6 ms·
The only workable solution is to eliminate exclusive distribution. Content producer sets a price, any distributors gets to carry it for that price. Then busines
by arrosenberg 4y ago
The only workable solution is to eliminate exclusive distribution. Content producer sets a price, any distributors gets to carry it for that price. Then businesses actually have to compete on price and service instead of content library.
- scarface74 4y agoYes let the government step in what could possibly go wrong?
- FpUser 4y agoIt is already wrong. I think introducing some basic fair rules will rather make it way better.
- scarface74 4y agoYea because I’m sure you’re struggling because you can’t watch the latest blockbuster the way you want. Should Netflix or the other companies not be able to fund exclusive content?
- FpUser 4y agoPrivately I do not give a flying fuck what they would do. If I am dissatisfied with the service I just cancel it. let them worry about why.
- scarface74 4y agoSo what you’re saying is that you didn’t need the nanny state to step in and you were able to make your own choices what to do with your money and your time?
- FpUser 4y agoWhat I am saying is that I would like government to control some of that corporate rampage. After all you do not mind when it works the other way and those companies can sell their non material product because "nanny state" protects them by way of recognizing and enforcing copyright, IP laws etc. etc. Still I am an adult and yes would vote with my wallet regardless.
- scarface74 4y agoYes because it must be way too hard for you to use your own free will so the government must step in so you can watch the latest blockbuster since it really impacts your life negatively
- FpUser 4y agoFO
- andrepd 4y agoCare to be more precise? This has been done before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_system, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....), and the results have been universally positive. More generally: yes, close government intervention is needed maintain a healthy market, no, free markets don't spring up spontaneously.
- scarface74 4y agoYes this was done when the only method to distribute movies was through a limited number of theaters. Now there is no monopoly on distributing media. Also, video and audio recording and editing equipment was expensive. Now many people carry around a device capable of recording 4K video in their pocket and can get video and audio editing equipment free that producers could only dream of when those cases were adjudicated. With the plethora of streaming services, there is no “monopoly”. Do you also think we should apply rules to automobiles that were relevant to horses?
- arrosenberg 4y agoNo one is claiming there is a monopoly. The vertical integration between content producers and distributors means that pricing is based off exclusivity rather than the fair market value of the service and goods being provided. We claim to live in a market-driven economy, so we should put rules in place that live up to those values.
- scarface74 4y agoA market driven economy means there is plenty of competition between Netflix, Disney, Peacock+, AppleTV, Amazon PrimeTV, Paramount+, Discovery+/HBO Max etc to deliver content that can convince people to pay.
- andrepd 4y agoBut there is less competition that if you break up vertical monopolies of content+distribution, that's the point. Content producers must compete on content, and distributors must compete on distribution.
- Gud 4y agoThe government has already stepped in - Who do you think is enforcing copyright laws?
- scarface74 4y agoSo should copyright laws that protect GPL software also be removed?
- ceejayoz 4y agoYou're the one suggesting the government should stay out of things, you tell us. GPL can only exist because of government regulations and action when those regulations are violated.
- scarface74 4y agoI’m suggesting that it’s an entitled position that you want to control how other people distribute content that they pay for. If you don’t like it - create your content. You probably have a 4K video recording device in your pocket and a computer at home capable of editing said content
- einherjae 4y agoProtects it against what? GPL is itself a way of using the system against itself, with an end goal of replacing said system. I guess If copyright seized to exist you could take GPL code and modify it without sharing back, but the users would also not be required to pay you for using it, so…
- scarface74 4y agoSo let’s take the AGPL that prohibits hosting modified software like for a SaaS.
- collegeburner 4y agoactually no, a big part of the GPL3 these days is fighting "tivoization" which is not really protected by any "system" the same way as copyright. the only system protecting that is a cryptosystem locking it to manufacturer-authorized stuff. also GPL is mostly trying to fight closed-source code which is just as possible without the current copyright system, it can still be kept private like any trade secret. GPL relies on the system to force releasing source.
- tomjen3 4y agoI mean we could also do away with copyright entirely and see how that goes...
- scarface74 4y agoWhy would any content producer create anything for free? Do you work for free?
- JKCalhoun 4y agoThere are of course YouTubers.
- scarface74 4y agoAnd most of them are trying to veg enough followers either to do sponsored ads within their videos and/por get ad revenue from Google.
- JKCalhoun 4y agoI suppose. Many of the ones I follow do it out of a love of what they do. (They'll never get sponsors, ads.)
- FpUser 4y agoThe best idea I think.
- user_named 4y agoYou're on the right track. Producers owning distribution was outlawed through antitrust legislation in the 1940s. It's now come back but it'll be outlawed again.
- dreamcompiler 4y agoThe problem is that nobody wants to be solely a distributor. Every company in the pipe business eventually succumbs to the sweet profit temptation of being in the water-making business, and then they only want to pipe their own water, to the detriment of consumer choice. I hope this can be outlawed but antitrust enforcement in the US is a pale shadow of what it once was.
- scarface74 4y agoYes because in the 1940s the cost of distribution was high and production was high. Currently there are over a half a dozen large streaming services in the US. If we are going to apply standards in the 40s to a completely different era, let’s apply laws that were meant to govern horses to cars.
- user_named 4y agoCost of distribution is high today too. Think about it. Don't say it's "free".
- scarface74 4y agoA) upload to YouTube - free B) upload to iTunes Connect and Apple takes their 30% cut (I think iTunes Connect is still used for all media uploaded for sell on iTunes) C) whatever the equivalent is for (B) for other VOD providers D) Pay for the bandwidth to host it yourself E) create a website and take payments for physical media and ship out a thumb drive or a DVD
- user_named 4y agoAll of these are wrong. The cost is building your own streaming platform which is what all film studios have done. It's many billions in tech and operations.
- scarface74 4y agoYes let’s stop local channels from being able to produce news, television networks from having exclusive late night broadcasts, ESPN from producing “ESPN Tonight”, newspapers from paying for reporters and editors, console manufacturers from having exclusive games, website owners from commissioning writers, etc