The television and film industry is a tight-knit group, and I can easily see them circling the wagons in order to protect their distribution monopoly.
With all the cable companies now interested in scripted television, the ability for good shows to make it to a home that will support it through growth is much higher.
Besides the inventory issue, I see huge issues with Hulu and Netflix getting into the production business. Their core business is distribution, not programming and production.
I'm not seeing a compelling reason why Hulu/Netflix would be able to produce million dollar+ episodes and make money off of them.
The roles of creators and broadcasters are blurring. Not because of a squeezing from CEOs either to turn more a profit, but the necessity of the Internet.
If I owned Crackle, Rev3, YT, Netflix, or Hulu? You can bet I'd be looking to pick up properties with a built-in following.
Never got into Firefly.
If you're running a streaming service, the opportunity costs of a small-viewership show are much less. As long as you're making some money, there's no reason to stop. Because streaming services do not have to allocate broadcast time slots as a scare commodity, they can go with an entirely different model: many more shows, each targeted at a smaller but more passionate audience.
The only real chance for things like Hulu and Netflix to succeed no-holds-barred, carrying everybody's content, is for them to carry their own content. Netflix is starting to do this and finally some competition in the form of fresh content is beginning to occur. Now if this behavior goes mainstream, people may stop watching traditional television in lieu of Netflix not only because they like the convenience but also prefer the programming. Then we have real incentive for the networks to get their stuff back on streaming platforms because it will no longer be a question of cannibalism, but one of losing viewersip altogether.
This makes sense in my head - hopefully it does too here ;-)