This is kind of odd timing for me because I was watching some of the old Bugs Bunny cartoons on Max recently. These used to be rerun a lot when I was a kid. I always thought the ones from the 40s...
This is kind of odd timing for me because I was watching some of the old Bugs Bunny cartoons on Max recently. These used to be rerun a lot when I was a kid. I always thought the ones from the 40s - 60s were the best ones. It's kind of fun that they are mostly the same humor as now but often have references to actors or things that were popular at the time. Besides references to Humphrey Bogart, there may also be a joke related to ration cards that existed during World War 2.
Anyway a disappointing if predictable development. I think a lot of these things are public domain now and/or available on archive.org.
If David Zaslav's mission is to drive Warner Bros. Discovery to the ground then he's doing a bloody good job. Much of these shows would have been in the public domain had Disney not aggressively...
If David Zaslav's mission is to drive Warner Bros. Discovery to the ground then he's doing a bloody good job.
Much of these shows would have been in the public domain had Disney not aggressively lobbied Congress to drastically lengthen copyright expiration laws.
Why is it in any way beneficial for these streaming companies to not provide some of the content on their platform, if they have the rights to it and they don't plan to market it anywhere else?...
Why is it in any way beneficial for these streaming companies to not provide some of the content on their platform, if they have the rights to it and they don't plan to market it anywhere else? Sure, not featuring certain series on the start page I get, but not making them available at all..?
For one, removing the familiar will make some subset of people try out the unfamiliar. "Oh, my show got removed, guess I will try this new show that was on my list." There is also the...
For one, removing the familiar will make some subset of people try out the unfamiliar. "Oh, my show got removed, guess I will try this new show that was on my list."
There is also the consideration that the Netflixes and HBOs and whatevers of the world sometimes rent server space at "the last mile" type data centers and there is only so much space that they can use to deliver content at the speeds that people expect. If only N people watch Bugs Bunny, and 2N people want to watch some show that they just got rights to, they might replace Bugs with NewShow. Instead of delivering Bugs with buffering, it can be better to remove it entirely so that it doesn't make your service look bad.
The people on this site probably grok that different content might have different delivery speeds, but Joe Averageuser is going to call and complain that his service is messed up.
There is also the possibility that almost nobody actually cares and it isn't worth the effort to host of or deal with it. Like another person linked, this stuff is archived and widely available. An example of "has the rights but not worth dealing with" in my area is that (as far as I can tell) HP owns a patent to a couple of Nintendo 64 Dev libraries that they got through acquisitions. I am sure that nobody working there consciously realizes that they have them, and they aren't paying one of their lawyers to write me up a license agreement for it for a price that would make sense, so it may as well not exist.
To add onto this, there is also the question of paying residuals to the people involved in the production of a show. If it’s taken down, then nobody can stream it, then they don’t have to pay...
To add onto this, there is also the question of paying residuals to the people involved in the production of a show. If it’s taken down, then nobody can stream it, then they don’t have to pay anything to anyone.
In situations like this I have a hard time viewing "piracy" as a negative thing. At a certain point it becomes preservation. The idea of access is one of the most important pieces of an archive....
In situations like this I have a hard time viewing "piracy" as a negative thing. At a certain point it becomes preservation. The idea of access is one of the most important pieces of an archive. Looney Tunes is a huge American cultural monument. I hate to see the way we're going, head first into a cultural paywall.
At a certain point, piracy starts to become more about archival vs being cheap. Sure, there will always be free riders regardless, but when a site like PTP has over 300K titles, not torrents, it...
At a certain point, piracy starts to become more about archival vs being cheap. Sure, there will always be free riders regardless, but when a site like PTP has over 300K titles, not torrents, it speaks volumes vs streaming.
“We all love HBO, and it’s a brand that has been built over five decades” to stand for “edgy, groundbreaking entertainment for adults,” Perrette said. “But it’s not exactly where parents would most eagerly drop off their kids. And yet Warner Bros. Discovery has some of the best-known kids’ characters, animation and brands in the industry. Not surprisingly, the category has not met his true potential on HBO Max.”
Or at least that’s the way it was publicly presented.
This is kind of odd timing for me because I was watching some of the old Bugs Bunny cartoons on Max recently. These used to be rerun a lot when I was a kid. I always thought the ones from the 40s - 60s were the best ones. It's kind of fun that they are mostly the same humor as now but often have references to actors or things that were popular at the time. Besides references to Humphrey Bogart, there may also be a joke related to ration cards that existed during World War 2.
Anyway a disappointing if predictable development. I think a lot of these things are public domain now and/or available on archive.org.
I did a quick search and found this which seems to have a lot of the stuff, and there are other archives too: The Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies Archival Project
If David Zaslav's mission is to drive Warner Bros. Discovery to the ground then he's doing a bloody good job.
Much of these shows would have been in the public domain had Disney not aggressively lobbied Congress to drastically lengthen copyright expiration laws.
Why is it in any way beneficial for these streaming companies to not provide some of the content on their platform, if they have the rights to it and they don't plan to market it anywhere else? Sure, not featuring certain series on the start page I get, but not making them available at all..?
For one, removing the familiar will make some subset of people try out the unfamiliar. "Oh, my show got removed, guess I will try this new show that was on my list."
There is also the consideration that the Netflixes and HBOs and whatevers of the world sometimes rent server space at "the last mile" type data centers and there is only so much space that they can use to deliver content at the speeds that people expect. If only N people watch Bugs Bunny, and 2N people want to watch some show that they just got rights to, they might replace Bugs with NewShow. Instead of delivering Bugs with buffering, it can be better to remove it entirely so that it doesn't make your service look bad.
The people on this site probably grok that different content might have different delivery speeds, but Joe Averageuser is going to call and complain that his service is messed up.
There is also the possibility that almost nobody actually cares and it isn't worth the effort to host of or deal with it. Like another person linked, this stuff is archived and widely available. An example of "has the rights but not worth dealing with" in my area is that (as far as I can tell) HP owns a patent to a couple of Nintendo 64 Dev libraries that they got through acquisitions. I am sure that nobody working there consciously realizes that they have them, and they aren't paying one of their lawyers to write me up a license agreement for it for a price that would make sense, so it may as well not exist.
To add onto this, there is also the question of paying residuals to the people involved in the production of a show. If it’s taken down, then nobody can stream it, then they don’t have to pay anything to anyone.
In situations like this I have a hard time viewing "piracy" as a negative thing. At a certain point it becomes preservation. The idea of access is one of the most important pieces of an archive. Looney Tunes is a huge American cultural monument. I hate to see the way we're going, head first into a cultural paywall.
At a certain point, piracy starts to become more about archival vs being cheap. Sure, there will always be free riders regardless, but when a site like PTP has over 300K titles, not torrents, it speaks volumes vs streaming.
Wasn't the rebrand to "Max" to get away from adult programming and be an everything streamer?
That’s what it sounds like to me:
Or at least that’s the way it was publicly presented.
I am just amazed they couldn't come up with a name that was not completely generic.
Not really. That was a push from the HBO team so that the HBO name wasn’t associated with the reality TV shows Discovery produces.