4 ms·

I honestly don't think cbs paramount would be any better, if anything, wb content would be further paywalled and tiered off

Spivak 11mo ago
Which is why the model that would actually be good for consumers and the model that absolutely no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Let a bunch of companies compete over being the best streaming platform and then let those companies all compete for licensing deals for content. I think a big copyright holders in a strange way actually don't want a repeat of cable. They want all content to be exclusive by default to their own streaming service.
- andsoitis 11mo ago
  When you make something (eg TV shows), you might also want a direct relationship with your customer (eg viewer). Consequently, A platform where you get to choose how to present and celebrate the stories seems like a reasonable thing.
  - ndiddy 11mo ago
    In the US, the film industry originally worked like the streaming industry does today. Besides just creating films, the major studios distributed them through the theaters they owned. If you wanted to see a Paramount film you had to go to a Paramount owned theater, if you wanted to see an MGM film you had to go to an MGM owned theater, and so on. In 1948, this distribution scheme was ruled to be in violation of antitrust law and the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theaters. Now you can see major films in any studio and the theaters have to compete on price and amenities. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to streaming services.
    - raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
      So you want to pass a law that no one can produce content and put it on their own website?
      - magicalhippo 11mo ago
        Here in Norway we have a law for mobile carriers which is intended to prevent moats. It states that carriers must provide access for a "reasonable price" to other phone companies. It seems to have worked fairly well. One could imagine something similar, that sure you can put your own movie or TV show on your own website, but you must also sell it to companies who asks on reasonable terms. So Netflix can make a movie but couldn't say no to say Plex if they wanted to buy the rights to show it on Plex.tv.
        raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        This is completely different. Cell phone infrastructure in particular is by nature a natural monopoly. Two carriers can’t operate over the same frequency and only certain frequencies are conducive for cell phones. Content has no such restriction. Are you really saying every piece of content anyone produces must be licensed? Who decides what is “reasonable”?
        Larrikin 11mo ago
        The law would decide what is reasonable
        raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        Would you want the “law” deciding that you had to license software code to anyone and have the law set the price? How does the law decide how much Disney should license the Avengers for compared to my cat videos I’m going to put on my website? Should we expand the law so if I post open source code under AGPL, I must license it to at a certain price?
      - Larrikin 11mo ago
- raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
  > no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Sony does that now

Spivak 11mo ago

Which is why the model that would actually be good for consumers and the model that absolutely no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Let a bunch of companies compete over being the best streaming platform and then let those companies all compete for licensing deals for content. I think a big copyright holders in a strange way actually don't want a repeat of cable. They want all content to be exclusive by default to their own streaming service.

andsoitis 11mo ago
When you make something (eg TV shows), you might also want a direct relationship with your customer (eg viewer). Consequently, A platform where you get to choose how to present and celebrate the stories seems like a reasonable thing.
- ndiddy 11mo ago
  In the US, the film industry originally worked like the streaming industry does today. Besides just creating films, the major studios distributed them through the theaters they owned. If you wanted to see a Paramount film you had to go to a Paramount owned theater, if you wanted to see an MGM film you had to go to an MGM owned theater, and so on. In 1948, this distribution scheme was ruled to be in violation of antitrust law and the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theaters. Now you can see major films in any studio and the theaters have to compete on price and amenities. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to streaming services.
  - raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
    So you want to pass a law that no one can produce content and put it on their own website?
    - magicalhippo 11mo ago
      Here in Norway we have a law for mobile carriers which is intended to prevent moats. It states that carriers must provide access for a "reasonable price" to other phone companies. It seems to have worked fairly well. One could imagine something similar, that sure you can put your own movie or TV show on your own website, but you must also sell it to companies who asks on reasonable terms. So Netflix can make a movie but couldn't say no to say Plex if they wanted to buy the rights to show it on Plex.tv.
      - raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        This is completely different. Cell phone infrastructure in particular is by nature a natural monopoly. Two carriers can’t operate over the same frequency and only certain frequencies are conducive for cell phones. Content has no such restriction. Are you really saying every piece of content anyone produces must be licensed? Who decides what is “reasonable”?
        Larrikin 11mo ago
        The law would decide what is reasonable
        raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
        Would you want the “law” deciding that you had to license software code to anyone and have the law set the price? How does the law decide how much Disney should license the Avengers for compared to my cat videos I’m going to put on my website? Should we expand the law so if I post open source code under AGPL, I must license it to at a certain price?
    - Larrikin 11mo ago
raw_anon_1111 11mo ago
> no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Sony does that now