|
As it fragments and gets more expensive consumers are going to start pirating again. The advantage of streaming services was that it gave people content at a price point where pirating wasn't worth the hassle people will hit their point that is no longer the case sooner or later. Revenue drying up will cause a few companies to buy out others and consolidate the market a bit and bring things back into a place where consumers are happy to move back to a streaming service. Executives will see their market power as a way to start gouging people for more money and they'll move back to piracy. It's about here that the Hyperwar™ will begin and it won't matter anymore.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Slimy Hog posted:Companies love this because when you pay without watching the service they get free money yeah, I figured that was a part of it. So why are we as a society collectively paying these bloated middle-men for a frustratingly fragmented service, when we "could" just be paying the creators directly? And speaking of health care,
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:yeah, I figured that was a part of it. "what are you going to do about it"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:But I think in general, they would much rather have a nice steady twelve bucks a month direct from your wallet than an unpredictable few bucks here and there from you going to see a movie or buying a blu-ray. Companies love subscription services. It's much nicer to get you to sign up for a $60/year subscription than it is to sell you a product for $60, let alone to try to sell you 10 products for $6 apiece. Not only are you likely to keep the subscription for longer than a year, but with the subscription, they retain control over the product, because you have to go to them whenever you want to use it. So they can do things like force everyone to be on the same version (which lowers their support costs), and then also gradually worsen the product over time because you have no choice but to use what they're offering. (until you quit in disgust and go back to pirating, of course) Regarding specifically media content delivery, it's really easy to spin up a new content delivery service. Consequently, a lot of companies that used to put their content on some other service (e.g. Netflix) have decided to make their own service and sell their content directly, cutting out the middleman. This is bad for consumers due to the fracturing of the market and reduction in the value of their subscriptions...though on the flipside, it's hard to argue that it's automatically a good thing for there to be a single service that has a stranglehold over the market. If Netflix thought that they didn't have to worry about competition, they'd raise subscription costs to levels that would make cable TV providers blush.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 02:32
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:They would much rather have a nice steady twelve bucks a month direct from your wallet than an unpredictable few bucks here and there from you going to see a movie or buying a blu-ray. Right, of course they would, and that's the problem. Who gives a poo poo what they would prefer, why are we letting them call the shots, this is supposed to be about the consumer and the creator. God capitalism is so loving stupid sometimes. Methanar posted:"what are you going to do about it" 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:So why are we as a society collectively paying these bloated middle-men for a frustratingly fragmented service, when we "could" just be paying the creators directly? creators and owners are not the same people. in order to make a movie or tv show of the quality people expect when they subscribe to a streaming service, you need a production budget in order for that movie or tv show to stand out from others or for people to even know it exists and what its about, you need a marketing budget. in order to involve talent with name recognition, you need a shitload of money and industry connections. while there are of course good movies made by scrappy independent teams of creators working on shoe-string budgets, they are rare, and not what the general public has come to expect in their tv and movie entertainment. thus the production and marketing of most shows are funded by studios or the streaming services themselves, who retain the ownership of this media is this ideal? no absolutely not. it favors owners over creators. if you want to pay independent creators directly, you can, and that's great. there are all kinds of (relatively) new services like patreon and kickstarter built around that idea. but i wouldn't expect the general public to latch onto it anytime soon. the whole structure of intellectual property needs to be reworked, as well as celebrity culture itself. im being extremely simplistic since this is a forum post but this same basic setup causes the same issues in book publishing, music publishing etc. though to somewhat different degrees. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Feb 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 02:54
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:creators and owners are not the same people. Right, I guess what I'm saying is that "owner" should be the consumer, just like any other product, and the "distributor" is largely a relic, given we no longer have to deliver a hardcopy to cinema outlets. Yes you'll still have production houses, who can go into an arrangement with creators to produce and market their product, but the delivery could be much better if it was all in one place. Everyone could have access to everything, you pay for what you use, and the creators get paid for what gets used. Spotify is kind of close, right? But would we rather pay $10 for an album we get to keep, or have the artist get 0.0001 cents per stream? I feel like the former is better. The context for all this is I bought the last episode of a show from Apple TV cos I couldn't find a torrent, and paid like $3.50, and thought hold on, I would happily do that every time if it was the standard. I don't want to pirate. I want to pay creators.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Right, I guess what I'm saying is that "owner" should be the consumer, just like any other product, and the "distributor" is largely a relic, given we no longer have to deliver a hardcopy to cinema outlets. that's not how "every other product" works tho. when you go to a bookstore and buy a book, all you own is that one copy, and just the physical paper itself. the text is owned by someone else: the author, the publisher, or both depending on that book's particular situation. it is not "owned" by the consumer in any sense. that's why i said the structure of intellectual property itself would need to change. quote:delivery could be much better if it was all in one place who owns that "one place"? who funds the cost of building it and who reaps its profits? and how do you stop that place from using their immense power to gatekeep content in incredibly harmful ways? as someone else already mentioned, if netflix were the only streaming service they could jack up their subscription price to absurd levels. but there are other issues. what if the "one platform" was purchased by a group of religious extremists who ban content that disagrees with their values, and demand that creators jump through various hoops in order for their content to be accessible? quote:Spotify is kind of close, right? But would we rather pay $10 for an album we get to keep, or have the artist get 0.0001 cents per stream? I feel like the former is better. right now for musicians, the best deal in online music is bandcamp. they only take 15%, and that goes down to 10% once you sell a certain amount per year. but in cases it's best to be on bandcamp and spotify. why? because spotify has all the big artists with name recognition, and therefore it has a ton more traffic. bandcamp is where the dedicated fans of relatively niche and indie music go to shop, and of all the major platforms it's the closest to paying the artist directly in terms of the percentage that the artist receives. but spotify and youtube are where the general public, increasingly, go to listen to music and if you have no presence in that space, you lose out on a certain amount of awareness. celebrity and name recognition also play a huge role in all of this, and that takes resources most independent creators simply do not have access to on their own. before streaming services, the same problem existed just in a different form. stay independent and keep pure creative control over your product and let your few thousand fans scattered across the country pay you for cd's by putting cash in your hands and you hope it's enough money to eat and get to the next town, or sign with a label who give you a tm and maybe puts you in hotels and gets you better distribution an bigger crowds but dictates creative choices and ends up owning the music. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Feb 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 03:20
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:the "distributor" is largely a relic Of course we still do actually need a distributor, which I guess is kind of what the question is about really. And I don't have a good answer for that, except for maybe: 1) The UN 2) Jimmy Wales 3) Pre-2000 Page and Brin (jk) fake edit: Earwicker posted:who owns that "one place"? who funds the cost of building it and who reaps its profits? Yeah that's the issue. I dunno, kind of how the BBC and PBS and Australia's ABC do some excellent work, maybe the concept of publicly funded stuff isn't unheard of. Pretty much anyone could upload stuff, like youtube or whatever, the question would be more about keeping harmful content off. We should still improve society somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 03:30
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Yeah that's the issue. I dunno, kind of how the BBC and PBS and Australia's ABC do some excellent work, maybe the concept of publicly funded stuff isn't unheard of. yes they do some good work but in neither case are they the sole platform for film and tv content in their respective country, so i'm not sure how they are relevant. like, you realize they have netflix and hulu etc in the uk too right? as well as several non-bbc tv channels? i'm all for publicly funded content, but that's not at all the same thing as "one platform". Earwicker fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Feb 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
fwiw the BBC is funded by essentially a TV tax, and PBS is mostly a distributor of stuff that other people make
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:yes they do some good work but in neither case are they the sole platform for film and tv content in their respective country, so i'm not sure how they are relevant. they are a publicly funded high-level distribution (and sometimes production) service, with streaming capability, that's the relevance. So the answer to the question "who owns the one place" could be "the government / people"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
More government control of media in the country that tried to dismantle the postal service, ban muslims, and elected donald trump might be a bad idea. I wouldn't want the UK government to have more control either, considering how they tend to police things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Bill Being illegal to leave your house whatsoever during covid, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:they are a publicly funded high-level distribution (and sometimes production) service, with streaming capability, that's the relevance. there is a rather huge difference between having a state-run media channel as an option among many others, and having a state-run media channel as the only choice. do you really not see the glaring issues with the latter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 03:47
|
|
|
Methanar posted:More government control of media in the country that tried to dismantle the postal service, ban muslims, and elected donald trump might be a bad idea. Feels like the fault for a lot that falls at the feet of the free markets of Facebook and 4chan But yeah, governments can be bad too. So this would have to be enshrined in the constitution and defended like the 2nd amendment. Earwicker posted:there is a rather huge difference between having a state-run media channel as an option among many others, and having a state-run media channel as the only choice. Sure, but when the point of that service is that it has literally everything, it’s a slightly different conversation I made a joke about the US healthcare system before, but the parallels are becoming more apparent
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:It feels like the way forward is putting everything on the same service, and then paying for content directly (say a movie is $5, an episode is $2, and a season of a show is $15 or something). I don't feel like wading into the larger discussion, but are you aware that you can do exactly this? Google Play, Youtube, Amazon, and I think some apple thing all let you do exactly this and they have basically everything major. You can rent or buy individual movies or shows, without subscribing to anything at all. I think it has its own problems but I certainly prefer it to subscription based services, personally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 04:45
|
|
|
alnilam posted:I don't feel like wading into the larger discussion, but are you aware that you can do exactly this? Google Play, Youtube, Amazon, and I think some apple thing all let you do exactly this and they have basically everything major. You can rent or buy individual movies or shows, without subscribing to anything at all. I think it has its own problems but I certainly prefer it to subscription based services, personally. I wasn’t really aware of that, no, thanks. I mean I’d seen a few things on YouTube, and Apple TV was what kicked this whole thing off, but guess I’ll have to look to see how comprehensive the library is
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:Sure, but when the point of that service is that it has literally everything, it’s a slightly different conversation neither the bbc nor any other public/state funded media platform has "literally everything" how would that even work? it's up to the owners of content to decide how and where they share their content, for what price it is available, and so on, not the government. not to mention the obvious problem that if there was only one singular government-run media source and no alternatives, it could easily shift towards prohibiting any content that criticized said government or its aims. not to mention the whole issue of harmful content, and who gets to decide which content is harmful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 07:10
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:neither the bbc nor any other public/state funded media platform has "literally everything" well yeah, because this is still hypothetical. Put "literally everything" on there, is my point. quote:how would that even work? it's up to the owners of content to decide how and where they share their content, for what price it is available, and so on, not the government. not to mention the obvious problem that if there was only one singular government-run media source and no alternatives, it could easily shift towards prohibiting any content that criticized said government or its aims. not to mention the whole issue of harmful content, and who gets to decide which content is harmful. Owners (/creators) can set the price for their content, the government (or whoever) simply hosts it, and probably takes a little cut for administration. It sounds like Google Play is basically already doing this, so never mind I guess. I'd never used it, so apologies for the ignorant question. (But they don't seem to have The Last of Us, for example.) Anyway I do think that model might be the future. Just weird that it feels like it's never really been in the conversation with the whole streaming fiasco. I think it might help stop people getting glued to the couch as well, if they were paying for content they consumed, as opposed to sitting there sucking the most out of a subscription.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 08:00
|
|
|
Bucky Fullminster posted:So why are we as a society collectively paying these bloated middle-men for a frustratingly fragmented service, when we "could" just be paying the creators directly? Bucky Fullminster posted:why are we letting them call the shots Bucky Fullminster posted:the "distributor" is largely a relic, given we no longer have to deliver a hardcopy to cinema outlets. Bucky Fullminster posted:Yes you'll still have production houses, who can go into an arrangement with creators to produce and market their product, but the delivery could be much better if it was all in one place. Everyone could have access to everything, you pay for what you use, and the creators get paid for what gets used. Earwicker posted:not the government. not to mention the obvious problem that if there was only one singular government-run media source and no alternatives, it could easily shift towards prohibiting any content that criticized said government or its aims. not to mention the whole issue of harmful content, and who gets to decide which content is harmful. Bucky Fullminster posted:It sounds like Google Play is basically already doing this, so never mind I guess. I'd never used it, so apologies for the ignorant question. (But they don't seem to have The Last of Us, for example.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 08:08
|
|
|
I agree pretty much with the entirety of Tiggum's post. As an addendum the public database of media already exists, and it's called Piracy. Or newznab I guess...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 08:20
|
|
|
As Earwicker and others were saying, if the distribution network is controlled by a single player, content gets controlled or content controls itself to get distributed. Blockbuster Video had a huge effect on what people got to see in the 90s. https://screenrant.com/blockbuster-video-store-censorship-problems-controversy-explained/ quote:Unknowingly to many patrons, Blockbuster pandered to right-wing ideologies by censoring indie, mainstream, and classic movies to appease their conservative backers and executives. Back in Blockbuster’s early rise in 1991, the company announced it would no longer carry films rated NC-17, so any film rated as for adults only wouldn’t be stocked. Before Blockbuster’s decision, most independent video rental chains and family-owned shops decided to include NC-17 movies on a case-by-case basis, with Blockbuster taking the overly conservative view of completely removing them from access. Around this same time, conservative Southern personalities were protesting Blockbuster for carrying films over an R rating, which would have meant losing some of their loyal right-wing supporters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 08:56
|
|
|
Methanar posted:I wouldn't want the UK government to have more control either, considering how they tend to police things. The Online Safety Bill being terrible notwithstanding, I just want to correct that it was never at any point illegal to leave your house during the pandemic. You were allowed out for any essential service (shopping, the doctor) or to take a walk for your own health. The punishment for gathering without purpose was a small fine as a disincentive. As semi-lockdowns go it was a decent balance, and I say this while also believing our government is dogshit overall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 10:23
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:How could we? I agree that it would be nice, but the capitalists control the means of production. The people with the wealth own the cameras and studios and the distribution networks and everything else you need. Theoretically you can bypass all that and use your own, but only if you yourself are already wealthy. There's crowdfunding, but that really only works for people who are already successful (and therefore have a proven track record and a way to get their message out) or people who are wealthy enough to put together a proof of concept and market it, or occasionally people who are extremely lucky. Well seize them, comrade. Ask the French if they have anything useful laying around. We can't be expected to have to switch between menus to scroll indefinitely, honestly, it's ridiculous. quote:What you're suggesting is a public utility. They're great. But they're designed to provide services rather than generate profit, so rich people hate them. And rich people run the world, so we don't get to have public utilities. Yeah, basically. Might seem like an alien idea in the US, but they're pretty common elsewhere. Shame most of the content and streaming services are American though I guess. greazeball posted:As Earwicker and others were saying, if the distribution network is controlled by a single player, content gets controlled or content controls itself to get distributed. Blockbuster Video had a huge effect on what people got to see in the 90s. That's a cool story, but doesn't really feel applicable to this situation in this day and age. Yes a centralised host could operate in the same way, but we're assuming they're operating with the same basic TOS as youtube, pretty much anyone can put pretty much anything on there, and we can still tell people certain to get hosed. Also this is kind of a tangent and I might be misremembering it but the world would be better if Natural Born Killers wasn't made, stupid glorification of gun violence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 13:58
|
|
|
I want to use an outlet timer for a grow light bulb, but the outlet is recessed into a decorative board thingie and I don't think the timer will fit. Is there anything unsafe about plugging the timer into an outlet strip instead of directly into the wall?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 14:06
|
|
|
Money Advice Needed: my wife and I want to buy a minivan. My car is paid off but I’ve been told that it’s time to trade it in. My wife owes ~$4600 on her car. Is it better to pay off the remaining balance on her car (.99%) or put that money towards the down payment on anew car?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Money Advice Needed: my wife and I want to buy a minivan. My car is paid off but I’ve been told that it’s time to trade it in. My wife owes ~$4600 on her car. Is it better to pay off the remaining balance on her car (.99%) or put that money towards the down payment on anew car? Who is telling you its time to trade in your car? Why don't you just keep it and drive it into the ground? As for your wife's car, thats going to depend on the interest rate you are paying on it compared to the interest in your savings and the interest rate you would be paying on a new car. There is no one size fits all solution here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
What is the interest rate on her car right now? If it is lower than the newer car’s rate, spend the money on the new vehicle. If new vehicle rate is lower, pay off the wife’s car. Make sure you talk to a local credit union about financing. Do not finance with the dealership unless you’re buying brand new and they have a 0% or 1% promotional rate. Always get your financing prepared in advance. Also, be ready to walk away. Car sales is high pressure and they use psychological tricks to try to manipulate you into spending more than you need.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
artsy fartsy posted:I want to use an outlet timer for a grow light bulb, but the outlet is recessed into a decorative board thingie and I don't think the timer will fit. Like a blocky analog plug-in timer? Yeah you can plug those into a power strip or a short extension cord no problem. Standard warnings apply about making sure everything is rated for the right current, but for a fluorescent or LED grow light I can't imagine you'll have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
artsy fartsy posted:I want to use an outlet timer for a grow light bulb, but the outlet is recessed into a decorative board thingie and I don't think the timer will fit. Should be fine. The only household item I can think of that would be unsafe in that situation is a space heater. Also, these are handy to have around the house. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Why do both Purina and farmers co-ops use the same checkerboard logo? What's the connection there? Does one of them own the trademark and the other just uses it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Wife’s car is .99%- my mechanic is the one telling me that my car is one foot in the ground and to start looking
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Why do both Purina and farmers co-ops use the same checkerboard logo? What's the connection there? Does one of them own the trademark and the other just uses it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness The scope of a trademark depends (partially) on how distinctive it is. Like, Apple computer and Apple records both exist. But, you couldn't make a record company called Microsoft. A checkerboard pattern is pretty generic, and no one owns it for all of commerce. Here's the original purina trademark for the logo https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=72930599&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch This is just for animal feed, and they have lots of other trademarks for all of their other kinds of pet products, and while the ultimate decision would rest with a court, I imagine you'd have to get into the animal products sphere, or be copying one of their more distinctive logos to be infringing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
Also red checkerboard is, iirc, a classic farmstead decor kind of pattern. I've seen similar designs on water towers of many a rural town unaffiliated with Purina. Purina probably chose it to evoke a farmy aesthetic and has successfully become the default association.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Like, Apple computer and Apple records both exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
I want to set up a recurring, automatic peer-to-peer payment, but I don't know how best to do it. I can't find directions to do that on PayPal or Venmo, which are what I would prefer to use. Ideas?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
I can pretty easily set a recurring bank transfer through my bank's website. You need them to give you their account number for that though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
Most banks also offer a bill pay service that will automatically print and mail a check to anyone you want on a recurring basis, for free
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
I was gift an old Kindle Fire 9 for my kid and this thing is slow and clunky. Is it worth the time to do research on how to root this thing (are there communities that do this for Fire tablets?) or should I just donate it to the Goodwill?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Tiggum posted:
Yeah, I'm going to assume this is ignorance, and not malice, because back end points on TV and film are a huge thing. Sometimes the creators make more on the back end than with their upfront fee. It's also not uncommon for crew members to end up with points on a production. I mean yeah sure gently caress Universal Studios or whatever, but Best Boy #3 might need that couple hundred dollar check for our increasingly insane healthcare through the Union. Things are changing a lot with streaming and everything, but when you stream even a free movie on Prime Video it counts like a "sale" towards points for guys in production (that have points). It might only be $.0001 that reaches them from you watching, but it adds up eventually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 04:18
|
|
