Yet another Streaming Service to look into. The draw to this one though is that it gets a whole lot of niche Warner services together and if you're interested in more than one of those, the...
Yet another Streaming Service to look into. The draw to this one though is that it gets a whole lot of niche Warner services together and if you're interested in more than one of those, the originals and/or the HBO catalog, it's a good deal.
Good on Elmo for getting into Late Night. Muppets are probably going to giving him side eye now, but he's done his time, and deserves a shot at his own show.
Eventually some company will dominate the market by bundling all these subscriptions in convenient packages and charging a flat fee for access to them. And since Internet usually comes to our...
Eventually some company will dominate the market by bundling all these subscriptions in convenient packages and charging a flat fee for access to them.
And since Internet usually comes to our houses via a cable, we might as well just call this “cable television”.
I keep making that exact same joke every time a new streaming service opens but it's starting to become more sad than funny. I just don't want to deal with passwords, different web interfaces,...
I keep making that exact same joke every time a new streaming service opens but it's starting to become more sad than funny.
I just don't want to deal with passwords, different web interfaces, updating apps and checking where which license is going. I watch like 3 movies a month. That's like... 15GB of data? And I never get a license for anything, it's a single stream. How can it not end up being the smartest business model to have a $20 a month option that lets me just flat-rate stream whatever I want? Like, limit 4K (I couldn't care less, I'd be happy with 720p), make a cap on how much I can watch (a more expensive tier for 10+ movies a month or something). But why is streaming essentially tied to the production companies instead of being a separate business? The only reason this does not exist is that no one wants to make the first step and give up that sweet exclusivity money.
I heard about the United States vs. Paramout case, recently. It's a major antitrust case that broke up film studios so they were no longer allowed to own movie theaters. The more I look at the stage of digital distribution, the more it looks exactly like this. How could a potential new streaming service today possibly compete with this?
Because you are paying to view art. A painting is worth more than the paint and canvas, after all. And until there is one company with a monopoly on video (just wait a minute), you will not be...
Because you are paying to view art. A painting is worth more than the paint and canvas, after all. And until there is one company with a monopoly on video (just wait a minute), you will not be able to have a single supplier for all of it.
I hope you don't take this as an insult but this viewpoint irritates me because it strikes me as a mixture of entitlement and laziness. Nobody has the rights to use everyone else's IP for free. As many problems as there are with copyright, there is a general consensus for it's existence. The worst thing is that people actually get away with doing that, but this stance is too lazy to even figure out piracy.
I feel a little offended for you suggesting I'm asking to get it for free. I'm not. I can't imagine a scenario in which easier (paid!) access to media, not restricted by companies trying to corner...
I feel a little offended for you suggesting I'm asking to get it for free. I'm not. I can't imagine a scenario in which easier (paid!) access to media, not restricted by companies trying to corner the market into their own little empires, isn't a net positive for everyone involved. I'm mostly just making an argument for the world to be a little less cumbersome and content being as easily available as technologically possible.
For example, even a shared platform where you can pay to different companies to unlock specific content would be a start. Every book store works that way. It's not like you walk into one and they say "oh, we're sorry, we don't have Harry Potter, but we just bought exclusive rights to sell Stephen King books, if you're interested!". It's just about adapting this for flat rate pricing, which reflects the reality of how people consume media if given the choice. It's the logical end point where the media business is moving. Every state before that is just seems petty, like a delay.
Im not criticising you, I am criticizing the attitude. In fact I think that with the watching schedule you claimed mostly exempts you from my criticism. If you really are only watching three...
Im not criticising you, I am criticizing the attitude. In fact I think that with the watching schedule you claimed mostly exempts you from my criticism. If you really are only watching three movies a month on your subscription, then you're paying what I would consider to be more than a fair price. What I find irritating is that it seems so many people want the ability to watch everything all the time and only spend $15 a month for the privlage.
But about what you want specifically, I think it's worth pointing out that there already services that do just about that - except obviously not all-encompassingly. The problem with that is that most of the time the content creators are going to want an individual licensing fee, and that's going to come out of the consumer's pocket. Frankly, people don't want to pay for it. And that is what I am so upset about; people want more to watch but are simply unwilling to pay more to do it.
There is broad agreement that intellectual property restrictions are good for society, but I am beginning to suspect that we might be wrong. There are plenty of arguments for copyright and patents...
There is broad agreement that intellectual property restrictions are good for society, but I am beginning to suspect that we might be wrong. There are plenty of arguments for copyright and patents but I few people seem to understand the arguments against IP. People used to think slavery was a net good for society too.
I rarely like what Reason has to say but this short video on the ways IP restrictions are killing people during the COVID outbreak (and ostensibly all the time) underscore the importance of taking this issue seriously: https://youtu.be/OuF9C4wdtAk
Yet another Streaming Service to look into. The draw to this one though is that it gets a whole lot of niche Warner services together and if you're interested in more than one of those, the originals and/or the HBO catalog, it's a good deal.
Good on Elmo for getting into Late Night. Muppets are probably going to giving him side eye now, but he's done his time, and deserves a shot at his own show.
Eventually some company will dominate the market by bundling all these subscriptions in convenient packages and charging a flat fee for access to them.
And since Internet usually comes to our houses via a cable, we might as well just call this “cable television”.
I keep making that exact same joke every time a new streaming service opens but it's starting to become more sad than funny.
I just don't want to deal with passwords, different web interfaces, updating apps and checking where which license is going. I watch like 3 movies a month. That's like... 15GB of data? And I never get a license for anything, it's a single stream. How can it not end up being the smartest business model to have a $20 a month option that lets me just flat-rate stream whatever I want? Like, limit 4K (I couldn't care less, I'd be happy with 720p), make a cap on how much I can watch (a more expensive tier for 10+ movies a month or something). But why is streaming essentially tied to the production companies instead of being a separate business? The only reason this does not exist is that no one wants to make the first step and give up that sweet exclusivity money.
I heard about the United States vs. Paramout case, recently. It's a major antitrust case that broke up film studios so they were no longer allowed to own movie theaters. The more I look at the stage of digital distribution, the more it looks exactly like this. How could a potential new streaming service today possibly compete with this?
Because you are paying to view art. A painting is worth more than the paint and canvas, after all. And until there is one company with a monopoly on video (just wait a minute), you will not be able to have a single supplier for all of it.
I hope you don't take this as an insult but this viewpoint irritates me because it strikes me as a mixture of entitlement and laziness. Nobody has the rights to use everyone else's IP for free. As many problems as there are with copyright, there is a general consensus for it's existence. The worst thing is that people actually get away with doing that, but this stance is too lazy to even figure out piracy.
I feel a little offended for you suggesting I'm asking to get it for free. I'm not. I can't imagine a scenario in which easier (paid!) access to media, not restricted by companies trying to corner the market into their own little empires, isn't a net positive for everyone involved. I'm mostly just making an argument for the world to be a little less cumbersome and content being as easily available as technologically possible.
For example, even a shared platform where you can pay to different companies to unlock specific content would be a start. Every book store works that way. It's not like you walk into one and they say "oh, we're sorry, we don't have Harry Potter, but we just bought exclusive rights to sell Stephen King books, if you're interested!". It's just about adapting this for flat rate pricing, which reflects the reality of how people consume media if given the choice. It's the logical end point where the media business is moving. Every state before that is just seems petty, like a delay.
Im not criticising you, I am criticizing the attitude. In fact I think that with the watching schedule you claimed mostly exempts you from my criticism. If you really are only watching three movies a month on your subscription, then you're paying what I would consider to be more than a fair price. What I find irritating is that it seems so many people want the ability to watch everything all the time and only spend $15 a month for the privlage.
But about what you want specifically, I think it's worth pointing out that there already services that do just about that - except obviously not all-encompassingly. The problem with that is that most of the time the content creators are going to want an individual licensing fee, and that's going to come out of the consumer's pocket. Frankly, people don't want to pay for it. And that is what I am so upset about; people want more to watch but are simply unwilling to pay more to do it.
There is broad agreement that intellectual property restrictions are good for society, but I am beginning to suspect that we might be wrong. There are plenty of arguments for copyright and patents but I few people seem to understand the arguments against IP. People used to think slavery was a net good for society too.
I rarely like what Reason has to say but this short video on the ways IP restrictions are killing people during the COVID outbreak (and ostensibly all the time) underscore the importance of taking this issue seriously:
https://youtu.be/OuF9C4wdtAk