this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
86 points (96.7% liked)

movies

1799 readers
331 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

πŸ”Ž Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 45 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] McNomin@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Sounds like a monopoly. I don't think that's the answer but I don't have a solution either.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] McNomin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Yeup, enshitification is inevitable.

[–] kaboom36@ani.social 3 points 5 months ago

VRV was looking to be exactly what you are talking about, then Sony wrecked it

[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

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 ~~shoes~~ shows (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.

[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] Starb3an@sh.itjust.works 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] uis@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

First day in retirement?

Real life sisyphus.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago

Won't change a thing. They would need to R&D fixes. That would cost money and they don't spend that.