[benajnim]

It sounds like you're implying that paying for Netflix and using bittorrent is mutually exclusive. If the content on Netflix were better (it has everything you would ever want to watch) and less restrictive (want to watch offline?), and content creators were fairly compensated, why would a rational consumer chose anything else and why would a content creator not advocate for this scheme?

I love streaming subscriptions for the convenience factor but I find they fall far short of their promise due to "incomplete" content and restrictions of artificial scarcity-and I say this as a supporter of these services and the model used.

The profits are still largely going to the middlemen, and from all indication (that I can see), the content creators are still being shafted.

[anigbrowl]

How do you mean 'incomplete' content - you mean not getting access to all the extra features on the DVD, or not having a great selection of films so you can watch anything you want? I agree that the latter is problematic, but that's why I asked the question in the context of a film that is available through multiple streaming services. I would like to understand this better.

The profits are still largely going to the middlemen, and from all indication (that I can see), the content creators are still being shafted.

As someone who works in film, I have to tell you I'm really tired of hearing this. Of course whatever Netflix pays to the original distributor goes to the distributor. From there it is split with the producer and the producer distributes into other profit participants, like investors or actors who are due residuals or whatever. Bear in mind that the main distributor often advanced some or all of the production costs, and all of the marketing costs (which are usually 50-100% of production costs). As well as that, less-successful films are often cross-subsidized by more successful films (especially in international distribution) as part of the deals distributors negotiate with producers.

Now it's not the case that every distribution deal is fair, but most of them are a lot fairer than people seem to imagine, and sticking it to a distributor in some way does nobody on the creation side any good whatsoever. I like distributors, they have fat checkbooks. I don't think people outside the business realize that they front a lot of the money that pays for movies to get made in the first place. Dealing directly with thousands of theaters and hundreds of different media markets is an awful lot of work; producers would like to focus on making more movies than trying to manage all the logistics, accounting, and collections of the distribution phase.

[jobposter1234]

I wrote a long reply that wasn't too relevant, but I do want to say that I appreciate you expressing your opinion on HN. You add an excellent P.O.V. (one that I do not agree with) but I appreciate your ability to remain an even tone and express yourself. Especially with your experience in film.

Now, for the record, I will continue to pirate as long as it's more convenient than buying/streaming. Doubly so when I consider the MPAA/RIAA philosophy antithetical to that of the internet, or of my own personal beliefs. Triply so when the limitations (regional exclusivity/locking) negatively affect me without providing any clear benefit.

[anigbrowl]

You're welcome. I don't lie awake at night worrying about the morals of piracy (much :-)) but I do spend quite a lot of time trying to figure out what viable alternative business models there are. It's clear there's a great demand for video entertainment, but it's a very different sort of product from something like a game in terms of how it's consumed, so paradigms like freemium or MVP are often not applicable or useful.

[jobposter1234]

This is fantastic. Thank you for taking this perspective! Content (high or even low quality) pretty much sells itself, especially if we had less content. Think about how low quality much of 50s TV/etc. was much lower than modern shows.

Is industry's biggest concern (I ask you b/c you sound like you're in the scene) that current revenues are impacted by piracy? Or are they worried about the future if piracy becomes even easier?

My perception of the content industry is that they're snakes in suits. On one hand, they're crying poor, about how actors and musicians aren't getting paid b/c of piracy. On the other, you hear about Hollywood accounting, and label-slanted recording contracts. Then I read about how much money is being made overall.

I try to support the arts. I buy premium content from niche sellers who wouldn't be able to write if it weren't for their small (usually < 1k) subscriber lists. But without more transparency from the content representatives, I assume there is plenty of money in the industry. Complaining about piracy seems like they're crying because they made $1 billion instead of $1.1 billion, while still pumping out absolute trash (by and large).

An example of someone who is hugely successful, funded by people like me, and is doing it absolutely right is Louis CK. He has been mainstream, but never made much money doing it (check out his email archives, he talks about this). Now he just sends me a very genuine email with news and info, clearly written by him. The links go to a site where I can buy and download the mp4 of his performances, no restrictions, $5.

He is even transparent with how much he made over time, and how much he distributed (as bonuses!) to the people who helped make his success possible.

The content sells itself. I just want someone genuine to explain to me, with facts, why piracy is bad -- and that would require an honest examination of Hollywood's books.

[waterlesscloud]

In the case of film, unlike music, most deals for distribution at least resemble fairness to the creators.

So you can strike that off this list of problems.

[anigbrowl]

I've been meaning to ask, could you drop me a line when you gt time? Thanks. Email is in my HN profile.