4 ms·
it came from the concept that they sought to replace : in-person rental companies. Blockbuster didn't only stock Paramount pictures -- and people wouldn't have
by serf 7y ago
it came from the concept that they sought to replace : in-person rental companies.
Blockbuster didn't only stock Paramount pictures -- and people wouldn't have had much patience for rental groups that worked that way when there were alternatives that didn't -- piracy being the alternative here.
- flukus 7y ago> Blockbuster didn't only stock Paramount pictures Keep in mind the this was only because of some monopoly busting decades earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... With Disney owning so much of the production and now entering the distribution/retail side there might be some more anti-trust cases coming.
- runevault 7y agoIf the govt was going to nail Disney for anti-trust they wouldn't have let them buy Fox. Disney + was being talked about before the deal was approved.
- scarface74 7y agoBlockbuster could stock anything it wanted without the studio’s blessing by just buying DVDs at retail (even though they had special deals with the studio to get reduced prices). Netflix can only stream what they are allowed to. If you want the convenience of the Blockbuster model there are always rentals from Amazon, Apple, Google Play etc. Yes I realize that some movies aren’t available for rent.
- cannonedhamster 7y agoIt's well past time for there to be a mechanical license for streaming copyrighted video content. This lock down garbage is just that. Copyright is a joke that provides zero benefit to the public, little benefit to the starving artist, and almost all the benefit to the mega corporations. Sonny Bono is a plague on creativity and his law was even worse.