3 ms·

Nobody was ever going to make all TV and movie content available for $9 a month to everyone. The idea that Netflix could last the way it used to be was ridiculo

Nobody was ever going to make all TV and movie content available for $9 a month to everyone. The idea that Netflix could last the way it used to be was ridiculous.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Copyright infringement makes everything ever created available for $0 a month. If streaming services can't do the same, they suck and are failing to compete.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  The position that "theft is free, so anything not given away fails to compete" is not a realistic position to argue with.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I don't know if that will be unrealistic in the future. Once AI is making the content you consume, the price seems like it would rapidly approach zero.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    Too bad theft is an option then, because the paid services must compete with it. There are more dimensions than price. (Also infringement isn't theft but if you haven't been convinced by now...)
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Theft is not free, copying data is. They're the ones making everything worse for everybody because they can't deal with that reality. These streaming services can't even manage to produce a video player with decent controls, we had better software in the 90s. Also, copyright infringement is not theft. It's copyright infringement and it's only a problem if you accept the notion that copyright is a legitimate system to begin with.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    It's the only realistic position. Heck, it's the only reason streaming services can exist; without piracy pressure everything would be pay per view or pay per stream at far higher rates.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Copyright extension is theft by lobbies pressuring the legislative body against the spirit (and original letter) of the law. In this sense, thousands of movies and albums (stuff recorded before 1970) would be public domain now based on the 1901 copyright terms... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      Yeah. They reap all these benefits. When it's OUR turn to exercise our public domain rights, they change the rules of the game. They move the goalposts. Why respect their rights when they don't respect ours? There is absolutely no reason to recognize their "property" as legitimate.
  - prepend 5y ago
    When theft has a better user experience that’s important. Important because it’s more user oriented than the plethora of poorly designed apps with dark patterns to piss me off but keep me subscribed. It’s important because it’s the reality. Today, my janky RSS feed setup dumping stuff to a network folder is better for discovering new shows and movies. I’m more likely to see new content released through my tracker, browsing in 10 seconds than spending minutes scrolling through Netflix, and Hulu, and Prime. Just to see if there’s something new. These services make it hard to use. I’d pay extra if Netflix just gave me an RSS feed and let me filter it. The fact that pirates are able to do this, volunteering is only part of it.
- krige 5y ago
  At the core it's a matter of convenience. When there's only one service to pay for or even two or three most people don't have a problem with paying a fee to have access to everything they want to watch. But when there's fifteen services to pay for, even if they collectively cost less than the above example, many simply give up and turn back to piracy.
  - account42 5y ago
    > At the core it's a matter of convenience. Conveninece also means different things for different people. For me is includes being able to re-watch my favorite content whenever I want and on whatever device I want - no exeptions - even if the the internet is down, even if the creator no longer wants to make it available. The only thing that can guarantee that is something that gives me DRM-free files that I can manage however I want. Unfortunately for movies and shows noone provides this - best non-piracy option are physical discs but even those are so filled with anti-piracy measures (and other questionable technical decisions) which only serve to make the experience worse than piracy.
mewse-hn 5y ago
Yeah, netflix saw this balkanization of streaming services coming and they started spending other people's money on original content so they couldn't have the ball taken away from them. It seems to be working for now - they've had 619 emmy nominations - but when there's 15 services that each have 1 show you want to watch, piracy will flourish
- blahblahblogger 5y ago
  > It seems to be working for now - they've had 619 emmy nominations I canceled my Netflix sub. Maybe this is why? Netflix became desperate to be legitimized by "big Hollywood"/"big entertainment". It used to be the new thing that didn't need to conform with its titles.
emkoemko 5y ago
i bet eventually they will be doing cross platform streaming rights deals, only one i can think off that might never do that is Disney. Your content can only be consumed so much on a closed platform before it losses its profitability and then you just sell its rights to bring extra profits. otherwise i can't see how this will be sustainable this is going to be more expensive then tv channels were . Yes the content have much better production value but who will be able to afford so many stream services other then just people hopping after consuming what they wanted to watch. maybe there will be a pay to watch service that has everything and you just pay for the right to watch the specific content.
dmitriid 5y ago
"Video streaming giant Netflix had a total net income of over 2.76 billion U.S. dollars in 2020, whilst the company's annual revenue reached 25 billion U.S. dollars" [1] Yes, they can last the way it used to be. Well, they did slightly increase the price because they were forced to spend ridiculous amounts of money on their own content, but they are doing just fine. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272561/netflix-net-income/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272561/netflix-net-incom...
coldtea 5y ago
Deals with content companies aside, why not? Storage and delivery wise its much chaper than YouTube (which is 100000 times bigger in storage needs due to user generated content), and makes all this available for $9 without ads...

Nobody was ever going to make all TV and movie content available for $9 a month to everyone. The idea that Netflix could last the way it used to be was ridiculous.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Copyright infringement makes everything ever created available for $0 a month. If streaming services can't do the same, they suck and are failing to compete.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
The position that "theft is free, so anything not given away fails to compete" is not a realistic position to argue with.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I don't know if that will be unrealistic in the future. Once AI is making the content you consume, the price seems like it would rapidly approach zero.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  Too bad theft is an option then, because the paid services must compete with it. There are more dimensions than price. (Also infringement isn't theft but if you haven't been convinced by now...)
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Theft is not free, copying data is. They're the ones making everything worse for everybody because they can't deal with that reality. These streaming services can't even manage to produce a video player with decent controls, we had better software in the 90s. Also, copyright infringement is not theft. It's copyright infringement and it's only a problem if you accept the notion that copyright is a legitimate system to begin with.
- pjc50 5y ago
  It's the only realistic position. Heck, it's the only reason streaming services can exist; without piracy pressure everything would be pay per view or pay per stream at far higher rates.
- coldtea 5y ago
  Copyright extension is theft by lobbies pressuring the legislative body against the spirit (and original letter) of the law. In this sense, thousands of movies and albums (stuff recorded before 1970) would be public domain now based on the 1901 copyright terms... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Yeah. They reap all these benefits. When it's OUR turn to exercise our public domain rights, they change the rules of the game. They move the goalposts. Why respect their rights when they don't respect ours? There is absolutely no reason to recognize their "property" as legitimate.
- prepend 5y ago
  When theft has a better user experience that’s important. Important because it’s more user oriented than the plethora of poorly designed apps with dark patterns to piss me off but keep me subscribed. It’s important because it’s the reality. Today, my janky RSS feed setup dumping stuff to a network folder is better for discovering new shows and movies. I’m more likely to see new content released through my tracker, browsing in 10 seconds than spending minutes scrolling through Netflix, and Hulu, and Prime. Just to see if there’s something new. These services make it hard to use. I’d pay extra if Netflix just gave me an RSS feed and let me filter it. The fact that pirates are able to do this, volunteering is only part of it.
krige 5y ago
At the core it's a matter of convenience. When there's only one service to pay for or even two or three most people don't have a problem with paying a fee to have access to everything they want to watch. But when there's fifteen services to pay for, even if they collectively cost less than the above example, many simply give up and turn back to piracy.
- account42 5y ago
  > At the core it's a matter of convenience. Conveninece also means different things for different people. For me is includes being able to re-watch my favorite content whenever I want and on whatever device I want - no exeptions - even if the the internet is down, even if the creator no longer wants to make it available. The only thing that can guarantee that is something that gives me DRM-free files that I can manage however I want. Unfortunately for movies and shows noone provides this - best non-piracy option are physical discs but even those are so filled with anti-piracy measures (and other questionable technical decisions) which only serve to make the experience worse than piracy.

mewse-hn 5y ago

Yeah, netflix saw this balkanization of streaming services coming and they started spending other people's money on original content so they couldn't have the ball taken away from them. It seems to be working for now - they've had 619 emmy nominations - but when there's 15 services that each have 1 show you want to watch, piracy will flourish

blahblahblogger 5y ago
> It seems to be working for now - they've had 619 emmy nominations I canceled my Netflix sub. Maybe this is why? Netflix became desperate to be legitimized by "big Hollywood"/"big entertainment". It used to be the new thing that didn't need to conform with its titles.

emkoemko 5y ago

i bet eventually they will be doing cross platform streaming rights deals, only one i can think off that might never do that is Disney. Your content can only be consumed so much on a closed platform before it losses its profitability and then you just sell its rights to bring extra profits. otherwise i can't see how this will be sustainable this is going to be more expensive then tv channels were . Yes the content have much better production value but who will be able to afford so many stream services other then just people hopping after consuming what they wanted to watch. maybe there will be a pay to watch service that has everything and you just pay for the right to watch the specific content.

dmitriid 5y ago

"Video streaming giant Netflix had a total net income of over 2.76 billion U.S. dollars in 2020, whilst the company's annual revenue reached 25 billion U.S. dollars" [1] Yes, they can last the way it used to be. Well, they did slightly increase the price because they were forced to spend ridiculous amounts of money on their own content, but they are doing just fine. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272561/netflix-net-income/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272561/netflix-net-incom...

coldtea 5y ago

Deals with content companies aside, why not? Storage and delivery wise its much chaper than YouTube (which is 100000 times bigger in storage needs due to user generated content), and makes all this available for $9 without ads...