6 ms·

I'd say the endgame for content is for everyone to just pay some fee (tax?), regardless of how much you watch, and it gets apportioned over the providers of wha

by SilasX 6y ago

I'd say the endgame for content is for everyone to just pay some fee (tax?), regardless of how much you watch, and it gets apportioned over the providers of whatever content you end up viewing. That gets the incentives right all around.

SomewhatLikely 6y ago
I suppose this is how Youtube premium works. I think they have trouble attracting higher cost content though. I'd prefer if they had a higher tier where you can pay more and get a quality of content that matches what major networks can do.
ojbyrne 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_...
- SilasX 6y ago
  No, that's not the same model, because the different TV shows aren't paid by ratings.
listenallyall 6y ago
so, like, cable tv?
- SilasX 6y ago
  No, that's not the same model, your payments have no relation to what you watch, and, to the extent that you do, it's largely ad funded.
  - listenallyall 6y ago
    No relation? Fees to content providers are indeed allocated by their popularity, in aggregate. It's why ESPN gets paid (by the cable company) much more than other channels. The only difference in your proposal is the extremely inefficient calculation of millions of individual persons' viewing hours and moving pennies around for each.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      How is it more inefficient than what you claim cable TV is doing? And I thought the cable payments were periodically renegotiated, not done in terms of direct a hour-watched -> higher portion translation. If that is how they do it, then the system I proposed is more complex, yes, but more economically efficient because it more precisely rewards content creators. Furthermore, as mentioned above, cable double dips by having ads, while the purpose of this system is to fund it without needing ads. So not the same thing.
      - listenallyall 6y ago
        Seems like you'd already know this, but money doesn't just grow on trees. No ads just means content costs viewers more out-of-wallet dollars. Hulu has a cheap subscription with ads, or a more expensive one without them. HBO doesn't have ads... and you have to pay extra to add it to your cable package. Your "funding" concept is simply a higher price tag.
        SilasX 6y ago
        I'm not sure where my comment implied that money grows on trees; that condescension isn't warranted. And I left it deliberately vague about how much the monthly fee is -- there are different models consistent with what I described. The point is, to simply apportion directly it over what people actually watch, rather than the clumsy system of paying for a specific provider and some unrelated amount of money going to the content.
triceratops 6y ago
It's called a public library. They carry DVDs of movies and TV shows.
- SilasX 6y ago
  No, that's not the same model -- doesn't involve the apportionment by use.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    True. But the library's share of local taxes is already so low it hardly matters. How much are you going to divide a couple dollars/month by?
    - SilasX 6y ago
      It matters when the point of the idea is to ensure that the alignment of incentives between producers and consumers, which requires that producers be paid by how popular their content is. If you forgot the history, you were trying to cite libraries as an example of something following the model I described, which it does not[1], and now you're bringing up how low the tax revenue is, which is of dubious relevance. [1] nor does a single library's physical DVD rental satisfy the entire internet market
      - triceratops 6y ago
        > now you're bringing up how low the tax revenue is, which is of dubious relevance. Sorry, I misunderstood "apportionment by use" as meaning "division of payment by users, according to usage". That's what I get for not reading the original comment thoroughly, which suggested a flat per-user fee, distributed to content owners :-P. However, I think libraries still fit the bill. > that producers be paid by how popular their content is Libraries tend to buy more copies of popular content to reduce waiting time for patrons. So this does happen. > nor does a single library's physical DVD rental satisfy the entire internet market Libraries don't have to do only physical DVDs. They already loan e-books, there's no reason (other than the availability of licensing) they couldn't do the same for movies and TV shows. And a library can certainly satisfy the demand in its city.

by SilasX 6y ago

SomewhatLikely 6y ago

I suppose this is how Youtube premium works. I think they have trouble attracting higher cost content though. I'd prefer if they had a higher tier where you can pay more and get a quality of content that matches what major networks can do.

ojbyrne 6y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_...

SilasX 6y ago
No, that's not the same model, because the different TV shows aren't paid by ratings.

listenallyall 6y ago

so, like, cable tv?

SilasX 6y ago
No, that's not the same model, your payments have no relation to what you watch, and, to the extent that you do, it's largely ad funded.
- listenallyall 6y ago
  No relation? Fees to content providers are indeed allocated by their popularity, in aggregate. It's why ESPN gets paid (by the cable company) much more than other channels. The only difference in your proposal is the extremely inefficient calculation of millions of individual persons' viewing hours and moving pennies around for each.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    How is it more inefficient than what you claim cable TV is doing? And I thought the cable payments were periodically renegotiated, not done in terms of direct a hour-watched -> higher portion translation. If that is how they do it, then the system I proposed is more complex, yes, but more economically efficient because it more precisely rewards content creators. Furthermore, as mentioned above, cable double dips by having ads, while the purpose of this system is to fund it without needing ads. So not the same thing.
    - listenallyall 6y ago
      Seems like you'd already know this, but money doesn't just grow on trees. No ads just means content costs viewers more out-of-wallet dollars. Hulu has a cheap subscription with ads, or a more expensive one without them. HBO doesn't have ads... and you have to pay extra to add it to your cable package. Your "funding" concept is simply a higher price tag.
      - SilasX 6y ago
        I'm not sure where my comment implied that money grows on trees; that condescension isn't warranted. And I left it deliberately vague about how much the monthly fee is -- there are different models consistent with what I described. The point is, to simply apportion directly it over what people actually watch, rather than the clumsy system of paying for a specific provider and some unrelated amount of money going to the content.

triceratops 6y ago

It's called a public library. They carry DVDs of movies and TV shows.

SilasX 6y ago
No, that's not the same model -- doesn't involve the apportionment by use.
- triceratops 6y ago
  True. But the library's share of local taxes is already so low it hardly matters. How much are you going to divide a couple dollars/month by?
  - SilasX 6y ago
    It matters when the point of the idea is to ensure that the alignment of incentives between producers and consumers, which requires that producers be paid by how popular their content is. If you forgot the history, you were trying to cite libraries as an example of something following the model I described, which it does not[1], and now you're bringing up how low the tax revenue is, which is of dubious relevance. [1] nor does a single library's physical DVD rental satisfy the entire internet market
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > now you're bringing up how low the tax revenue is, which is of dubious relevance. Sorry, I misunderstood "apportionment by use" as meaning "division of payment by users, according to usage". That's what I get for not reading the original comment thoroughly, which suggested a flat per-user fee, distributed to content owners :-P. However, I think libraries still fit the bill. > that producers be paid by how popular their content is Libraries tend to buy more copies of popular content to reduce waiting time for patrons. So this does happen. > nor does a single library's physical DVD rental satisfy the entire internet market Libraries don't have to do only physical DVDs. They already loan e-books, there's no reason (other than the availability of licensing) they couldn't do the same for movies and TV shows. And a library can certainly satisfy the demand in its city.