Compulsory licensing for streaming should be a thing. It exists for radio, why not video? Let services get 1-2 years of exclusivity. After that it’s fair game for any streaming service to stream it. All services pay into a pool that gets refistributed to the rights holders. We have been doing that for decades for radio, for the EU blank media tax, etc. It’s a solved problem.
Not rethink … break up.
Yaaar 🏴☠️
The real answer here
Seems like for most people they would be better off cancelling most streaming services and only renewing for a month or two when enough new content is there rather than having multiple ongoing subscriptions.
Hey, let’s make a startup! We charge users fixed fee and in return give them account in ONE streaming service. They can choose which one but and change them every month.
This is still the major benefit over old cable services. It is trivial to cancel. You can cancel right after signing up again and ride out the month. Not so much with old cable packages.
I think many people are afraid that they’re always going to find content they want is on a service they just let lapse. That isn’t even a big deal, just renew it then, but if it isn’t then you save money.
Disney makes it a little more enticing because their bundle is cheaper than Hulu or Disney Plus on their own, but if all the stuff you watch on a month is on Hulu then you’re not saving anything by keeping the unused Disney sub.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But with the most recent round of services like Disney Plus, Hulu, Peacock, and Paramount Plus raising their prices — during Hollywood’s ongoing double labor strike, no less — to meet the demand of shareholders for never-ending profits, the time has come for all of us to seriously rethink our relationships with the platforms that have become “the new cable.”
Over the weekend, the Financial Times published a bit of analysis about the current state of streaming that should only come as a surprise to those who haven’t been paying attention to how most of the major Subscription Video On Demand (SVOD) platforms, and many smaller ones like Starz, Shudder, and BritBox, have hiked up their prices in the past year.
After years of burning through mountains of cash to fill their catalogs with original programming, the big SVOD services are now charging their subscribers more than ever because it’s increasingly difficult to draw in new customers — and because the mere perception of growth is no longer enough to keep their shareholders happy.
But much like the practice of memory-holing films and series just for tax write-offs, the push to goose subscription numbers by imposing new restrictions on old customers also highlights how this late stage of the streaming wars is being defined by the prioritization of profit margins over user experience.
Even though the streamers love being seen and celebrated as pop cultural tastemakers, Netflix — like its competition — is a company in the business of making money that owes much of its success to the way consumers have bought into the idea of it being absolutely necessary to keep up with every single new film or show that hits the internet.
To make things even trickier, the success of those streaming hits and others like them was undoubtedly influenced by the degree to which viewers were regularly flocking to social media platforms like Twitter to discuss them — a habit that feels like it’s on the decline in the era of Elon Musk’s X.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
Courts have often agreed with shareholders in shareholder lawsuits about such things
deleted by creator
Minus the crypto (save for big maybe monero), I completely agree. I just don’t want to primarily support the middle men and would rather support the creators. I don’t mind giving them some money to distribute the media, but not even close to the lion’s share they get now.
deleted by creator
It’s sad how certain words and technologies get saddled with reflexive opposition even when it makes perfect sense to use them. Nuclear power is another example.
deleted by creator
I know it sounds naive but honestly I just wish I could consume media and when I like it I can just send them some money without any hassle.
So the artist gets a cut of every stream? Isn’t that just Spotify’s model, which is infamously kinda shit for the actual artists?
deleted by creator
Spotify’s model is basically how can we screw everyone, and keep the maximum for ourselves. Bandcamp is probably a better example, where artists actually get the bulk of the sales.
🏴☠️
Did anyone said Stremio? No? I might have imagined it. All this time out at see and this is what you get.
I heard torrents.
Doesn’t Time Warner own the verge?
No, they’re owned by Vox Media
who is owned by Comcast.Edit: Comcast/NBCUniversal just has investments in Vox, they’re not owners.
I knew they had ties to a cable company
Investment is still enough to warrant a questioning look at their “journalist integrity”
When they all started touting these services back in the 00’s I was like “Why are you morons falling for this shit for?!” Because that all the shit inherent to such a platform was gonna happen sooner or later. Then a few years later “QQ - my fav show got removed from the service and now I can’t watch it” or “XYZ got censored!” or “These services are getting worse all the time.”
The whole time, I’ve been sitting on my metaphorical Queen Anne’s Revenge and laughing at them. And of course, now that they all want to come back, I’m gleefully throwing down the gangplank!
We all just rent stuff now and it’s super annoying since the company decides when the rent is over, not us. Despite paying for the service each month, we have no say in what stays and what disappears.
The only winning move is not to play. To the sea my friend, TO THE SEA!
deleted by creator
