3 ms·
> It was inevitable given how things work. It's like every technology: if this is how things work, and they are suboptimal, the optimal solution will be applie
by trklausss 3y ago
> It was inevitable given how things work.
It's like every technology: if this is how things work, and they are suboptimal, the optimal solution will be applied. If we say "oh to bad, it's how it's established", then people will go against the establishment if that means better capabilities.
> How could you "fix" it?
Take a look at the music industry, they have solved it pretty well. I can stream everything on Spotify paying very little, I get everything that I want and I don't have to pirate it anymore. So maybe fostering independent creation? Forbidding "exclusivity" clauses? Fostering independent studio creation?
> They could set the price really high.
Prices are elastic: bigger price, less demand, same benefit. So that doesn't cut it either.
- mi_z 3y agoThe reason it works for spotify is because musicians get fuck all on it. This doesn't work with film and TV because they are unionised and have to be paid a certain amount.
- martindbp 3y agoThen what are you claiming the difference is? Are music labels inherently less greedy? Is it harder to build music streaming vs video that leads to a monopoly? Is it because labels have ownership in Spotify? I don't think the HBOs and Disneys will give up their streaming platform unless forced to do it.
- trklausss 3y agoI’d say the key difference is the sheer amount of artists and styles. I’d argue it’s “easier” to make music than filming. That’s why I would foment independent creators. You might be right on HBO and Disney not giving up their service, until customers don’t want to pay for it anymore, and they’ll seek other ways. That’s capitalism after all…