3 ms·

Wants more choices but calls everything but youtube and vimeo crap aggregators. This guy is no different than someone who protests Wal-Mart and shops there.

• nddrylliog 14y ago
  You're right, that part was definitely excessive/simplistic. There are probably hundreds of small start-ups trying to 'fix' mainstream video distribution right now. The point is, their scale is ridiculous compared to the ones I've listed. For example, in movie streaming, you've got a few biggies: Netflix, Amazon, iTunes - and of course stuff like Ultraviolet, the studios' proprietary solutions for "buy a piece of plastic and be able to stream them from our Windows client". And in the smaller, you've got stuff like Indieflix, KinoNation, Izkara (admittedly more focused on indie content, because of the licensing problems I've discussed above). But none of them can expand to the size of the biggies, because the market is locked. So, 'low-budget, mildly interesting indie films' is the equivalent of 'cat videos' for movie distribution. It's sad but it's true - every interesting indie flick will be spotted at a festival (e.g. Sundance) and then they'll be contacted by sales agents, whose job will then be to convince the producers that they need DRM, and that they need to sell exclusive rights to this or that entity, and then presto, that content is locked to a single/few platforms and other smallers can't compete. The reason why mainstream video distribution is locked is more about social than it is about licensing, but I think the situations can be compared.