[iamben]

To be fair, I think the fractured rights thing is a big thing a well. I can subscribe to one music service - Spotify, Amazon, Apple, Tidal - and pretty much every new release is available on all of them (or risk a terrible opening week/zero buzz if you go for the 'exclusive' - but ever then, available a week or so later).

The movie/TV companies sell their show to the SVOD platform that offers the most in the territory. Or it's developed by the service themselves. So if you have to subscribe to a handful of services to watch everything your friends recommend.

Most of us can afford one music service. If you're forced into 5 streaming services a lot of people will just pirate. And even for those that do pay - the "we'll show this in the UK a week later than the US" means unless you pirate it, it's spoiled on social media within a few days.

[babypuncher]

The economics of shoving the entire output of the entertainment industry on a single $15/mo streaming service don't work out. It arguably doesn't even work that well for music. Ask any musician that doesn't rake in platinum records how well Spotify works out for them.

[JoshTriplett]

> The economics of shoving the entire output of the entertainment industry on a single $15/mo streaming service don't work out

The economics work out just fine: the net result would be paying the entertainment industry less, which may be what people want.

[babypuncher]

Less money and competition in the entertainment industry means less total content production and less impetus for funding riskier productions.

If you look back at American TV in the 20th century, so much of it was samey and bland because there were only 3-4 programs to choose from at any given time. It was hard to get networks to greenlight anything that didn't fit an already proven formula.

This started to change with cable and streaming. Consumers suddenly had a lot more options, and were also spending a lot more money. You had a lot more networks trying to stand out, and they put out riskier shows that rejected decades of TV norms.

Now that the industry is consolidating again, networks and studios are back to being much more risk averse, and that is hurting the quality of their output.

Personally, I don't think the answer is more all-you-can-eat subscriptions, it's frustrating for consumers and even moreso for creators. I wonder if some kind of usage-based compensation would work, where users can choose between watching a show with ads, or paying 25 or 50 cents per episode to watch ad-free.

[lotsofpulp]

People can pay less, all they have to do is consume less.

But all the complaints I see are about not wanting to pay more for more content.

[GolfPopper]

Short film SF production house / curated YouTube channel DUST has been around for years, and appear to have a business model that works for them. And while I do not know anything about their finances, and I doubt they make blockbuster money, their content is typically more enjoyable to watch than most stuff I see streaming elsewhere.

[someguyiguess]

Why would people pay less and consume less when they can more easily pirate, consume more, and pay nothing?

[Tadpole9181]

> Why would I pay for anything when I can just shoplift?

[JoshTriplett]

Why would I pay for anything when I can make an exact copy without taking away the original?

If you want to argue about copyright infringement, do, but don't equate it to theft. That's an old and tired argument that isn't useful for setting policy.

[someguyiguess]

> you wouldn’t download a car would you?

When these companies make their services so painful and inconvenient, of course people are going to go to (less ethical but more convenient) alternatives.

[freedomben]

Certainly there's some, though I would gladly pay for downloadable drm free copies. I have no problem paying, but I do have a problem renting, which is all the digital purchases today are, despite marketing propaganda

[wkat4242]

Obscure musicians never made a lot of money. That's not Spotify's fault. It's just a. Industry where the majority doesn't make it. Gigs are still the main way to earn money for them.

And for video it wouldn't have to be $15. People easily pay $50-80 for cable channel packages. A comprehensive streaming service could cost similar. The willingness to pay is there. I'm just really sick of this shit paying for tons of different services.

When Netflix was the only game in town I subscribed to it. And prime later. But now I've dropped all my subs and gone back to the jolly roger. As have many people I know.

We have a saying in Holland: he who looks too deep in the can gets the lid on his nose. It's a bit akin to the American saying of having your cake and eat it. But the thing is there's lucky so many profits you can extract especially if you're competing with free but more hassle.