[margaretdouglas]

Cable providers were charging you $80/mo for commercial laden network aggregation. You cut that cord and complain when paying less for more content, without commercials, and is on demand, because it is unbundled and you need to manage each $5-15 "network" fee individually, instead of a single itemized bill.

This is like complaining you have to pay for NBC to watch Friends when you'd much prefer to watch it on ABC so you can avoid paying for both.

[CharlesW]

Absolutely. I see a lot of rationalization for piracy here, even though media consumption has never been cheaper or more convenient.

I can't speak for the Android ecosystem, but the iOS ecosystem's Apple TV app (Netflix notwithstanding) aggregates channels into one nice experience, and the App Store makes these channels trivial to subscribe to and cancel, making it easy to decide month-to-month what I want to pay for.

[w0m]

> You cut that cord and complain when paying less for more content.

For a few years there; it felt like I could watch ~anything i wanted on Netflix or Crunchyroll. Now it feels like I need 10 services. Maybe my viewing habits have changed; but I haven't started a torrent in a decade and I've been tempted recently.

[tomjen3]

We never paid for networks, we paid for a handful of shows that were worth watching, which happened to be on different channels because physics.

Now they are on different platforms, because no good reason at all.

A copyright holder of a creative work should be able to set the price, but should not be able to use their monopolistic powers to control who pays the price. Let each channel decide if they want to buy a given show at a given price.

[margaretdouglas]

> which happened to be on different channels because physics.

So why do we see wars for who gets to stream Friends/Seinfeld/The Office/etc now? The networks don't own that content, it was just physics?

> Let each channel decide if they want to buy a given show at a given price.

That's not how this works now, nor has it ever worked this way. If Network A is paying for the exclusive broadcast rights, then Network B doesn't also have an equal Right to also purchase the exclusive broadcast rights. This has always worked this way. If Disney produces Disney Mouse Club Cartoon it has no obligation to allow any network purchase the exclusive rights to broadcast that show because it already purchased them in the form of owning the original production, and therefore copyright, from its inception.

[tomjen3]

You are quite right in that it doesn't work this way, I am advocating a change in the law. Remember copyright is a temporary monopoly granted to promote science and the useful arts.

[ghaff]

So let's imagine the streaming services operate like channels--which is to say they have some content they get created and other content that they license. Now imagine there's a common platform or at least common portal that aggregates them all and bills you for access to everything. You've now effectively recreated the cable bundle and your monthly bill is probably going to be $100-$200/month. (Maybe more if it includes something like YouTube TV.) Is that actually what you want?

[tomjen3]

I wouldn't pay that much, which suggests that I wouldn't have access to everything, but I would probably get best or alternatively everything in a certain niche (ie. a sci-fy channel that has nothing but sci-fy). Why pay for romantic comedy and horror when I don't want to watch it?

[lotsofpulp]

Why is a channel needed? You can go straight from copyright holder to viewer.

[ghaff]

So you want to go to every individual studio to watch movies and TV and pay separately?

[lotsofpulp]

Makes no difference to me, I just spend a few seconds searching the title and pay and watch what I want when I want. But I also do not watch much.

If enough people want bundled content and are willing to pay enough to make it happen, then content owners will sell it. If not, then the buyers and sellers do not agree on price.