3 ms·
You'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
by user_named 4y ago
You'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 agoYou asked if you as an individual content producer wanted to distribute your own movie how much would it cost. Sony for instance spent $0 on its own streaming service and just licenses out to the existing players.