• Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

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

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 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.

      • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • kaboom36@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

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