4 ms·

I read the comments here before reading the article...and I was pleasantly surprised by the article. It wasn't a "haha, look at how unsophisticated some people

I read the comments here before reading the article...and I was pleasantly surprised by the article. It wasn't a "haha, look at how unsophisticated some people are", it was a pretty on-target list of reasons why online subscriptions services aren't currently meeting all needs. I'm actually surprised it's "only" 2.7M Americans - the DVD service didn't match the convenience of online services, but was still a great experience. I myself am lucky enough to have great broadband, but I've been getting annoyed with how series will move on/off the service (I see monthly "What's leaving Netflix this month" articles in some places), I'm annoyed with how Netflix has made their system "pushier" (such as constantly looping ads), how they gave me an ability to build a personal want-to-watch list and then hide that away making it hard to benefit from, and in particular, how I now have to balance multiple subscription services if I want to see the shows I want to see. Side Note: As annoyed as I am with Netflix from time to time, they beat the pants off of Hulu when it comes to interface, and remain nicer than Amazon.

dmitriid 8y ago
The greatest con that copyright holders pulled is to convince the public that service providers are to blame. (Netflix, Hulu, Apple for movies; Spotify, Pandora, Apple, Deezer for music; ebooks, audiobooks etc.) Meanwhile dipshits like Warner, Sony, Disney hold everyone hostage.
- mindslight 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure the greatest con copyright holders pulled is getting copyright to last longer than 5 years.
  - pwinnski 8y ago
    Back when the USA was established, it was 14 years, or 28 if renewed. That seems reasonable to me.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      I think 7 years, or 14 if renewed would be better. The early copyright systems came into being in the 1700s; present-day distribution chains are much faster.
      - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
        I'm not sure the speed of distribution is the relevant consideration. I can distribute a book I publish much more easily now, but the book isn't written and edited any faster.
        _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        But it can become known/popular much faster, I would assume.
        chipotle_coyote 8y ago
        That would be my assumption, too, although it'd be interesting to try to find data to confirm that. Books (picking the field I know the most about) could still sell really well and really quickly back in the "old days"; reviews often came out in advance of the book, bookstores could take pre-orders, and so on. I don't have any real data about how the "old way" balances out against the "new way."
        _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        That's true. But the audiences are surely much bigger now. (Both gross population and literacy would have been lower.)
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Life of creator seems reasonable to me. Something approaching that for something created by a company also seems reasonable to me. There's a big difference between something which is copyrighted and, say, something which is patented. A patent is a discovery, which implies that it could have been discovered by somebody else, so I think it's pretty reasonable that patents don't last as long as copyright. Copyrighted works, on the other hand, literally could not exist without the specific people who created them. Their existence it tied, intrinsically, to the creator. If Prince never existed, Purple Rain would have never come to exist. So I think something approaching the life of the creator is reasonable and reflects this special existential relationship between the creator and the work. Just my opinion. FWIW.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      > Life of creator seems reasonable to me Why? If the creator actually makes things that people want, you should incentivise them to make more things. Giving them lifetime copyright disincentivises that. A limited (say 5-, 10-year) copyright allows them to profit from successes, but prevents them from resting on their laurels from a single success - not because they do or don't 'deserve' to, but because we want them to create more things during their lifetime.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        Because economic productivity is not the only (or even the primary) concern that we should have when considering property rights. I mean, do you also believe that ownership of tangible assets (like your house) should be limited to 5 years? By your reasoning, it would be bad if people were able to accumulate assets, because then they would haven no motivation to keep working and creating value.
        _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        Copyright is different in many respects from ownership of tangible assets. You and I can both read the works of Shakespeare at the same time (with millions of other people) with no conflicts, but only so many people can 'use' a house at the same time. The original point of copyright was to encourage creators to create (if their creations could be immediately 'used' for free by others, they would have much less reason to create in the first place). It has little public value otherwise.
Twirrim 8y ago
2.7M seems really low. We primarily still have the paid for DVD service because there's a whole bunch of movies and TV shows that just aren't available via streaming services. For example we were just using it for the final series of True Blood, because all the previous series are on Amazon Prime, but not the last one. There's a lot of classic movies missing from online services, as well, particularly MGM ones.
- gideon_b 8y ago
  I don't think I have seen a Netflix DVD advertisement in a decade. I would bet that the majority of those 2.7M subscribers joined before Netflix streaming began and never saw a reason to cancel.
  - lenocinor 8y ago
    I've been using Netflix DVD since it started and I'm still using it happily, mainly for the selection. I think there are a lot of movie buffs like me that use it just for that reason.

dmitriid 8y ago

The greatest con that copyright holders pulled is to convince the public that service providers are to blame. (Netflix, Hulu, Apple for movies; Spotify, Pandora, Apple, Deezer for music; ebooks, audiobooks etc.) Meanwhile dipshits like Warner, Sony, Disney hold everyone hostage.

mindslight 8y ago
I'm pretty sure the greatest con copyright holders pulled is getting copyright to last longer than 5 years.
- pwinnski 8y ago
  Back when the USA was established, it was 14 years, or 28 if renewed. That seems reasonable to me.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    I think 7 years, or 14 if renewed would be better. The early copyright systems came into being in the 1700s; present-day distribution chains are much faster.
    - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
      I'm not sure the speed of distribution is the relevant consideration. I can distribute a book I publish much more easily now, but the book isn't written and edited any faster.
      - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        But it can become known/popular much faster, I would assume.
        chipotle_coyote 8y ago
        That would be my assumption, too, although it'd be interesting to try to find data to confirm that. Books (picking the field I know the most about) could still sell really well and really quickly back in the "old days"; reviews often came out in advance of the book, bookstores could take pre-orders, and so on. I don't have any real data about how the "old way" balances out against the "new way."
        _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        That's true. But the audiences are surely much bigger now. (Both gross population and literacy would have been lower.)
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Life of creator seems reasonable to me. Something approaching that for something created by a company also seems reasonable to me. There's a big difference between something which is copyrighted and, say, something which is patented. A patent is a discovery, which implies that it could have been discovered by somebody else, so I think it's pretty reasonable that patents don't last as long as copyright. Copyrighted works, on the other hand, literally could not exist without the specific people who created them. Their existence it tied, intrinsically, to the creator. If Prince never existed, Purple Rain would have never come to exist. So I think something approaching the life of the creator is reasonable and reflects this special existential relationship between the creator and the work. Just my opinion. FWIW.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    > Life of creator seems reasonable to me Why? If the creator actually makes things that people want, you should incentivise them to make more things. Giving them lifetime copyright disincentivises that. A limited (say 5-, 10-year) copyright allows them to profit from successes, but prevents them from resting on their laurels from a single success - not because they do or don't 'deserve' to, but because we want them to create more things during their lifetime.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Because economic productivity is not the only (or even the primary) concern that we should have when considering property rights. I mean, do you also believe that ownership of tangible assets (like your house) should be limited to 5 years? By your reasoning, it would be bad if people were able to accumulate assets, because then they would haven no motivation to keep working and creating value.
      - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
        Copyright is different in many respects from ownership of tangible assets. You and I can both read the works of Shakespeare at the same time (with millions of other people) with no conflicts, but only so many people can 'use' a house at the same time. The original point of copyright was to encourage creators to create (if their creations could be immediately 'used' for free by others, they would have much less reason to create in the first place). It has little public value otherwise.

Twirrim 8y ago

2.7M seems really low. We primarily still have the paid for DVD service because there's a whole bunch of movies and TV shows that just aren't available via streaming services. For example we were just using it for the final series of True Blood, because all the previous series are on Amazon Prime, but not the last one. There's a lot of classic movies missing from online services, as well, particularly MGM ones.

gideon_b 8y ago
I don't think I have seen a Netflix DVD advertisement in a decade. I would bet that the majority of those 2.7M subscribers joined before Netflix streaming began and never saw a reason to cancel.
- lenocinor 8y ago
  I've been using Netflix DVD since it started and I'm still using it happily, mainly for the selection. I think there are a lot of movie buffs like me that use it just for that reason.