4 ms·

> What am I missing? The fact that under a first-sale model, there are business models that are able to handle selling this kind of long-tail content perfectly

by lambda 12y ago

> What am I missing? The fact that under a first-sale model, there are business models that are able to handle selling this kind of long-tail content perfectly well, despite the higher up-front costs for printing up a batch of disks. But since streaming allows them to sell exclusively, which allows them to strike nice deals that look good up front but then wind up squeezing everyone in the industry and being crap for consumers, they wonder why revenues are declining and they can't sell anything, but never actually have the guts to go back to a model that worked but gives them less negotiation leverage with their vendors. > I am trying to see the difference between this and believing that it's OK to steal a car because the manufacturer hasn't made it "affordable enough" for you. Really? A car has fixed, very high costs per item. Downloading from a streaming site has zero costs for the studio. Yes, the content originally cost money to produce, but it makes absolutely no difference to them whether I watch it on a streaming site or spend the night at the local pub instead. What they're doing is more akin to someone having an open air concert that costs $50 bucks to get in and you have to go through a metal detector and pat down to ensure you don't bring in any recording devices, and then trying to complain that some people just listen to the concert from outside the fence.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Really? A car has fixed, very high costs per item. Downloading from a streaming site has zero costs for the studio. Simply not true. The marginal cost of a streaming download are near zero. the fixed costs of making a film available for streaming are non-trivial. Also, the costs fall on producers many of whom work outside studios. Here's the Netflix deliverables manual: http://newworlddistro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FullTechnicalSpecOperatorsManual-6-0.pdf http://newworlddistro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FullTec... Do you think all this stuff just takes care of itself? It doesn't. Going from a completed cut that's good enough to screen at a festival to a streaming deliverable in a great deal of work, and QCing it all is extremely time-consuming. It involves weeks of work for multiple specialists. Measuring compliance can be automated to a certain extent. Repairing defects cannot. The standards are the same for the latest blockbuster and for your little low-budget feature or that cool out-of-print classic cult film you managed to acquire the rights to. If you're lucky and planned it all out in advance, you might spend only $10,000. Excuse me if I've got a bee in my bonnet about this, but this stuff is what I do for a living a lot of people seem to think that getting a film onto a streaming service is just a matter of a quick transcode and an FTP PUT. It's actually a ton of highly skilled work.
- wooger 12y ago
  But why would anyone care about this? If one person can rip a DVD or bluray and put it on Piratebay for others in an hour or two, then there's a perfectly acceptable free alternative. Weeks of work for specialists really sounds over the top, as I doubt that anyone can tell the difference between a competent pirate version and a specially produced Netflix copy. It's pretty obvious that the main thing prohibiting streaming / download releases are licensing and other legal requirements.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    But why would anyone care about this? Because if it isn't done properly it won't play back properly, and when something doesn't play back properly the blame usually falls on the distributor, whether they're a broadcaster, streaming provider, or DVD wholesaler. The only reason the 'competent pirate version' can exist is because someone else laid the groundwork for it. Weeks of work for specialists really sounds over the top That attitude is why first time producers almost invariably run out of money in post-production. Every film is different and has to be QC'ed individually, and if there are problems they'll have to be addressed individually. Broadcast and streaming standards are pretty stringent and if something doesn't pass then no payments are made.
- lambda 12y ago
  You missed one part of what I said: "per item." I'm not arguing that there are no costs to delivering streaming content. What I'm arguing is that there are no per-stream costs to the studio, Netflix, or anyone else (other than the hosting site) for someone who watches a stream on a pirate streaming site, so it's not really comparable to stealing a car. It still may be unethical, but it's definitely a different ethical category than stealing something which has a per-unit cost; actually depriving someone of a valuable object that they posses is different enough that the analogy doesn't work.
unclebucknasty 12y ago
>The fact that under a first-sale model... I still don't see why this entitles consumers to the content on their own terms. >Really? A car has fixed, very high costs per item. Downloading from a streaming site has zero costs for the studio... Well, my question was from a moral standpoint. Why is it morally different from stealing a car? Still, it's interesting to see the responses. Some, including the comment at which my original reply was aimed) say it doesn't matter what the producers' expenses are. It's their problem. But, here you've gone to lengths to explore the economic mechanics irrespective of the moral question. The thing is that even if your economic analysis is perfect, it still avoids the question: what in any of this gives the consumer the right to wholly disregard the producer's economic considerations, analyze them to determine whether the producer is entitled to payment, or otherwise do anything other than decide whether to obtain the product by buying it or doing without? >...then trying to complain that some people just listen to the concert from outside the fence. But, if the people outside the fence were trespassing or were otherwise informed that they should buy a ticket, then the complaints would be no less valid.

by lambda 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago

Really? A car has fixed, very high costs per item. Downloading from a streaming site has zero costs for the studio. Simply not true. The marginal cost of a streaming download are near zero. the fixed costs of making a film available for streaming are non-trivial. Also, the costs fall on producers many of whom work outside studios. Here's the Netflix deliverables manual: http://newworlddistro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FullTechnicalSpecOperatorsManual-6-0.pdf http://newworlddistro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FullTec... Do you think all this stuff just takes care of itself? It doesn't. Going from a completed cut that's good enough to screen at a festival to a streaming deliverable in a great deal of work, and QCing it all is extremely time-consuming. It involves weeks of work for multiple specialists. Measuring compliance can be automated to a certain extent. Repairing defects cannot. The standards are the same for the latest blockbuster and for your little low-budget feature or that cool out-of-print classic cult film you managed to acquire the rights to. If you're lucky and planned it all out in advance, you might spend only $10,000. Excuse me if I've got a bee in my bonnet about this, but this stuff is what I do for a living a lot of people seem to think that getting a film onto a streaming service is just a matter of a quick transcode and an FTP PUT. It's actually a ton of highly skilled work.

wooger 12y ago
But why would anyone care about this? If one person can rip a DVD or bluray and put it on Piratebay for others in an hour or two, then there's a perfectly acceptable free alternative. Weeks of work for specialists really sounds over the top, as I doubt that anyone can tell the difference between a competent pirate version and a specially produced Netflix copy. It's pretty obvious that the main thing prohibiting streaming / download releases are licensing and other legal requirements.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  But why would anyone care about this? Because if it isn't done properly it won't play back properly, and when something doesn't play back properly the blame usually falls on the distributor, whether they're a broadcaster, streaming provider, or DVD wholesaler. The only reason the 'competent pirate version' can exist is because someone else laid the groundwork for it. Weeks of work for specialists really sounds over the top That attitude is why first time producers almost invariably run out of money in post-production. Every film is different and has to be QC'ed individually, and if there are problems they'll have to be addressed individually. Broadcast and streaming standards are pretty stringent and if something doesn't pass then no payments are made.
lambda 12y ago
You missed one part of what I said: "per item." I'm not arguing that there are no costs to delivering streaming content. What I'm arguing is that there are no per-stream costs to the studio, Netflix, or anyone else (other than the hosting site) for someone who watches a stream on a pirate streaming site, so it's not really comparable to stealing a car. It still may be unethical, but it's definitely a different ethical category than stealing something which has a per-unit cost; actually depriving someone of a valuable object that they posses is different enough that the analogy doesn't work.

unclebucknasty 12y ago

>The fact that under a first-sale model... I still don't see why this entitles consumers to the content on their own terms. >Really? A car has fixed, very high costs per item. Downloading from a streaming site has zero costs for the studio... Well, my question was from a moral standpoint. Why is it morally different from stealing a car? Still, it's interesting to see the responses. Some, including the comment at which my original reply was aimed) say it doesn't matter what the producers' expenses are. It's their problem. But, here you've gone to lengths to explore the economic mechanics irrespective of the moral question. The thing is that even if your economic analysis is perfect, it still avoids the question: what in any of this gives the consumer the right to wholly disregard the producer's economic considerations, analyze them to determine whether the producer is entitled to payment, or otherwise do anything other than decide whether to obtain the product by buying it or doing without? >...then trying to complain that some people just listen to the concert from outside the fence. But, if the people outside the fence were trespassing or were otherwise informed that they should buy a ticket, then the complaints would be no less valid.