MPA wouldn’t have anywhere near as big of a piracy problem if all the large streaming platforms worked together to create a singular service at a good price that has everything you want. Now it’s easier and cheaper than ever to buy a few external and VPN service and download/torrent your favorite shows over paying for over 5 streaming services (at least in the US) and having nothing to watch because all your favorite shows got removed half way through you watching the first season (and only season if it’s a new series).
That, and there are a few shows I have to watch through piracy because they aren’t even available anywhere in America.
Sounds like a monopoly. I don’t think that’s the answer but I don’t have a solution either.
Distributors for content, and no more exclusive content for platforms. Make it work the way music streaming works.
You sign up for one service and you get access to an unfathomably gigantic library of music. It doesn’t matter what service you sign up for either, you’re going to get a similarly huge library, and it will include most everything you could find on any competing service so you only need one subscription. The only thing you really choose is UI, device compatibility, and special features.
Imagine if there were two dozen competing music streaming services, and they all had completely different non-overlapping libraries. Maybe Sony has one just for their labels. Maybe another is just for a handful of EDM labels. A third just for country and bluegrass, but only specific labels. A fourth just for indie labels. A fifth for Rap and R&B. Lots of old stuff is completely unrepresented, because it wasn’t deemed profitable by any available platform, or there’s just too much paperwork and nobody wants to do it.
This is what we have with video streaming right now. Lots of different IP owners running streaming services only with their own limited catalogs. If you want to watch just one show on each platform, you would need a subscription for every show. If you have diverse tastes in movies and television, you are going to be paying a fortune to access it.
It works better for music because about 80% of tracks are distributed through Universal and Sony. Having deals with just those two gives you a gigantic library. And of course Universal and Sony take gigantic cuts, because they can. (there are pro and cons)
But I agree, the competition on the market should be about the way the content is served and not about what content is served.
I actually wouldn’t mind a monopoly if we could go back to the days of very reasonable prices with only one service, like back when Netflix was pretty much the only kid on the block. But we’re never heading back to those days.
Yeup, enshitification is inevitable.
VRV was looking to be exactly what you are talking about, then Sony wrecked it
Instead you could stop making shitty movies and reheating successful recipes. And stop inventing three new streaming services every week.
What about a meta streaming service. One subscription for everything and companies get paid by the share of the views their
shoesshows (I’m not that interested in the shoes to be honest) had. Maybe make your own fronts for your services if you insist, but everything is accessible through one subscription.I’m so tired of getting shit on by corporations to later read I’m the problem. People are sick of this shit. Stop being assholes and people will happily pay for your content! I want to pay for things I enjoy, but I just cancelled Netflix because they suck so fucking hard.
Ugh, I’m really pissed. Please, content producers. Look in the mirrors and check if you are the assholes. You might be surprised by what you see.
Not sure I get the “You make a bad product so I feel justified in stealing it” argument.
Piracy isn’t stealing if buying isn’t owning.
So it’s okay to keep a rental car because you don’t own it and it’s therefore not stealing?
It’s ok to make a 1:1 copy of the rental car without depriving the company of the car in any way
So a writer spends a year of his life writing a book with the idea that he can sell copies for $15 each so that, if he sells enough copies, he can make that year’s time worthwhile. But you think it’s okay to just make a copy for free since he still has his original?
Yes. I was never going to buy it anyway. He didn’t lose anything. At least this way, his art is consumed and discussed, potentially generating a sale. BTW, you are absolutely wasting your time here with me. I obviously have a very different perspective on this than you do. You’ll have to either accept that, or become increasingly frustrated that your arguments fall flat with me
Edited because I realized I wasn’t in the piracy community
At least now we’ve gotten to the common understanding that it is theft, but you just don’t care. I personally think copyright laws have been good for our society because they’ve allowed people to live off of creating art. You obviously have a different view.
I’m not at all frustrated by the conversation - it’s like discussing car registration or driver’s licenses with a SovCit. In fact, it’s pretty much exactly like that. It’s interesting for me to see how you rationalize your view, but I don’t expect you to change your mind.
They didn’t argue the product (the content on streaming platforms) was bad, they argued the only legal ways you can get the product are not acceptable.
Therefore yes, it becomes ok in my book to violate copyright (which does not equate to stealing, the owner hasn’t lost the original).
As soon as I can have a choice of service that has virtually all of the content (like you do with music, or groceries), and I can pick the storefront based on its usability and cost rather than its catalogue, piracy numbers will go right down. Because it becomes less of a hassle to get it legally rather than pirate.
I did both to be honest. And I don’t want to pirate media, I’m fine with sane pricing for good quality. It’s just that currently they focus on neither, so I’m just stopping to give them money.
They didn’t argue the product (the content on streaming platforms) was bad,
Really? How do you interpret the very first sentence?
Instead you could stop making shitty movies and reheating successful recipes. And stop inventing three new streaming services every week.
That seems to be saying it’s bad to me.
they argued the only legal ways you can get the product are not acceptable.
You know what I do when a product I want is unacceptably expensive or whatever? I don’t buy it. It’s not like we’re talking about food or medicine. This is all lame rationalization.
That’s because I didn’t make that argument. Exactly the opposite to be honest.
Then what did you mean by the first sentence?
Instead you could stop making shitty movies and reheating successful recipes.
That all studios do the last few years is remakes and sequels and it’s boring as hell.
How can you understand that sentence as a call for piracy?
Well I for one have not seen Batman’s or Spiderman’s origin story enough times yet. Can I get 3 more takes each please slowly starts banging head off monitor
Look at the title of this thread and then the first sentence of your comment. How else should it be read?
Still no, sorry. We seem to have very different understandings of those things.
deleted by creator
The title is a bit misleading. They didn’t hire an FBI agent. They hired a retired FBI agent. I feel that is a pretty crucial difference
First day in retirement?
Real life sisyphus.
Won’t change a thing. They would need to R&D fixes. That would cost money and they don’t spend that.
