I think when competing firms form a 'union' like this it's called collusion.
the MPA has advocated for the motion picture and television industry, with the goals of promoting effective copyright protection, reducing piracy, and expanding market access. It has long worked to curb copyright infringement, including recent attempts to limit the sharing of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing networks and by streaming from pirate sites.
It doesn't seem to fit the FTC's definition of that, either: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Not to mention, there is already precendence
Why would the content owners want to work with only one streaming platform? There'd be nobody to bid against each other.
I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different? I should start complaining on the internet? I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet? A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet? So I go to the internet and complain, and then someone else has the gall to call me out on it? Please children, dad has a headache from the banality.
Yes. Is this meant to be some kind of gotcha? This is absolutely what you should do. There's no downside for anyone involved.
> I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet?
Again, yes. If enough people complain the promoter will go "oh crap, we've got loads of fans over there, we're losing out on revenue by not including them on the tour".
> A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet?
Yep. Would you complain if you went to a cinema and were barred from entry because you looked like you were from the wrong side of the town? I sure as hell would, and geographic content restrictions online are exactly the same.
Yes, if content is not available to someone else, any they wouldn't be able to see it otherwise, then their is little harm in piracy.
And you, not them, seem to be to most mad about other people doing things that doesn't really cause any harm.
I am willing to pay to watch your movie/show/series, but if there is no way to do that then I will pirate the show.
Only reason I got a month of Netflix was Inside
Only reason I got a month of Disney+ was to check out Loki
Neither will be renewed.
I tried to search platform where I could watch the new Rick & Morty, but I wasn't able to find one in EU. I'm sure it exists, but if Google can't get me the answer within resonable time (like this time it failed to) I just downloaded the episodes (actually I was able to watch the S5E1 from AdultSwim's website) [BTW if someone knows EU streaming site where I can watch these as they get released I'd like to know so I can pay for couple months]
I don't think you understand. A 'union' is simply a group of companies aligning and talking about common interests, one of which is exactly what I said -- the ability to strongarm content owners into making content available internationally, so that their bottom line can be stronger.
It is not the same meaning as 'merger' -- you seem to have conflated the two? For the union I just proposed, there is historical precendece -- the International Intellectual Property Association and similar organizations put pressure on the US Government via lobbying to specifically 'protect' international copyright law (NB: I can't condone this organization, but it does exist). This is simply a different group of companies with different interests. It doesn't mean they stop competing with each other, it just means that they all agree to do one specific thing. In this case it might harm them all in the short term, but would be beneficial in the long term.
Without sales to Netflix and other content distributors the revenue of the content owners would dry up -- movie sales are dwindling due to increasing prices, DVD sales are drying up, therefore the content distributors hold the cards here which allows them to unilaterally negotiate better terms -- but that only works if they all do it at once. If one company decides to not participate, that leaves an opening for the content owners to go to them.
> I want to see a show on Broadway, but I don't live in New York so I guess I should just find it on the pirate bay? No? How is it any different? I should start complaining on the internet? I want to see a concert in my town, but no promoter decided to bring that show to my town. I should again start complaining on the internet? A TV show/Film is not available in my available ways of viewing is totally acceptable to complain on the internet? So I go to the internet and complain, and then someone else has the gall to call me out on it? Please children, dad has a headache from the banality.
Well this is the most jumbled wall of text I've seen today. You seem to be saying that someone complaining on the internet is bad? You seem to also be trying to insult me? It's highly immature and petty, whatever it is.
The original point was that the ire was directed at the wrong group of people, and I pointed out that it's not like the company is going to care that one single person is venting about them on the internet.
I'm still not sure why it matters that someone on the internet deigned to complain about Netflix as opposed to the content owners. Can you clear up why that distinction is necessary here?
If you feel insulted, then that's something you've read into that isn't there. My whole jumbled wall of text (no worries, I'm not insulted) was to show how ridiculous the concept of "I can't stream a show that I feel like I deserve to watch so I'll do whatever I want to see it". There will always be people that justify whatever they want to do whatever they want, but the rest of us can just roll our eyes at it. You want to complain about something as petty as not seeing a TV show, then you can expect some people to tell you how that logic just makes no sense.
>I'm still not sure why it matters that someone on the internet deigned to complain about Netflix as opposed to the content owners. Can you clear up why that distinction is necessary here?
Because it's okay to blame someone that's not at fault while not blaming the person that is at fault? How does it even come close to being acceptable? Netflix did not make the rules. They need content on their platform, so they make deals with the content owners. It confounds me that you are confused by this.
Also, who is this post aimed at? Netflix isn't going to care if someone badmouths them on some random corner of the internet. And anyone who works there isn't going to give a shit just because someone on hacker news couldn't get SG-1 available internationally. I'm struggling to figure out why you felt that this post was at all necessary.