this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
974 points (95.2% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
55064 readers
158 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For a streaming platform to be actually useful it needs to be a almost monopoly like steam. Netflix had a chance but missed the spot, due to the greed of Studios. So it's back to fractured marked until someone comes with a fresh idea of how to distribute video.
Or many service providers competing on price, quality of service and features, not competing on exclusivity like they do now.
Like grocery stores. Imagine if only one chain has the exclusive rights to sell potatoes and another one has rights to pasta. They can ask whatever price they want, because what you gonna do? Go to another store to get your 'taters cheaper? Hah, you'll cry and you'll pay what we ask! (BTW, growing your own potatos and sharing them with your neighbor infringes on our rights and is illegal. We'll sue you to oblivion if we catch you doing it.)
I think a better example is just physical media sales. Retailers generally all carried the same physical stock. You would occasionally see special editions or something that might only be available at certain stores, but it was extremely rare to only be able to buy certain titles at certain retailers.
Or the prime example: movie theaters. We passed regulations to prevent movie theaters from being bought by studios and used as exclusive avenues for the distribution of certain media. You had a movie, you released it to all movie theaters that wanted it, you couldn't just make a deal or buy out Regal or Cinemark, or make your own theater. It ensured a level playing field.
One of the biggest problems with streaming that we have simply refused to acknowledge is that the safeguards necessary to create a healthy market, the safeguards we've used previously with other distribution models, were never put in place. And we're seeing the fallout of that now.
This is the best take I’ve seen yet, with the benefit that it’s literally already been done.
It’d be interesting to see what would happen if they tried to mandate this now, but I’m sure it’s already too late.
I would think in a way it’s like what happens with the music industry. Don’t get me wrong, that industry has its own problems, but for the vast majority of music, I can listen to it on Spotify, YT music, Apple Music, etc. I don’t need to sign up for Sony+ to listen to their artists, etc.
Same should have happened to the movie industry.
Don't give them ideas!
This is an excellent take and I love the idea.
However what about the counter example of car dealerships? Isn’t that the same model as theaters separate from studios? Yet car dealerships have degenerated into a morass of sleazy scam artists who most of us would do better to avoid. I’m a Tesla fan partly because I don’t have to deal with a dealership. How do we either fix car dealerships or prevent theaters or streaming providers from going down this path?
Does not work for media, since media is a good that you need a specific version of. You don't really care what potatoes you buy (simplification) but if you want to watch a specific show, movie or play a game -you can't really subsidize it with another. So exclusivity does not work for potatoes but works for media. We would need a global overhaul of copyright to work this one out.
It totally works for media. Just need a law that says, if a work is published, anyone can distribute it for the same fair licensing fee. That's the way "cover" music works - any cover band can play any other musician's work. Nobody can refuse them that right. Then the venue where they perform pays a flat fee to an agency for the license. This doesn't work great in music, but we could create a better model for streaming. it's not impossible.
Musik industry has an extra layer of rights management companies that deal with exactly that issue. So I agree, we could create a legal framework or even an industry self regulating system to work that problem out. But I kind of said that already:
Studios aren't allowed to buy specific movie theaters to force you to go to them to watch their movies. Same concept here.
Yet Disney found a pretty creative work around. But that might be a good idea that distribution and production should be separated entities - if well implemented well could solve the problem. Haven't thought about it.
Imagine having to pay for your potato subscription even if you're only eating pasta this month but maybe next month will be 'tatember
This is the perfect comparison!
Oh yes, I would!
Not a great analogy since pasta is easy to make potatoes are easy to grow.
And movies are easy to pirate
No, it doesnt have to be. Look at Spotify vs Apple Music, vs tidal etc. full catalogues at all of them. It’s the business model that needs to change.
Good point, I think it might have to do with the way music is differently licensed. You will often have a "monopolistic" rights management organization like BMI in USA whereas rights for video and games the rights management lies more with the overarching productions companies.
TBH Steam feels like a ticking timebomb. At some point Valve is going to get a new shite CEO or something and everyone will go "oh..."
If Gabe cares, he will make a foundation or something.
If Gabe cares he likely already handed leadership over to allow for an interim period where he could step in and Veto any decisions he thinks are crap
If Gabe cares he also has to open source it. A foundation alone is not really a guarantee, considering it'd be below what Mozilla is doing and they have lots of complaints.
Absolutely. I don't think Steam is exactly malicious (particularly when compared with publicly traded corporations,) but that said the framework is firmly in place to screw over the vast majority of non-console gamers with a snap of the fingers or a meeting of the board.
The community is slow walking into horse armor (or paid mods if one prefers,) again.
I've been thinking about that. It's the one walled garden I don't mind, I've poured shameful amounts into it but the thought is always there in the background that it can't go on like this forever.
At the end of the day I don't mind too much and just try to enjoy it while it lasts, since worst comes to worst I'll just have to sacrifice some convenience and dive back into full-time piracy to regain access to the vast majority of the content anyway. The wonders of an open platform!
Little unfair to say they "missed" anything when they can't control what studios do with their licenses.
I still see people occasionally complain that Netflix "got rid" of stuff, like the Office. There's a lot of shitty things you can blame Netflix for, but that isn't one of them.
It's also not new. HBO, Showtime, Stars, etc all had rotating on-demand catalogs for years before Netflix, with content appearing briefly before being removed, and no one thought that was odd. I never once heard anyone suggest HBO was shit because Austin Powers or whatever was taken off it. It came with the understanding this content was not permanently available.
Part of it is that people had a bad understanding of what Netflix was, and assumed it would be a permanent replacement for a personal collection. That was always a foolish mindset.
Little unfair of your to leave out:
Wich makes clear, I don't blame netflix.
I'm not sure why there are always monopoly apologists popping up in these. You know Netflix isn't any less greedy than the studios, right? A private monopoly isn't a good thing.
Why are you that antagonizing?
Most times. But for media, people want to have all their media in one place for a cheap price - so far only monopolistic or oligopolistic services were able to provide that. It worked quite well for games and in some form for music (you will often have single right management companies in the music industry - like BMI in USA or GEMA in Germany). But in general, I would agree that monopolies (outside natural monopolies and those should be run by the state) are unfavorable for the customer.
There's an alternative. Because of exclusivity deals, you think a monopoly would be good for users, but with a monopoly then the company could charge $200/month because customers literally have nowhere else to go. A better system would be significantly reduced exclusivity so that 1st party media is the only exclusive content. This way, there would be more than 1 or 2 options, but way fewer than what we currently have, and the 5 or so companies remaining would compete based on their own original content, customer service, quality of service, and UI. Streaming apps with only one or two interesting pieces of original content could license out to all of the remaining few streamers and shut down their dead app. I know the quality dropped like a fucking rock, but a few years back people were excited to be subscribed to Disney+ for Wandavision and The Mandalorian. 5 years ago, people were excited to be subscribed to Netflix for Stranger Things and Orange is the New Black.
I was frustrated af a few nights ago trying to find X-Men First Class. Days of Future Past is on Max. X-Men, X-Men: The Last Stand, the 3 Wolverine movies, X-Men Apocalypse, and X-Men: Dark Phoenix are all on Disney+. So where the fuck are X-Men 2 and X-Men: First Class?! To watch the X-Men movies (which are all from the same studios), paying for 2 streaming services isn't enough?!
I don't see how this is any better, since if you want a specific show produced by a specific company you would still need to subscribe to their service, kind of the same problem we having right now.
Again, I'm not arguing for monopolies in general. But with media it's what customers want - a single service they can access all the media they want, with reasonable prices or a subscription model.
I have two possible solutions then, each with their own drawback.
Solution 1 is to nationalize media. The closest realistic thing is something we already have: libraries. The drawback is that content is massively limited and it's pretty inconvenient, but the cost is bundled in with other nationalized services like firefighters and the postal service.
Solution 2 is piracy. The drawback is that it's illegal and you risk prison time and huge fines, but the cost is either free or relatively cheap in exchange for less chance of getting caught, and the selection of content is damn near everything. There is quite a bit of work at the onset, but it is reasonably convenient to enjoy.
I like them both. But also non commercial piracy - or how we used to call it back in the days: sharing, should not be illegal in the first place.
Netflix started out as a blessing. That's why I bought a subscribtion intially. Nowadays they've been screwed over as much as I have and they suck as much as every other service, but I'm sticking with Netflix. It is the most convenient method for my kids to watch their stupid cartoons and I also get to enjoy something every once in a while. I've tried others, but it's not worth it.
I hate subscription models. After adobe, never again.
I'd never subscribe to Adobe. I love Figma, but if Abobe takes over Figma and applies it's usual tactics, I'm never using Figma again.
I did, because it was convenient. But I learned my lesson, it was quite expensive.
I’m fine with subscription models for audio and video, since the goal is a continuous flow of new entertainment
Not for software. I want to own my software. These days it’s mostly operate since so many are too difficult to own (you want me to subscribe to Office? LoL, I “own” LibreOffice)
We have a way of doing that.
It's called Radarr, Sonarr, Jellyfin and a big fuck-off hard drive, and they won't like it.
But yeah, if there was a service with everything in high quality (up to 4K Blu-ray quality for those with the bandwidth) for like £30 a month (with no ads ever, and configurable UI that doesn't try playing the next episode the millisecond the last one finishes), then they'd get paid for it. The longer they wait, the more entrenched into my setup I'll be, and harder to wean off it.
It's so damn great to just be able to power on the TV and instantly start watching what I want.
No navigating through a mess of a menu. No pre roll ads. No "recommended" content all over my stuff. No thinking of which service has what. It's also a bit faster since I can stream locally.
It must be what it's like to be rich and have Kaleidescape.