Copyright isn't the problem, it's greed. Each company is offering a unique product, so they get to charge whatever they want for it. And users that want that media will chase the platforms around, so they're able to extract the maximum out of every subscriber.

Streaming just allowed cable networks to unbundle in the most lucrative way possible... and when users stop subscribing to various services because their prices have gone too high they'll scream "see, it doesn't work, we have to sell packages!"

Meanwhile the users are back to either pirating or suffering shitty overpriced services, of which Netflix is on a quick pace to make themselves one as their catalog narrows from TV producers moving to their own platforms and they continue to cancel their native shows and give ridiculous fortunes to D-list movie directors churning out flop after flop.

I think a good first step would be to stop making exclusivity deals. Is there some good (for them) reason they do that?

Same reason why every other industry has exclusivity deals (eg. video game consoles): to attract customers. If you're a TV/streaming network, and you want to attract customers, how else are you going to do it? Good ux can only get you so far.

Music streaming solved this problem by remembering they were combating piracy not each other. Each music service has all the music and they all pay royalties.

TV streaming services have come full circle and are repeating the same cable tv mistakes that caused piracy to flourish in the first place.

I knew someone was going to bring up music streaming. Yes, it's indeed true that releases there are (mostly) available across the major platforms. The difference I think, is that music is a loss leader. record/streaming sales is a small drip in the bucket compared to other sources like touring/events and merchandising[1]. Streaming to them is basically another way for them to promote themselves, to get more customers so they can earn the real bucks via the other methods. The same can't be said for tv/movie releases.

[1] random source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-do-musicians-make-money-...

> According to a recent Citigroup report, the music industry generated a record $43 billion in 2017, but recording artists saw just 12% of that revenue, or $5.1 billion, and the "bulk" of their revenues came from touring.

So, Game of Thrones On Ice then? Can't wait.

Music streaming solved this problem with a baseline of compulsary licensing for 'radio style' plays.

I think we've been trained towards seeking out specific shows to watch in order now, so a you can't pick exactly what to watch model wouldn't really fly, but even if it did, it wouldn't cost any less, or be able to include nearly everything.

The key difference is the music streaming services aren't necessarily owned by the content producers. I'm assuming Spotify and Apple Music dominate streaming (could be wrong), whereas Hulu/Disney+/etc are all owned by the content producers. Netflix eventually merged into a production company too, which has only made it worse

Music streaming doesn't have many real players. Spotify got in first, apple and google use their huge userbases to push their product and everyone else is irrelevant. If you wanted to make a new music streaming service you could never get anywhere close to big.

Spotify would probably be dead by now if Apple and Google didn't do such a poor job.

>Spotify got in first

Actually Rhapsody was the first. But I guess conditions at the time weren't such that it really went mainstream.

You understand that without copyright the underlying content wouldn't exist, right? Piracy isn't a sustainable strategy unless it is a small fraction of consumers. Am I missing something here?

> You understand that without copyright the underlying content wouldn't exist, right?

Is it, really? Not OP but I think there is a lot of room for alternative business models that doesn't have to depend on copyright. It's just that copyright already taken a hold on most people's mind so they default to it.

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but what business models could exist sustainably without the creators of the content having copyright?

Just like the guy that take his stuff from the back of a van, Best Buy can't compete with him too! It's crazy. It's crazy how much better you can offer a service by not paying for what you offer.

The thing is, someone has to pay for that content to exist... if that's not the pirate that pay for it... who does? Oh yeah, me by paying for that uncompetitive service.

But that market exists, we can all hop online and buy counterfeit goods today. The difference between the van and Best Buy is customer service -- with BB I can return the item in a week if I don't like it, claim warranty, etc., and with the van I can't. Meanwhile, I've gotten better service from private tracker staff than any streaming service.

> counterfeit goods today.

counterfeit != stolen

At least counterfeited come with some kind of effort to produce the product in some similar manners. That come with it's own issues, the quality of the product is a big one.

> with BB I can return the item in a week if I don't like it, claim warranty, etc.

Yeah, never got theses issues over media files luckily. You could argue that a rebate high enough justify not being able to return an item. I'm sure plenty of van guy could allow you to return it too ;). I bought a 1060 on Kijiji and the guy told me that he would replace the item if it wasn't working. He got just as much incentive to do this than the van guy ;) hell maybe he even stole them, who knows.

> Meanwhile, I've gotten better service from private tracker staff than any streaming service.

Sure, when that's all you pay for, it's easy to offer great service. Believe me, there's a MUCH bigger part from Netflix price that go toward paying for content than from your private tracker. Not by choice... they need to pay for that content, someone has to pay for it.