3 ms·

There is no or very limited competition of streaming services because they do not share content. Almost everything is unique to each streaming service. And big

There is no or very limited competition of streaming services because they do not share content. Almost everything is unique to each streaming service. And big copyright holders even carve out their content and create their own services ala Disney. We would need compulsory licensing to get even a modicum of competition, and even then the licensing deals will work as a pricing cartel. There can be no competition if there is copyright involved.

bzzzt 2y ago
See the big difference between TV and music streaming. I can switch from Spotify to Apple Music without losing access to most of my songs, but Amazon can't show 'Netflix original' series. I get that movie studio's don't want to 'flat rate' their premium content. Online movie "purchases" seem to be better covered. You can buy/rent about the same movies from Apple, Amazon and some others but they cover a very small number of popular movies. Older movies like the Criterion collection needs yet another subscription which isn't even available in big parts of the world, especially in the EU there seems to be a copyright clusterf*ck of epic proportions where every member state has it's own rule, regulations and small time film licensing companies making it totally impossible to release niche content. Combined with the demise of disc-based movies (I give it about 10 years before major movies are only streamable) I fully expect an increase in enthusiasts resorting to piracy. It really is a service problem...
- izacus 2y ago
  This is just big studios trying to avoid the 1948 Paramount vs. USA situation, where they were banned from owning cinemas and thus creating market competition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... They're trying to not make that mistake again and being forced to actually... compete!
littlestymaar 2y ago
> There can be no competition if there is copyright involved. Truth is there can almost never be real competition on any market that isn't raw materials, because there's IP (not just copyright, but patents and trademarks as well) almost everywhere else.
- javcasas 2y ago
  And, for raw materials, you have geographical-delimited "copyright" zones, a-la "it's champagne only if it comes from this region in France". The free market is only for the plebs.
  - gruez 2y ago
    Just... don't buy champagne and buy sparkling wine instead?
  - shortsunblack 2y ago
    That is not copyright but a geographical trademark. And trademarks are for the protection of consumers. Champagne is a type of sparkling wine made in the region of Champagne, France. If it isn't made in Champagne, France it, by definition, is not champagne. It's sparkling wine. And this almost always comes with reduction in quality. A premium product gets watered down and Walmartified. Happens with cheeses or any other fancy foodstock. Refusal of United States to recognize European geographical quality marks was one of the reasons why TTIP trade agreement failed (that together with United States wanting Europe to severely reform its legal base for the betterment of American corporations).
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  A lot of the time you don't care about it. E.g. it's unusual to care about the images on the packaging of your laundry detergent. Plenty of goods you buy are commodities. That said, businesses absolutely hate this, which is why you see all kinds of methods being applied to uncommodify goods, or ensure they never become commodities in the first place. Exclusive licensing deals for media content is just one of the more egregious examples, but then there are all forms of soft bundling and integrations happening in physical space too.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > E.g. it's unusual to care about the images on the packaging of your laundry detergent. Plenty of goods you buy are commodities. Laundry detergent companies have actually been spending billions in ads over multiple decades to manipulate you into caring about it though. > That said, businesses absolutely hate this, which is why you see all kinds of methods being applied to uncommodify goods Exactly.
ip26 2y ago
They are competing with other entertainment. They are competing with other TV and movies. The only thing they aren’t competing on is the exact show. I think it’s pretty exciting; competing to offer better product can lead to better results than competing to offer cheaper product.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > They are competing with other entertainment. They are competing with other TV and movies. The only thing they aren’t competing on is the exact show. I.e. the only thing they aren't competing on is the one that matters. Shows are not substitutable. If I want to watch Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, I won't be interested in watching Mandalorian or The Boys instead. Especially if I've already seen the other two.
  - Kye 2y ago
    This is something I wish people who blame Disney for the perceived lack of variety in theaters would get. That funky little arthouse flick is not in competition with the latest MCU entry. I'm not sitting there trying to decide between Avengers: Endgame and some Sundance premiere. And the denigration of people who like MCU/action movies in general that tends to come with these critiques is really not helpful. I like a good indie film and a good blockbuster. My life has room for Tangerine and Black Panther.
  - nicolas_t 2y ago
    On the other hand, it leads to different streaming service spending money to invest in exclusive shows. Would Amazon have enough money to pay for the Expanse if not for competition? What about Apple Tv with For All Mankind?
fragmede 2y ago
Disney has a monopoly on streaming Disney properties online, and is abusing it to the detriment of America consumers. That's a lawsuit from the anti-trust commission that I'd love to see. They can't own movie theaters, after all.

bzzzt 2y ago

See the big difference between TV and music streaming. I can switch from Spotify to Apple Music without losing access to most of my songs, but Amazon can't show 'Netflix original' series. I get that movie studio's don't want to 'flat rate' their premium content. Online movie "purchases" seem to be better covered. You can buy/rent about the same movies from Apple, Amazon and some others but they cover a very small number of popular movies. Older movies like the Criterion collection needs yet another subscription which isn't even available in big parts of the world, especially in the EU there seems to be a copyright clusterf*ck of epic proportions where every member state has it's own rule, regulations and small time film licensing companies making it totally impossible to release niche content. Combined with the demise of disc-based movies (I give it about 10 years before major movies are only streamable) I fully expect an increase in enthusiasts resorting to piracy. It really is a service problem...

izacus 2y ago
This is just big studios trying to avoid the 1948 Paramount vs. USA situation, where they were banned from owning cinemas and thus creating market competition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... They're trying to not make that mistake again and being forced to actually... compete!

littlestymaar 2y ago

> There can be no competition if there is copyright involved. Truth is there can almost never be real competition on any market that isn't raw materials, because there's IP (not just copyright, but patents and trademarks as well) almost everywhere else.

javcasas 2y ago
And, for raw materials, you have geographical-delimited "copyright" zones, a-la "it's champagne only if it comes from this region in France". The free market is only for the plebs.
- gruez 2y ago
  Just... don't buy champagne and buy sparkling wine instead?
- shortsunblack 2y ago
  That is not copyright but a geographical trademark. And trademarks are for the protection of consumers. Champagne is a type of sparkling wine made in the region of Champagne, France. If it isn't made in Champagne, France it, by definition, is not champagne. It's sparkling wine. And this almost always comes with reduction in quality. A premium product gets watered down and Walmartified. Happens with cheeses or any other fancy foodstock. Refusal of United States to recognize European geographical quality marks was one of the reasons why TTIP trade agreement failed (that together with United States wanting Europe to severely reform its legal base for the betterment of American corporations).
TeMPOraL 2y ago
A lot of the time you don't care about it. E.g. it's unusual to care about the images on the packaging of your laundry detergent. Plenty of goods you buy are commodities. That said, businesses absolutely hate this, which is why you see all kinds of methods being applied to uncommodify goods, or ensure they never become commodities in the first place. Exclusive licensing deals for media content is just one of the more egregious examples, but then there are all forms of soft bundling and integrations happening in physical space too.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  > E.g. it's unusual to care about the images on the packaging of your laundry detergent. Plenty of goods you buy are commodities. Laundry detergent companies have actually been spending billions in ads over multiple decades to manipulate you into caring about it though. > That said, businesses absolutely hate this, which is why you see all kinds of methods being applied to uncommodify goods Exactly.

ip26 2y ago

They are competing with other entertainment. They are competing with other TV and movies. The only thing they aren’t competing on is the exact show. I think it’s pretty exciting; competing to offer better product can lead to better results than competing to offer cheaper product.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> They are competing with other entertainment. They are competing with other TV and movies. The only thing they aren’t competing on is the exact show. I.e. the only thing they aren't competing on is the one that matters. Shows are not substitutable. If I want to watch Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, I won't be interested in watching Mandalorian or The Boys instead. Especially if I've already seen the other two.
- Kye 2y ago
  This is something I wish people who blame Disney for the perceived lack of variety in theaters would get. That funky little arthouse flick is not in competition with the latest MCU entry. I'm not sitting there trying to decide between Avengers: Endgame and some Sundance premiere. And the denigration of people who like MCU/action movies in general that tends to come with these critiques is really not helpful. I like a good indie film and a good blockbuster. My life has room for Tangerine and Black Panther.
- nicolas_t 2y ago
  On the other hand, it leads to different streaming service spending money to invest in exclusive shows. Would Amazon have enough money to pay for the Expanse if not for competition? What about Apple Tv with For All Mankind?

fragmede 2y ago

Disney has a monopoly on streaming Disney properties online, and is abusing it to the detriment of America consumers. That's a lawsuit from the anti-trust commission that I'd love to see. They can't own movie theaters, after all.