription. Furthermore I don't see how the availability through torrents is of any importance - with the same argument we might as well stop paying for any digital goods...including software, apps, you name it.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    People do stop paying. Moral heckling doesn't work. Trying to guilt people about artists doesn't work. Prosecution looks absurdly heavy-handed and costs more than it brings in. How are you going to get people to pay? And how are you going to compete with the ever-increasing amount of free content out there, using up people's finite leisure time?

I understand that I'm a minority but the point remains: Why would the movie industry follow the streaming model when Spotify shows that nobody's earninng a living with that solution?

iamben 11y ago

Because we're not going to go back to DVDs. And eventually, something like popcorntime will just become the ubiquitous, go to solution that ultimately hurts them further, because it'll do what can't be done legally.

thirdsun 11y ago
I still don't see how this makes streaming an unavoidable development, or a desirable one from the creator's perspective. Nobody wants to bring back DVDs - I haven't bought a CD in years, but that doesn't stop me from buying a lot of music as digital, lossless download. I can't do the same with movies. That's the problem I'm facing with the movie industry and the solution is easy: Allow me to buy DRM-free, high quality video files and we're good - that is a very legal and easy solution. Just because streaming is popular with users, it doesn't have to make financial sense - in fact it doesn't. Just ask most people working in music.
- iamben 11y ago
  DRM free, high quality videos will get bought once, shared with friends, etc. And I'd suspect a whole load of people will just go back to torrenting (or whatever is popular at the time) because they know they'll find a perfect copy straight away. If you give them the model to buy and play immediately (the convenience of a streaming service), you're just iTunes. Or you may as well stream. You can't argue that for John Everyman, Netflix/Spotify/etc. are super convenient. I make one payment a month, of a set fee for which I have budgeted. I open the app, I choose, I press play. Or I don't. I can do it once a month, or all day long. I understand your point regarding financial sense and artists, but times change. Just ask most people driving taxis. They'll tell you Uber is destroying an industry. It may be. But we're all using it. I don't know the answer. But clinging on to something that's slipping away, rather than letting go and channeling your energy elsewhere usually hurts more in the long run.

pjc50 11y ago

Spotify isn't competing with other industry distribution methods. Distribution is a solved problem: there's no technical reason why anyone can't listen to any recorded music ever whenever they want for near-zero distribution cost, through torrents. "Only allowing distribution methods that get paid" is the problem. The content industries are now in the business of preventing distribution, which turns into an eternal war on the open internet. The streaming model de-escalates this and provides a way of paying for convenience.

thirdsun 11y ago
> provides a way of paying for convenience That's the problem: 10 bucks a month, ad supported or simply torrenting...it hardly matters unless people keep buying (not renting) content. You're not going to save any artist who depends on it, no matter how good you feel about your legally flawless Spotify subscription. Furthermore I don't see how the availability through torrents is of any importance - with the same argument we might as well stop paying for any digital goods...including software, apps, you name it.
- pjc50 11y ago
  People do stop paying. Moral heckling doesn't work. Trying to guilt people about artists doesn't work. Prosecution looks absurdly heavy-handed and costs more than it brings in. How are you going to get people to pay? And how are you going to compete with the ever-increasing amount of free content out there, using up people's finite leisure time?