[HN Gopher] The bottom is dropping out of Netflix ___________________________________________________________________ The bottom is dropping out of Netflix Author : bryanrasmussen Score : 360 points Date : 2022-04-22 10:45 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.pajiba.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.pajiba.com) | flenserboy wrote: | I'd been looking for reason to get rid of Netflix once they made | it impossible to adequately curate the user experience -- they | kept shoving content I didn't want to see at me, as well as | content I'd already seen, and gave me no way to exclude shows or | types of shows from being presented to me. Netflix is amazingly | anti-user, and anti-user choice. The autoplay of short clips they | introduced made it actively anti-user. | | The straw that broke the camel's back for us was the | disappearance of a deep catalog and only one or two new shows | which were worth attention -- if we really want to see them, | we'll sign on for a month next year and binge-watch through them, | then drop the service again. This is the model we're going to be | going forward with any such service. | NegativeLatency wrote: | My point was when they raised the price - insult to injury (not | great content) | mirceal wrote: | I'm bullish on Netflix in the long term. This is an overreaction | from the market. | | As far as tech goes, I think Netflix has the best and I can see a | future where it will provide streaming tech to all other major | players. | | So, putting my money where my mouth is and buying some shares. | Let's see how this plays out. | carride wrote: | Netflix throws new series shows and movies up without any | description or even a trailer. They are lazy promoting both their | own content and others. Waste my time jumping between news and | blog review sites to get even a simple plot summary. | mymythisisthis wrote: | I like to watch Youtube channels like FranLab or Matthias Wandel. | Sometimes an extremely well written show might appear, like Mad | Men, but well written shows are rare. | fullstop wrote: | I get Netflix through my cell phone carrier, otherwise I would | drop it. I don't watch a lot of content, and I find myself | watching HBO Max more often when I do. | | With that being said, I might still buy some $NFLX. I thought | that they were dead once before with the whole Qwikster thing, | but investing in the company then would have been a very smart | move. | orangepurple wrote: | How much are you paying for a carrier plan if Netflix is | bundled with it? | fullstop wrote: | $135/mo (after taxes, etc) for unlimited data and four lines. | smt88 wrote: | HBO Max is phenomenal. They seem to be going a different route | (pushing quality) than Netflix (algorithms generating low- | budget reality shows). | bombcar wrote: | It's slightly possible that HBO has a longer track record | making good content than Netflix does; not everything can be | solved by throwing money at it. | smt88 wrote: | HBO Max started out with decades of inexpensive, quality | content via Warner. Netflix had to either buy or build | content. | | Netflix did poach proven talent, but even then, it was | people like Shonda Rimes and the guys who botched Game of | Thrones. | bombcar wrote: | Netflix failed to buy a studio; you can poach talent but | poaching an entire structure is harder to do. | | Netflix has spent more on original content than Amazon | did to buy MGM, though they apparently have spent less | than Disney did on Fox. | danielbln wrote: | Apple+ is also slowly entering that bracket (with stuff like | Severance) and I'm here for it. | JackFr wrote: | Liked Ted Lasso season 1. Underwhelmed by most of the other | offerings. Also I can't cast Apple TV which is a big | downside. | mcphage wrote: | > Also I can't cast Apple TV which is a big downside. | | Sorry, what does this mean? | MobiusHorizons wrote: | Not the op, but I read this as lack of chromecast support | mcphage wrote: | Ah, okay. | JackFr wrote: | I love HBOMax content but the technology is a nightmare. | Constant buffering that makes shows almost unwatchable, which I | cannot understand since I have no problem with Netflix, Prime, | Hulu and Disney. | fullstop wrote: | I don't have buffering problems with any streaming services. | Perhaps your ISP has congested peering with their network. | JackFr wrote: | Im not a technical network guy, so I don't know, but the | fact that it doesn't affect any other streaming service | leads me to blame HBO. | danielbln wrote: | Not saying you're right or wrong, but the landscape during the | Qwikster fiasco was so dramatically different, it may as well | have been a different market. | tomohawk wrote: | > the binge model, churn rate, and rising subscription prices. | | Missing option: woke partisan programming | | Putting the face of a divisive politician like Obama on a show? | Guaranteed to lose 30% - 50% of potential viewers who won't watch | it no matter how awesome it is. | | More than half of the most watched shows are not shows that | Netflix produced. Shows like Better Call Saul. | walrus01 wrote: | people who are freaking out over netflix subscriber drop seem to | ignore that they abruptly dropped 700k russian subscribers all at | once (for well known and good reasons), which would cause a big | dip in a subscriber count chart no matter how good the otherwise | incremental global growth is. | kderbyma wrote: | it has nothing I want...they seem to think their algos work which | they do not....the political Tinge was a tad too much to stomach | after a while, and when they no longer supported deep searching | and reduced their catalogue and trimmed out almost all | value....it was not a hard decision to cancel. | | And....nothing seems to be changing... | | TIP. wanna survive. give me a build my own tv service.....with | timeslots and my own show cycles that I put together from the | content.........that would fix binging and would allow me to have | a real value add......simple easy fixes....but they are going to | try and market their stuff to look better rather than fix it.... | | fix it....it's busted... | jillesvangurp wrote: | Higher prices, lower quality content. That's the sum of my | current gripes with Netflix. I'm considering pausing my | subscription until there's enough for me to watch again. Netflix | is sacrificing content for profit and squeezing people harder for | the same reason: the completely unsurprising result: people vote | with their feet. Publicly pondering adding ads to the mix is not | going to improve things. | | My suggestions: | | - invest in licensing deals for existing content. More premium | content, less generic filler content. As much as I appreciate | Steven Segal, his later work is not great; to put it mildly. And | it seems they unloaded a lot of that recently (at least on the | German Netflix). That, and generic Korean action movies/series | seems to be a thing lately. What's up with that? There are back | catalogs of great content dating back decades around the world | that are hardly being monetized at all currently. Probably | there's an audience for that. It shouldn't be that hard to get | good content. And it should be a lot cheaper than producing your | own new content. | | - invest in more & better in house content, that's a strategy | that has worked in the past. No reason why that would no longer | work. But make sure the quality is high. Especially a lot of the | Netflix movies have been expensive flops. | | - invest in re-acquiring lost customers (discounts, outreach, | etc.). Easy because they left because they didn't like the | content or the price. So, fix that and they might come back. You | know what they liked and thus which of those issues it is. | Customer acquisition cost for 200K users is not going to be | nothing. But that's 30M/year in revenue or so. | | - crack down on obvious password sharing abuse but give people a | good way out in terms of cost and make sure they don't have a | hard time with perfectly valid uses by families. Converting | families to individual subscriptions is just not going to happen. | So, avoid losing them because things get too expensive. Kids | watching now on a family account may become life time users once | they move out. A genius move would be to have 1 password per | profile and only allow 1 device to be watching with a profile at | the time. That makes it quite obvious how many people are using | the account. Some people have many kids. Perfectly legit to have | 6 or so profiles in some larger families. But you can track where | people watch (same ip address?) and take action when the abuse is | obvious. Mobile uses are even easier: simply verify the phone | number. Etc. | | - squeeze the competition hard by lowering prices; make sure | value for money is bets with Netflix. Growth will come at the | cost of the competition. Right now Netflix is losing this game. | | - change the leadership, Netflix is not performing well and the | current issues have been widely predicted by outsiders; which | means they are not listening either. That's a double fail. And a | triple fail if you consider that Netflix takes pride in being a | data driven company. The content issues should be fairly obvious | from the data they are gathering. The effect of the pricing | changes, should not have come as a surprise either. It's not data | driven if the algorithm tells you only what you want to hear. And | I suspect the algorithms were fine and management just simply | ignored the output of that. | dustractor wrote: | Serves them right for cancelling The AO. | omnibrain wrote: | Cowboy Bebop and Archive 81 are oly the latest examples where | Netflix cancelled a series I intended to watch before I was even | able to watch one episode. So why should I keep my subscription | at all? I can come back in a few years and see what I missed in | the mean time. | mbar84 wrote: | I hope this is a signal that, after the experience of lockdowns | and isolation, people have a greater appreciation for the value | of other peoples company. | xmodem wrote: | I'm paying for a Netflix account that's shared between 4 of my | friends. If they crack down on account sharing, I certainly won't | continue subscribing and I doubt my friends would either. | fullstop wrote: | I mean, it is against the terms of use. With that being said, | you also pay for a certain number of "screens" so it seems like | the terms would enforce themselves. | | Netflix is old enough now that a lot of subscribers now have | children that are in college or have graduated. My daughter is | in college, and she definitely uses my netflix credentials. At | what point does Netflix feel it is required for her to have her | own subscription? | francisofascii wrote: | What if Netflix had a "family" plan for say $15 - $20 a month? | fullstop wrote: | I hate to tell you this, but anything besides their basic | plan is already in that range and includes 2 to 4 "screens" | (concurrent streams), depending on the plan. | | It really feels like this is already a "family plan", given | the number of concurrent streams permitted. I don't think | that there's much fruit to be gathered by shaking this tree. | leephillips wrote: | But they say all the users must be in the same "household". | I assume this means people living together, and excludes | offspring off at university. But I hope I'm wrong! | fullstop wrote: | Yep, the definition of "household" can mean a lot of | things. I wonder how Netflix would define it? | post_break wrote: | The same IP address or region. | leephillips wrote: | Where does this come from? I didn't see it in the Netflix | TOS, but I could have missed it. Link? | fullstop wrote: | Not OP, but I found this: | https://help.netflix.com/en/node/124925 | leephillips wrote: | That certainly looks like it's about to tell us what a | household is, but then doesn't, except circularly. | | But it does say that people can use their Netflix account | while travelling, as long as they can verify that the | device is "authorized". So the bottom line seems to be | that you're a member of my household if I say you are, no | matter where you are. | fullstop wrote: | She's about 20 miles away and, for now, lives here in the | summer and on breaks. Sometimes the IP address will | match, sometimes it will not. | | Househould is not an easy thing to quantify. | nopenopenopeno wrote: | I tried to sign up for Netflix this morning but it wouldn't | accept any of my 3 different credit/debit cards so I gave up. | skc wrote: | Makes you wonder what the thinking was to coin the acronym FAANG | in the first place (at the expense of Microsoft no less) | lostgame wrote: | Frankly, they shouldn't have increased their subscriber fees | recently. It's not the time. They could've done it closer to the | beginning of the pandemic, when it wouldn't have really affected | the amount of subscribers, as people would've kept subscribed | anyway - but to do it now was suicide. I know at least 5 people - | personally - who quit Netflix after that. | | The password sharing thing is also huge, as due to the insanity | of the fragmentation that the ludicrous number of streaming | services has caused, a lot of friends and families cope by | subscribing to one service apiece and sharing them among each | other. | | As soon as these little tricks stop working _and_ it becomes more | expensive, people will just drop it. It 's not like Netflix has | actually worked on any value adds recently - tbh I feel their | content offerings have gotten so poor recently it's next on the | chopping block for me, too. | nottorp wrote: | > Then again, if you're borrowing someone else's password, | Netflix may not be valuable enough to warrant a subscription in | the first place | | Exactly. Same false argument as for torrenting entertainment | content. Most people who get it for free will just go without if | they're prevented from getting it. | | As for Netflix specifically, I don't watch it but I believe the | missus is finding fewer and fewer shows worth watching. | DevKoala wrote: | Serious question. Why is Netflix software engineering comp so | high? Is it a small team working on all technical problems? It | seems that every other content provider built a decent enough | streaming service and from anecdotal experience they offer | between 60-70% in TC of what Netflix offers. | | Is Netflix on more devices? Does Netflix have technology that | make content distribution more efficient compared to other | streaming services? Is it the location of the team, CA? I am | genuinely interested. | carride wrote: | Perhaps they promote their tech achievements better than others | https://netflixtechblog.com/ | danans wrote: | I doubt most of the subscription loss is attributable to reasons | that most HN types go on about (the rants about wokeness, not | enough scifi, carousel UI, pirating etc...). | | What's probably going on is after after a few years of pandemic | isolation and Netflix binging, the arrival of pandemic triggered | inflation, and overall higher employment rates, people just have | less interest, time, and money to binge watch longer form | content. Many are probably consuming shorter form content (like | TikTok), or enjoying more time in public. | | We economize by scrutinizing our spending of both money and time. | When we feel we have less of both of those, streaming services | are an obvious "nice to have" for a lot of people that can be cut | from their lives with minimal feeling of loss, especially since | it can be substituted with fulfilling time spent with other | people. | | Also, if you're paying an extra $150 a month for energy utilities | and gasoline, it kind of makes sense that you might cancel a | streaming service that you watch once or twice a week. | | These days the time I spent on streaming services during the | pandemic is more likely than ever to be spent having a beer on a | neighbor's porch (with them of course!). | Tiktaalik wrote: | I agree with this and it's likely we're going to see the same | subscription dips hit other services, such as Disney+, Prime, | Patreon, and more. | | Money is tight. People are closing their wallets. Frivolous | luxury expenses are the ones that will be cut the first. | sjtindell wrote: | Even introducing the the pandemic and inflation into it at all | seems off base to me. There simply isn't an infinite number of | people in the world who have the time, money, and broadband | access to watch Netflix. They're nearing or have reached the | peak of people who can use their product. That makes sense to | me. | dawnbreez wrote: | Netflix says it lost 200k subscribers--but I have to wonder, is | that 200k people who were paying for a subscription, or is some | percentage of that number actually people who were sharing an | account, stopped watching when Netflix started threatening | people who share accounts, and are now being counted as "lost | subscribers" (because Netflix expected them to start a new | account)? | bombcar wrote: | It's fewer total subscribers. The real number is the entirety | of the miss (predicted 2.5m higher subscriber numbers - 700k | loss to Russia + 200k actual drop = 2m less than expected). | | It means new subscribers are now outnumbered by cancelling | subscribers for the first time. | lock-the-spock wrote: | Constant price increases with stronger competition (Disney+) - | my downgraded subscription is more expensive than what I paid | two years ago... | ozzythecat wrote: | I cancelled because it's not worth the time investment. Good | shows are not only difficult to find, but Netflix will release | a season or two and unreasonably no longer continue on, without | closing out the story. They try to cater to a mass audience and | use a large net, but then due to capital costs or whatever | reasons, they force their customer to feel stupid for getting | invested into a show in the first place. | | I miss the days where I could binge watch a series on release | date. Now all the streaming services also seem to rate limit | each episode to once a week. | | All the qualities that drew me into streaming have slowly faded | away. | aadvark69 wrote: | It's exhausting to find good content on Netflix. I found | myself dreading opening the app because it would take 10+ | minutes to find something decent to watch. So I stopped using | it. | mattferderer wrote: | This is underrated. | | I recall hearing a discussion on the extreme desire humans | have to hear a story's ending, even when they aren't that | interested in the story. There is simply a need to know how | it ends. I've caught myself to often watching something I | think is a waste of time but needing to know how it ends. | This is as much of a weakness as the reciprocity rule. | | Netflix burned me to many times on this. It's bad taste to | re-use the same story time & time again to pump out tons of | content. It's unforgiveable to not finish the story though. | standardUser wrote: | "It's unforgiveable to not finish the story though." | | Not to repeat myself, but we all clearly need a little | perspective, because for several generations the norm has | been television shows being cancelled without closure. To | have an expectation that all shows, or even most shows, | should have proper conclusions is completely out of line | with reality. | watwut wrote: | Those shows tended to be episodic with only weak overall | story in. You had ending for each story. The writing is | much different now (and better then used to be, but | abrupt end is annoying people more). | johncessna wrote: | If there aren't more than 2 seasons worth of episodes, I | don't watch it.* It doesn't guarantee a conclusion, but it | cuts down on that sense of abandonment when a great show | gets chopped too early. | | *exceptions for shows, mainly anime, where a season is a | self contained story. And Firefly, cause it's Firefly. | tricky777 wrote: | i have abit opposite "filter". If it has 7 seasons, I | assume they will milk it for many years to come. | bbarnett wrote: | There is a series with a sentient entity, living in a star. | I think by Pohl. | | Anyhow, he passed before writing the next book, and it | literally bugs me at least once or twice a year, and yet I | read it 20? 25? years ago. | | So yes, at least here endings matter. | _jal wrote: | This. | | I cancelled it when they raised their prices, it made me | think about how much I watch things on there. Which was | rarely - my guess was around 1 show/month on average. | | > Now all the streaming services also seem to rate limit each | episode to once a week. | | Yeah, screw that noise. Torrents are still their primary | competitor, and the operative issue is not cost, it is | convenience. | jaywalk wrote: | Entire seasons being released at once was such a massive | positive for streaming. The fact that they're moving away | from that just to boost numbers is very disappointing. | zanellato19 wrote: | I disagree. The wait and the suspense it builds and the | talking between friends is amazing. | | People surging ahead leads to a difficulty in conversation | that week-to-week episodes do not. | watwut wrote: | Disagree. We wait till itnis released all so we don't | have stupidly long delay between episodes ... and it | means dodging spoilers and debates. | | Once a week episode is good for episodic content, nit for | something with good writing. | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | I much prefer to binge it's cheaper and easier to fit | into your life. Finished a project and have a break? Turn | Netflix back on, binge, cancel. I guess I don't watch TV | to talk about it with friends though. | azinman2 wrote: | Depends on the type of content. Not everything is a nail | biter. | bombcar wrote: | The "talking between friends" works great when it's | something everyone is watching, or there's only a few | channels available, etc. | | Once everyone is split into various streaming camps, the | talking between friends begins to drop. | ghaff wrote: | I do find weekly drops for 30 minute comedies sort of | annoying but I'm fine with weekly releases of serialized | dramas which mean that you can discuss things/read | discussions only with other people watching along at the | same pace. | | That said, I mostly don't binge watch and maybe it would | bug me more if I did. | alistairSH wrote: | I watch primarily for my own enjoyment. Binging "dumb" | sci-fi or fantasy (Witcher, etc) on a cold Sunday | afternoon is the best (well, skiing would be better, but | it doesn't snow much in DC). | bengale wrote: | I actually find it tends to split groups between those | that watch episode drops and those that wait to binge | later. Not to mention the spoilers that people drop when | they assume someone is watching along. | wintermutestwin wrote: | >I miss the days where I could binge watch a series on | release date. Now all the streaming services also seem to | rate limit each episode to once a week. | | Haha this just means that I have to wait longer to | resubscribe. | giords wrote: | I totally agree. Overall the quality just dropped | dramatically and what made Netflix great is disappearing. | standardUser wrote: | "without closing out the story" | | To be fair, that was the fate of almost every television show | ever made. In fact, your entire first paragraph is just | describing what we used to call "television". | tricky777 wrote: | that is why netflix was so appealing. at first | the_mitsuhiko wrote: | It's a minor thing but Netflix is also most annoying to use | from many services now because they are strict on device | approval. For instance most home projectors do not support | Netflix. I was close to cancelling Netflix because it just does | not want to work on my projector and it really is bloody | annoying to use the workarounds. | diogenescynic wrote: | It's both. | andrew_ wrote: | I had been a Netflix for customer for 10 years. For me | personally, it's a combination of several of the reasons you | cast doubt on. While I may not be in the majority, I am real | and those reasons (which I shall not list, to avoid HN wrath) | were attributed to my cancellation. | hackernewds wrote: | Same | UberFly wrote: | 62951413 wrote: | I loved NFLX when they had a 4-CD plan. All the HBO shows | from the golden age of TV 10 years ago .. I know that I | cannot blame them for losing streaming rights. But I | definitely can for pushing the government ideology in their | original content. The last few seasons of Longmire is the | last show for normal people I can remember NFLX to produce. | | I'd have no problem paying for the kind of TV we had with Mad | Men or Breaking Bad. I'm not aware of any streaming service | of that kind. | nonameiguess wrote: | AMC actually has its own streaming service now, AMC+. | danans wrote: | Your reasons are totally real and you are entitled to them, | but in the context of subscriber loss in the 100s of | thousands probably marginal. | soperj wrote: | They actually gained subscribers in the western world | still, but lost in total because of all Russian accounts | were terminated. | MrMan wrote: | yes lets talk about the actual reason for god sake. it | was hugely due to Russia | malfist wrote: | The issue isn't necessarily that they lost users this | time, even though that's what all the headlines are | about. They projected continued losses of subscribers, | even after the one time event with russia is through. | brimble wrote: | Russia's why it was a _net loss_ , but _not_ why they | missed their projection so badly. | bombcar wrote: | Russia is also not (and cannot be) the reason Netflix | themselves project a 2.7m subscriber loss for the next | quarter. | cguess wrote: | Not having a large part of the world's populating | confined to their couches probably plays a large part of | this. People are doing other things with their | discretionary money; eating out, drinking out, traveling, | buying new clothes that they haven't had to for 2+ years. | panarky wrote: | The real reasons are almost certainly economic and | structural, and not a result of silly culture war wedge | issues. | | 1) Netflix has much more streaming competition now. | | 2) Availability of good content has gone down as networks | reserve it for their own new platforms, and as production | was halted by covid. | | 3) Greater scarcity gives studios pricing power to increase | Netflix's cost to acquire the few good shows available. | | 4) Netflix tried to counter (2) and (3) by making their own | shows, but a lot of it is trash. | | 5) Netflix raised customer prices aggressively, while | there's not much on their platform to justify the higher | prices. | | 6) Customers are increasingly savvy about binge-watching | what good shows there are on one platform, then cancelling | it and rotating through other platforms. | | 7) Loyalty is for suckers. Churn, baby, churn. | arghnoname wrote: | You're probably right. For what it's worth, I'm like the | parent and for me at least that stuff isn't why I | cancelled, it's what pushed me over the edge. I don't watch | Netflix much (poor catalog, maybe lack of discoverability), | but I don't notice $20 going away either and would keep the | service if it provided much value at all. Cancelling had | been on my list for years. | | I finally cancelled when I realized that whenever I did go | look at it to see what's available it felt like there was | more agenda pushing than entertainment, which itself made | me check for content less often in the first place. Netflix | won't miss my money, I may be in a small minority. It may | be they get more subscribers for their politics than they | lose (I'm sure they think so). | andrew_ wrote: | Until we have publicly available statistics, speculation is | irresponsible. We can't possibly know or being able to | sample or extrapolate what motivation 200,000 had, nor | their commonalities. | | It sounds more like you'd like the reasons not to be one of | or a combination of those, which would be fair. | danans wrote: | > Until we have publicly available statistics, | speculation is irresponsible. | | > We can't possibly know or being able to sample or | extrapolate what motivation 200,000 had | | Speculation on the causes of major changes for which we | have no hard data is the basis of the original article | and pretty much every comment on this thread. Nobody here | is giving investment advice, so I don't know how it's | irresponsible. | | > It sounds more like you'd like the reasons not to be | one of or a combination of those, which would be fair. | | My personal _guess_ (also note the use of 'probably' in | my original comment) is when it comes to things like paid | streaming services, personal economics is the biggest | factor in the decision to subscribe/cancel for most | people, and other rationales are mostly tangential. In my | experience, the bottom line is what matters in the end. | _jal wrote: | I'm sorry about your share price, but speculation is just | what the market does. | | You'll have better luck asking for prayers. | brewdad wrote: | If we can never know, then their speculation is as | valuable as your anecdote. | majormajor wrote: | We have publicly available stats for their competitors. | (And actually we do "know" the reason for this quarter's | loss for Netflix: shutting down and losing 700K subs in | Russia.) | | Is Netflix more "woke" or "less scifi" or "prone to | pirating" or "annoying about UI and recommendations" than | Disney+ or HBO Max? (Ok, HBO Max has had a lot of cinema- | quality sci-fi and similar genre content land recently, | so maybe on that one?) | | Those services are gaining subscribers faster so any | backlash seems less likely, compared to "there is a lot | more serious competition than their used to be, Netflix | costs the most, and has a far less proven content model." | | Netflix is increasingly only worth it for their | originals, and now those are head to head against Disney | and HBO+Warner cinema originals. | strangattractor wrote: | I would tend to agree. Another factor is that people have | choices now. There are other public streaming companies which | gives investors something to compare to. When you are out there | on your own the sky is the limit for stock price. Now it's why | should more for a premium for X when Y is growing faster etc. | jboy55 wrote: | I've realized I have a problem, and the solution might be me | cutting off Netflix? The problem? I've slowly accumulated _ten_ | streaming subscriptions. Some might be included in cable, some | are stand alone and some just house purchased Blu_ray. I would | see a show I would like, I would subscribe, binge, then forget | to unsubscribe or be lured by the promise of a show. I think | many people are just looking at their overall spend, and | cutting based on how much they watch. The explosion of | streaming services had to have victims, and Netflix is just | paying for being one of the pack, not something unique. | | They are; HBOMax, Discovery+, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Peacock, | Vudu, Apple TV, Netflix, Disney+, Espn+ | johnnyanmac wrote: | I do think that fierce competition from competing services with | way more IP's to leverage is a big factor. But yes, I think in | some extent the world is simply starting to open back up | slowly, and this will naturally affect any industry which | surged due to the pandemic. Whatever restaurants remaining will | surge, indoor entertainment will deflate down a bit. | | And I also agree that the internet sentiment of "omg too many | services, I'm just gonna pirate" is such a minor part of the | equation. Social media loves overrepresenting its just world | fallacy and thinking that everyone is as invested to screw over | companies as they are on twitter or whatnot. | wiremine wrote: | Agreed. | | Changes in post-pandemic behavior, prices increases, more | competition, arguably decrease in quality, and no long-term | contracts. Doesn't seem like rocket science why they're loosing | customers. | api wrote: | I think pandemic rebound is probably part of it, but honestly I | just think Netflix has gotten cheap. Whether it's in-house or | licensed, "woke" or not, whatever, the quality of in-house | content and the availability of outside content has really gone | downhill. | bcassedy wrote: | I haven't canceled yet but am considering it. They have a few | problems for me - | | They don't make it easy to discover content. They still have | quite a lot of good original content that isn't promoted and a | slew of third party things that aren't promoted or discoverable | at all unless they happen to make the trending list | | The majority of their original, promoted content is watered | down crap designed for mass appeal. | | For TV shows, when they do produce something of quality they | often dump it if it doesn't find an audience immediately or it | doesn't drive "new subscribers". Leaving a bunch of stories | half told doesn't give me the confidence that it's worth the | investment to start on their new content. This is especially | problematic because it is a vicious cycle where since they | aggressively cancel stuff that isn't performing, people don't | invest their time in new stuff because of the expectation it | gets canceled, means more new stuff underperforms, leading to | more cancelations, and further eroding the trust of viewers. | It's also negatively impacted by poor discoverability. | | Their UI is seemingly optimized to shove their latest broad | appeal stuff in my face and seems to deliberately make it hard | to find anything else. | supertofu wrote: | The Netflix UI is so unfortunate. I KNOW they have the | ability to recommend me interesting content, but instead they | just peddle whatever their latest original content. Also the | browsing experience is hellish. It's barely possible to even | search by genre. | tricky777 wrote: | the worst crime, is suggesting series which I just finished | watching. wtf. I know that its technically good for their | bottom line if I watch same thing twice (twice the revenue | for the same cost), but that ia so frustrating, when trying | to find something to watch. | carbine wrote: | > The majority of their original, promoted content is watered | down crap designed for mass appeal. | | this has 100% been the reason my time spent on Netflix has | gone down. seems like everything they make is algo-optimizing | shlock designed to appeal to the average consumer. | serial_dev wrote: | I didn't cancel Netflix yet (have been thinking about it as I | find that sometimes I just watch it for hours, and it's kind of | a waste of life). I can say for sure, if they introduce ads, | I'm leaving, I won't pay for watching ads, sorry. | conception wrote: | They've said they are introducing a reduced subscription fee | with ads, not adding ads. | cwkoss wrote: | I believe ads are fundamentally immoral. (Moral ads are | theoretically possible, but in practice I almost never see | ads which have the purpose of informing rather than | emotionally manipulating. Ads destroy culture, make viewers | less happy, and waste time). | | The fact that they drew a line in the sand is why I have | brand loyalty. If they cross that line, I'll no longer be | "supporting a company bringing a moral perspective on | content delivery" and turn off autorenew: just pick up a | month or two a year. | gramie wrote: | Yes, and cable TV originally ran without ads (because why | else would you pay for TV?), but once they had a subscriber | base they started playing them. | | Bottom line: if they think it will improve the bottom line, | they will do it. | dawnbreez wrote: | I would not be surprised if the ads are placed at the | current price tier, honestly. It wouldn't technically be | lying; they're delivering a cheaper tier with ads, and a | more costly tier without ads, just like they said they | would! It's just that "cheaper" in this case would mean | "cheaper than the new higher subscription tier", not | "cheaper than the previous model". | grogenaut wrote: | Given their price increases they'll be at $15/month on the | ad supported tier soon | thewebcount wrote: | I generally avoid any service that even has an ad- | supported tier because in my experience it starts out as | "ads are to subsidize the cost for people who can't | afford or don't want to pay for the premium service." | Then it becomes, "We're contractually obligated to have | ads in certain shows regardless of which tier the viewer | is, but they won't show up in others, and they'll be | short and unobtrusive." Then it's "We're keeping rates | low by having ads in all show, but they're ads that are | relevant and very short, and only at the beginning and/or | end of the show." Then it becomes "We're removing the | premium tier because not enough people signed up for it. | Also the ads are going to be longer and more intrusive | now." Forget it. I can just skip the whole thing and lose | nothing. If you even have an ad-supported tier, I'm out. | cwkoss wrote: | Yep, Youtube to chromecast is practically unwatchable | these days. 1-2 stupid 5 second ads interrupt the program | every few minutes. Many are so short I'm perplexed why | the brand thinks they are getting any value out of them: | they do little but annoy me and make me think the brand | is bad with money. | bombcar wrote: | Advertisers also don't want to advertise to those "too | cheap to pay to avoid ads". | | They want to everyone, or the premier tiers. It's a | conflict that can never be resolved. | no_wizard wrote: | they _really_ want the premium tiers in my experience | bombcar wrote: | Yeah, they should go with a flat price, and if you watch | ads you get "4K sponsored by Advertiser X" kinda thing, | otherwise you get boring 420p. | brimble wrote: | They already did a Coke ad for like 5 awkward minutes in the | middle of an episode of Stranger Things. | | Incidentally, all this talk of how badly they're doing just | reminded me to cancel, which I did, minutes ago. | roody15 wrote: | Absolutely agree... ads would be the death blow for me. Have | cancelled a few times in the past because just don't have a | lot of time to watch TV. Ads and would never go back | Rebelgecko wrote: | I think the demise of Netflix has been greatly overstated | (although _growth_ is slowing down) | | The biggest change last quarter is that Netflix went from | having 700,000 customers in Russia down to 0. In other words, | they actually had a net gain of 500,000 subscribers in the | parts of the world where they still operate. | colinmhayes wrote: | A net gain of 500,000 against an expected gain of 2.5M is | horrible. Don't think analysts are ignoring the Russia | situation, they just realize that Netflix has much bigger | problems. | graaben wrote: | I believe they are forecasting a loss of another 2mm | subscribers in Q2. | every wrote: | We are in the process of doing something similar. My wife | watches a lot of Netflix so we will be keeping that (for now). | But between us there is only a single product on Google TV we | watch regularly and it is going from 5 days a week to 1. And it | even has a free "highlights" post on Youtube a day after | broadcast. We will be cancelling next month... | vishnugupta wrote: | Since Netflix launched in India couple of years ago I've been a | subscriber. The content is strictly average. Amazon Prime and | Disney + Hotstar have significantly larger, relevant, and | better content. Amazon Prime gets you free shipping as well so | that's there. | | However, I don't know to what extent Netflix are relying on | India for growth. At INR 650/month it's definitely not cheap. | Disney + Hotstar, at INR 1499/year is, _five times_ less | expensive. | lkxijlewlf wrote: | My SO and I as well as some friends of ours (we were talking to | them about it) are just subscriptioned out. We can afford it, | it's not the money (though we do hate to waste money, we're not | foolish). But we keep track and it's just, why do we have so | many, so we decided to pare down and see what we miss and see | what sticks. | Johnny555 wrote: | I canceled because they were raising my subscription to $19.99 | (I had the UHD subscription), and I really don't watch it | enough to make it worth $20/month to me. | | I still have Hulu, HBOMax and Disney, so in 6 months or so I'll | probably drop one of those and return to Netflix to look for | new content before they delete my viewing history. I've been | with Netflix since when they were DVD-only, so they have a lot | of history on me. | | I imagine that before long, the streaming providers will get | tired of people rotating through and will require 1 year | contracts. | NearAP wrote: | I agree. | | - I recently realized I had only turned on my TV just about 4 - | 5 times in about 6 months and yet I was paying close to $140 | per month, so I downgraded my cable subscription to the minimal | (combined cable & internet is cheaper than only internet). | | - Also realized I rarely watched Netflix (hadn't watched in | months) cos I no longer found shows that I liked and I was | paying $15.49 per month. And then I saw HBO Max was $9.99 a | month. So I canceled Netflix and signed on to HBO Max. There's | also the psychological part that HBO Max allows me to pay for | the whole year upfront (Netflix doesn't) so I can close my eyes | and just pay them $100 and be done with it. | | - I also realized I rarely have time to watch long form content | except for weekends. This is one advantage that Amazon Prime | has - apart from it being 'free' to me since I already paid for | prime, I can rent movies for $2.99 for those few times that I | need to be 'entertained'. Maybe I spend $6 in one month and $0 | in others. It's still better than $15.49 (or $140) without | watching at all. | | - It's possible that lots of people have a variation of these | reasons. I understand that Netflix had to raise their prices | given how much they were spending on content. It looks to me | like they 'overspent' on content without taking into | consideration that they would have to recoup the cost from | increased subscription fees and this might not be palatable to | their members given that there are now multiple alternatives | ghaff wrote: | I think a lot of people have become conditioned to monthly | subscriptions that they don't need to think about. But, | especially if you're more into films than TV shows, there's | something to be said for cutting back on subscriptions and | buying/renting a la carte. Netflix still even has their DVD | by mail option although the back catalog isn't nearly as good | as it used to be. | capitainenemo wrote: | Yep. It even has an android app. And I agree, the catalog | has more holes than it used to. Still more content than the | streaming service though. | indigodaddy wrote: | Also if you look for sales on Slickdeals for 4K movies | (digital as well as physical), you can OWN (albeit another | discussion exists for what owning digital content actually | means for the buyer) a 4K movie for as little as $4-5 dollars | when sales slide down that low. | mrguyorama wrote: | I don't have any 4K screens, so I like to just buy used | DVDs off of ebay or local thrift stores and rip them. | | Theoretically you could then resell the same discs if you | don't care for copyright law, but I'm too lazy. | indigodaddy wrote: | Absolutely I try to find used DVD/BRs as well. | thriftbooks is also a good source for used. For new, | hamiltonbook occasionally has nice sales. | karmakaze wrote: | I agree that it would be best for consumers if we could pay | for as much as we consume at an all-inclusive buffet of | content. This isn't what providers want, they don't want | their utility to be commoditized. But it could work for a | first mover providing such a platform. | | What if Amazon instead of Prime Video had an open content | marketplace? Sure there would be a lot of rubbish, but with a | good recommendation system could outdo Netflix in matching | content with consumers, which was Netflix's core competency | until they decided otherwise. | leothecool wrote: | > combined cable & internet is cheaper than only interne | | Be careful. Its not cheaper after they include local | programming fees. | greggman3 wrote: | > There's also the psychological part that HBO Max allows me | to pay for the whole year upfront (Netflix doesn't) so I can | close my eyes and just pay them $100 and be done with it. | | Interesting. My behavior has been that when someone | recommends a show on Netflix and I decide I want to watch it | it subscribe and cancel which means I pay for 1 month. I | watch the show. I've tried browsing for others but hate | browsing on Netflix. I'm happy that "I'm done with it" | immediately and that I'm not billed anymore. Netflix makes it | super easy to start again, and to cancel and also like that | having it cancelled provides a tiny hurdle against binging | random stuff. | NearAP wrote: | yes, that makes sense for your use case i.e. you're not | 'interested' in subscribing in general but you only want to | watch a specific show. | | For me, if I want to get the package (in general and not | for a specific instance), I'd rather pay upfront (so far as | it's not expensive) than the monthly subscription. | Psychologically, I feel like - 'I just eat the cost and I'm | done'. So I'd rather just pay you $100 for the entire year | or say $60 for the entire year of Sirius XM than a monthly | thing. | bhaak wrote: | > I've tried browsing for others but hate browsing on | Netflix. | | Is this Netflix or do you hate browsing on other streaming | services as well? | | Regarding UI IMO Netflix is still top. Disney+ is somewhat | close in handling but noticeably slower and you notice its | focus on movies. Series are not as easily navigatable as on | Netflix. | | Amazon Prime is abysmal. They don't even group different | seasons of a series together. Here in Switzerland, it's | even worse, I get a mix of French and German stuff | recommended. | StillBored wrote: | I don't understand how anyone can say the netflix UI is | anything other than trash. | | Part of people's problem with netflix is that it shows | them maybe 100 different shows out of the couple thousand | they have at any given time, for the rest you basically | have to use a 3rd party to discover them. Sure its | prettier than it was back when they put everything in a | giant tree/list, but now its a dozen or so vertical | categories with 20 or so horizontal items and it doesn't | even bother to deduplicate shows out of multiple similar | rows. | | The best netflixy way for me to discover new shows is to | log into my wife's profile where she has a 100 different | romance/etc movies. Otherwise "whats-on-netflix.com" for | example does a better job than netflix itself, including | showing a complete list of new additions, and removals, | etc. | bananamerica wrote: | Netflix is faster, reliable, and works every time, even | on slow and unreliable WIFI. I can fast forward, go back, | pause, and resume without delay. Netflix is simple, it | works, and I don't need more than that. It could | certainly be better, but it's not any worse than other | streaming services. Netflix is by far the better user | experience of all services I use. | reaperducer wrote: | _I don 't understand how anyone can say the netflix UI is | anything other than trash._ | | Perhaps because the UI varies from device to device. | yurishimo wrote: | Huh? It's pretty obvious Netflix uses the same UI across | all of its platforms. It might be condensed slightly on | smaller screens, but it's the exact same interface. | tomrod wrote: | Yeah it's more of a garbage-in garbage-out status | nowadays regardless of device. | SalimoS wrote: | Can't agree more, the difference in watching Netflix on | Xbox one and Apple TV is noticeable (also the fact that | there isn't integration with the Apple TV app is the solo | reason I'm most likely to finish my tv show from Amazon | prime compared to Netflix (because let's face it it's not | Netflix and chill anymore now we have to check more than | a sub. app to find what to watch | nescioquid wrote: | When I first had the thought that the UI was trash, it | occurred to me that the point of the UI is to drive the | _user 's_ behavior and not the other way around. I think | there's an "In Soviet Russia..." joke around here | somewhere. | sandyarmstrong wrote: | If I know what I want to watch, the Netflix UI is | perfect. Every other service's UI makes it surprisingly | difficult to find and watch the next episode of "thing | I've been watching every night for the past few weeks". | Also the other services make it harder to | pause/resume/fast-forward, let alone achieve "advanced" | things like toggling subtitles. | Semaphor wrote: | That is true. As crap as Netflix has become, while you | are watching a show, the experience is great. | yupyup54133 wrote: | I also do not like browsing for content on Netflix | because whenever I pause on a title it starts playing | trailer with sound when what I really want to do is look | at the average user rating and read the premise blurb. | sunnytimes wrote: | you can turn that off in the settings. | cout wrote: | Where is that in the settings? | skatanski wrote: | If you open Netflix in browser, go to account settings, | then select specific profiles dropdown, there are | playback settings at the end. You can disable automatic | playback during browsing. Its really useful with kids. | joncrocks wrote: | https://help.netflix.com/en/node/2102 | [deleted] | FredPret wrote: | That is so bad; I always mute my TV when browsing Netflix | chrisseaton wrote: | > Here in Switzerland, it's even worse, I get a mix of | French and German stuff recommended. | | Isn't that right for Switzerland? What's the issue? | GekkePrutser wrote: | That's how Americans view Europe, yes. "The user lives in | Switzerland so they speak both" :) in reality there's | German-speaking Swiss and French-speaking ones. In fact | there's even Italian-speaking ones but they don't usually | make the cut for services like this. The division is | pretty much divided by region and heritage. They will | technically speak both but will not prefer to. Also | besides the languages there's also a cultural difference. | And Swiss-German is quite different from German/Austrian | German too but let's not get into that. | | Just bunching all the content "because your country is | .ch so you will like all of this stuff" is such a typical | American oversimplification. | [deleted] | seanmcdirmid wrote: | > They will technically speak both but will not prefer | to. | | Well, there are places in Switzerland like Bern that are | officially and pragmatically bilingual. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Yes but many are not. And more importantly: many of its | inhabitants are not. | | It's this American view that the whole world is 'like | America with just a different locale setting' I find | really annoying. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | > It's this American view that the whole world is 'like | America with just a different locale setting' I find | really annoying. | | Sure, at the local movie theater we have Indian films | (probably multiple regions), Korean films, Chinese ones, | sometimes Spanish and so on. English is hardly the only | language around. My wife (Chinese) consumes a lot of | Korean dramas on Netflix. | | My feeling about Switzerland when living there is that it | was slightly less multi-cultural than the states, having | a much stronger desire for immigrants to assimilate and | become "suisse" (but disclaimer, I was living on the | French side). You can still find the multi-cultural | stuff, but version originale is the exception, not the | rule. | chrisseaton wrote: | In the UK we have many Asian shows on Netflix. We watch | them on captions. It's not has hard as you'd imagine. | Give it a go! | GekkePrutser wrote: | Imagine half of them would be all Asian and not just the | big bucks international focused ones like Squid Game. But | local ones not tailored for it. You'll tune out soon. | It's like going for a regular cinema but getting an | arthouse collection. | | I travel a lot (at least before Corona) and sometimes | Netflix would not even allow me to continue watching a | movie in the hotel, in the same subtitle language as I | watched it before. Because I connected from an IP in | Romania I'm suddenly supposed to speak their language too | :S Because the options for captions in other languages | disappear. This really annoyed me as I often would pop up | in different countries and using a VPN was too slow on | crappy hotel WiFi. | | It's this kind of shortsighted vision that I argue | against. The world is not that simple. Maybe in the US it | is but not everywhere. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Region locked content is usually enforced by the provider | of the content, not the distributer. So don't blame | Netflix, blame the studio who licensed the content. I'm | sure Netflix would prefer to work with blanket | international licenses rather that have to negotiate | different terms for different content in each individual | country. | chrisseaton wrote: | So they can pick and chose what they want based on their | preference can't they? | | What's the huge issue? Is preferring German and being | presented French some kind of slight? | GekkePrutser wrote: | It is a bit yes. I've not been to Switzerland but I know | that in Belgium this is totally not done. Flemish | speakers often despise French culture and vice versa. And | have their own TV channels, shows, media personalities | etc. I'm Dutch myself and am often viewed as Flemish by | the French speakers when I try to speak French, and I can | feel the hate (it's quite uncomfortable so I don't | usually go to their parts). | | Also, Netflix already shows so little in their overview, | making half of them non-starters is really annoying. The | world is not a cookie cutter duplicate of America with | just some different language settings. There should be an | option for local differences (not just this one but ones | that exist in many countries). It's just a total | disregard of national and regional cultural differences | too. | | In fact I'm quite surprised the US has such a harmonised | culture because they have huge differences too. I just | can't wrap my head around how a Silicon Valley hipster | can be just as offended by half a boob on TV than a | methodist Midwestern. Though only for the latter it's an | actual cultural and religious issue. The level of | cultural harmonisation despite all the regional | differences is something that's pretty unique in the US I | believe. I've travelled a lot and I've not seen this in | other countries. | chrisseaton wrote: | > It's just a total disregard of national and regional | cultural differences too. | | That surprises me - Netflix seem pretty good at | accommodating UK culture as a contrast. Local shows like | The Crown, for example. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Some local productions yes. They do that in every EU | country too because it's in fact an EU requirement to do | so. But the UK is culturally much more similar to America | than the rest of Europe. | | For us there should just be a preferred language setting | instead of just dumping the user in a certain box because | of the IP they connect from. | brimble wrote: | Huh--I never saw Netflix' British content as | accommodating UK culture, but as accommodating American | Anglophilia. Same reason they have a ton of Japanese | content. | | Maybe it's both, I suppose. | jimbokun wrote: | HBO Max buffers content and fails to play all the time | for me (on Samsung Smart TV), which almost never happens | with Netflix. | | I love a lot of HBO Max content (especially Turner | Classic Movies) but the app is experience is painful. | colinmhayes wrote: | Yea HBO's app is incredibly broken. I don't understand | how the rewind button is still broken. At least 20% of | the time when I rewind the app crashes, how is that even | possible in 2022? Seems like they're doing it on purpose | to try to get you to pay attention. | jaegerpicker wrote: | The state of media Apps in General is REALLY low. | Paramount+ makes me turn on subtitles for EVERY episode | and ignores the system settings, HBO Max's app is a | dumpster fire, Netflix doesn't integrate with Apple TV or | the algo driven listings are terrible, Hulu is a broken | mess all around. In fact the only media app I enjoy using | is Apple TV+/TV.app. | SalimoS wrote: | Amazon prime UI and search is kinda shit, but if I found | an interesting show to watch (to be honest I'm using | tiktok as my recommandation engine) I search for it then | continue watching from the Apple TV app | Semaphor wrote: | Prime is better than Netflix on desktop. They worked hard | to get there, but they finally ruined the website enough | that both my Android TVs Netflix app and prime are | better. It took me a while to even figure out how to show | some minimal information about a show that was more than | name and thumb. | vladvasiliu wrote: | > Amazon Prime is abysmal. They don't even group | different seasons of a series together. Here in | Switzerland, it's even worse, I get a mix of French and | German stuff recommended. | | I haven't noticed this in France. For a given series, | there's a "season" dropdown that has all the seasons, | even some which may be unavailable. | | However, I hate dubbed movies and series, and I hate that | I can't filter out those titles that, for some reason, | only offer a French dubbed version. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Yeah in Spain too.."the user is in Spain so will want | Spanish dubbing". Uhhh. | | The dubbing is also horribly done with bored voices that | don't match the actors at all. Yet native language (+ | subs if native is not English) is often unavailable. | Especially on prime | alistairSH wrote: | Not the OP, but I hate browsing on most/all the | platforms. But Netflix seems to be worse than average and | that's an already low bar. | | Things that rustle me... - recommending movies/shows I've | already watched. There are very few shows I want to | rewatch. - recommending trash reality shows. I rarely | watch them. - recommending too many shows that are in a | foreign language. I will watch foreign shows, but most of | my viewing it's just background noise while I workout or | something else where I can't easily watch subtitles. - | Auto-playing trailers. It's annoying and loud. | bengale wrote: | The Netflix decision that is causing me the most | aggravation is that they are the only service I use that | doesn't integrate with the watch next bar on Apple TV. I | forget that I'm watching something, especially if they | are doing weekly episode drops, and then lose interest if | I've forgotten what's going on. Everybody else is able to | add their new episode to that bar so I can work through | my backlog, and even pop new seasons in there if I've | watched the show in the past. | | It feels like they're making decisions to suit themselves | rather than me and it winds me up considering they are | the more expensive subscription. | mark_l_watson wrote: | +1 Netflix not integrating with Apple TV is a pain for me | also - for everything else, I often search on Apple TV. | jaegerpicker wrote: | That's huge pain. I love my Apple TV and I'm much more | likely to cancel netflix than not use the ATV. I also | really love the TV app and Watch next, for apps that work | with it it's such a great UI IMO. | dwighttk wrote: | I like up next/ watch now on Apple TV | | However it is irritating that shows I've purchased from | the iTunes Store occasionally lose their blessed statusSS | and I can neither put them in up next nor even have the | show's page open to the episode I last watched. Unless I | binge the whole show in one sitting I'm gonna be | scrolling horizontally past a lot of episodes every time | I sit down to watch. | | SS my hypothesis is that it is when the package I bought | them in gets taken off iTunes (e.g. I got the complete | Downton Abbey, but for a few weeks they were doing a | every episode and the movie package and you couldn't buy | just all the seasons together, that one even lost its | blessed status while I was watching the show, which was a | mystifying experience) | watwut wrote: | Not OP, but Netfix UI is uniquely bad. It looks good ... | and make it impossible to find shows you might like and | be at mood for ... despite them actually being there. | noncoml wrote: | ( _inappropriate_ ) | danans wrote: | Pure software engineer, actually. | noncoml wrote: | Sorry. It was tongue in cheek and not appropriate. Deleted. | tonguez wrote: | arbitrary_name wrote: | You really needed to get that off your chest huh? Go pay for | a therapist, and save us your weird malformed ideology and | frustrations. | provedhispt wrote: | ghaff wrote: | A lot of the "pandemic stocks" have taken a real pounding. | | For me, Netflix content is "OK" overall. But so is content on | most of the other streaming services. And I don't really watch | a huge amount of video so it makes sense for me to pick a few | services and maybe dip in and out. Netflix is probably the one | delivering the least bang for the buck to me right now so I'll | probably watch a few things and drop it at some point. | dv_dt wrote: | Especially if the streaming service tells you it's going to | raise prices and crack down on password sharing. It's bringing | the customer's attention to the subscription service at exactly | the wrong time. | | Edit: missed a "the" | hackernewds wrote: | Best thing a subscription service can do is not remind me | that I'm subscribed. The constant price increases were poorly | planned, against the lack of good content - since Stranger | Things and House of Cards can't recall much attaining that | level of vitality (besides maybe Squid Games) | sschueller wrote: | Instead of increasing every one's pricing they should have | added a FOMO tier giving people early access to new content | before anyone else. | | Additionally to get people to think twice before unsubscribing | increase the price for new subscribers but keep existing subs | at the lower rate. You cancel you can't get that rate back. | bombcar wrote: | FOMO vs resolution would have been brilliant, and | grandfathering in is a great way to keep people around (even | if you do something like bump them up in cost later, but | still cheaper than everyone new). | sgarman wrote: | > Many are probably consuming shorter form content (like | TikTok), or enjoying more time in public. | | So Quibi was right! ;) | martibravo wrote: | I have been a Netflix customer for 5+ years, and I've switched | services to Disney+ for two reasons: | | - Netflix with 4K and 4 streaming devices costs 17.99EUR here | ($19.50), while Disney+ only costs EUR8.99 with the same | features. | | - Netflix made and continues to make good content, but since | major producers have been removing their content from Netflix | and into their own services, Netflix here almost survives on | old local shows and new in-house content. Feels like there's | almost nothing new to watch. I have rewatched Gilmore Girls 4 | times. Disney+ gets you Marvel, Disney, Pixar, FOX, NatGeo, | StarWars, Star (lots of ABC content) | | -Netflix decided to crackdown on password-sharing: my brother | moved away some months ago and has been using our Netflix | account, and we don't want him to pay Netflix for himself. | | -There have been some rumors of ads on the platform to boost | revenue. Hell to the no. | jdgoesmarching wrote: | The 4k pricing was always a sore spot for me. Netflix's | content was never worth $20, so for a long time I was | subscribed for mediocre standard def content. I regret not | unsubscribing sooner. | Flott wrote: | I also find the 4k catalog very... lacking. (In Canada at | least). Movies outside of Netflix originals are just not | available in 4k. | Bellamy wrote: | I've had Netflix for years. I will cancel immediately if I | see something close to an ad. | bumby wrote: | > _There have been some rumors of ads on the platform to | boost revenue._ | | It's been stated elsewhere here but worth reiterating: the | current description of this idea is to give customers _the | option_ to have ads in exchange for a lower overall | subscription cost and not just shoehorn them into the | existing plans. | | At least that's the stated intent. I can definitely see where | it can lead to a slippery slope where it's easier to just | give ads to everyone when they need another revenue bump. | snickerbockers wrote: | theres also a high probability of misinformed (or well- | informed but adversarial) twitter users getting | #CancelNetflix to trend because people will only read the | headlines and not understand that they wont be seeing ads | unless they want to save money. | ghaff wrote: | Whether ads are a discount or ad-free is a premium is | just a matter of framing. | bumby wrote: | I think their point is that people are missing the fact | that the ad-revenue model (as proposed) would have no | impact on people already subscribing. | ishjoh wrote: | I appreciate that you're being positive but with media | companies I'm much more cynical. | | I think we're going to see a price increase to stay ad | free or an option to have the same price with | advertising. So it will be a price increase to keep your | same service ad free. | bumby wrote: | I understand, I'm only going off of what they've publicly | stated as their intent as reported by the WSJ and | elsewhere. I'm also skeptical. | | "Reed Hastings said Netflix is exploring ways to add | lower-priced advertising-supported subscription tiers" | | https://www.investopedia.com/netflix-q1-fy2022-earnings- | repo... | htrp wrote: | That's how it starts..... it ends with you paying for ad | free hulu and wondering how you're still watching | unskippable ads. | snickerbockers wrote: | >There have been some rumors of ads on the platform to boost | revenue. Hell to the no. | | oh geez, that would be the death knell for netflix. that was | one of the big benefits they had over cable ten years ago | when streaming was still new. i cant imagine paying $18 a | month and still being forced to watch ads. | | on a side note, im extremely pissed at paramount because | their "ad-free" plan was updated to force viewers to watch a | 30 second spot at the beginning of every show. if star trek | strange new worlds doesnt turn out to be a million times | better than picard and discovery i just might cancel because | im so pissed i have to watch ads on the premium plan. | listless wrote: | My wife keeps throwing out "wokeness" as the reason and I don't | buy it. Yes, that shit is obnoxious, but I don't care. If your | content is good, be as "woke" as you like. I just want good | shows. | | Bottom line is Netflix has too much competition from cheaper | platforms with better content. | tyingq wrote: | Some of it would be what it does to "suspension of | disbelief". It's hard to get immersed in a show if it doesn't | seem real enough. | syspec wrote: | Can you elaborate? | tyingq wrote: | I don't know that I can come up with the best example, | but let's say a 1800's period piece that tries to weave | in some LGBT themes, racial equity, etc. There's ways to | do that well, but it's easy to push it hard enough that | it's going to make it hard to believe. Hard to believe | some of the depicted events would have happened in that | timeframe, in that manner, etc. Badly researched, written | or performed, it would be hard to stay immersed in a | story that's highly improbable. | subpixel wrote: | I have not dropped Netflix but I admit the virtue-signaling | in the suggested content has made me stop giving the | interface as much attention. The suggestions are crap across | the board, and I assume in Netflix's interest more than my | own, so I just search, and when I can't find what I want, I | go someplace else. | | Increasingly, I just go somewhere else. | wrycoder wrote: | Yeah, I need to make room for all my new Substack | subscriptions, and there's nothing on Netflix Streaming that I | want to watch, anyway. | | I do like their DVD service, though. | jeffbee wrote: | Especially since there is not even enough good content on | Netflix to fill 1-2 hours per week. The article nails the | central issue: the shows on Netflix are not good. | phillipcarter wrote: | Yes, that's largely it. Many of the shows, especially newer | ones, are actually just kinda trash. Why pay for trash? Not | to mention the raised prices and cracking down on password | sharing. | sieabahlpark wrote: | I think complaining about wokeness with "Cuties" is completely | reasonable reason to cancel. A few people I know cancelled. I | also know once they start cracking down on password sharing | they will also cancel. | | Don't sugar coat a poorly run company with equally opinionated | reasoning. | whymauri wrote: | A key point here is TikTok and the attention economy. At a high | level, the entertainment/social media industries are based on a | finite resource: attention. Netflix is losing the attention of | users, especially younger users, to other platforms. Then there | is attention loss due to other rising streaming services. | | But yeah, the rate hikes are also hitting hard. Targeting | account sharing more aggressively than they already do will | lead to more cancellations. And the day Netflix shows me an ad, | I will never use it again. | bruce511 wrote: | I see a lot of focus on the "lost 200 000 subscribers", but less | acknowledgement that they kicked 700 000 Russians off the | subscriber list, meaning they actually grew by 500 000 | subscribers (still well short of wall streets expectation of 2.5 | million.) | | So in one sense it's a one-time drop, not a trend. | | Does Netflix have more competition than before? sure. Is it | growing as fast as before? no, especially as they reach | saturation in some markets. Is this the "end of netflix"? um... | no | dehrmann wrote: | This is also the end of the covid bump. People might even try | to make up for lost time in the next year and leave their | houses more than in 2019. | rc_mob wrote: | You are aware covid is not gone? | CamelCaseName wrote: | > So in one sense it's a one-time drop, not a trend. | | But it is a trend, they said to expect a 2 million subscriber | loss in the following quarter. | mcphage wrote: | You're right, but the article posted includes statements | like: | | > Two hundred thousand subscribers did not suddenly quit | their subscriptions and start using their friends' passwords. | | That implies the author thought this was a natural | subscription drop and not a result of losing 700k subscribers | in Russia. I'm not sure I have any confidence in their | predictions about the future, since they're so clueless about | what's happening _today_. | rc_mob wrote: | Yeah I hate the author of this article | bombcar wrote: | Likely the very fact that there's been all these articles about | Netflix losing will cause them to lose more. | colechristensen wrote: | What? I read that as losing 200,000 subscribers not counting | kicking off Russians so the actual number would be losing | 900,000 subscribers. | davidkuennen wrote: | Expectations are everything in the stock market. | | If wall street expected 2.5 million (most likely based on past | growth and stock valuation) and Netflix reports a growth of | 500k (if you keep the Russians in mind), it's a really really | terrible result. It's 5 times below expectations. | | For me it looks like this could just be the beginning and | they're losing a lot more in the following years. | bamboozled wrote: | I bought a Nebula device, Netflix won't support a device unless | it sells a million units? | | You know what's easier than dealing with that crap... | kklisura wrote: | I think Netflix can pull out of this current situation if they | build a live-streaming, social media platform and start directly | competing with Youtube and Twitch. | faangiq wrote: | Huh it's almost like hiring lots of really expensive engineers to | make a dead simple site serving D tier content was a bad idea. | cpcat wrote: | I can tell you why i cancelled my subscription. Everytime i would | access Netflix from another device, they would reset my password | and i couldn't create a new one without contacting customer | service. They basically kicked me out. When i said i don't want | to go through this process for the third time, and since your | algorithms kicked me out, i want my money back, at least whatever | is left of my subscription. They said no, i either go through the | manual process with them to reset my password, or my subscription | will automatically renew (because i can't even log in to cancel | it). Thankfully they were very happy to cancel my subscription on | my behalf. | Markoff wrote: | > a year-long subscription at a discount -- 10 months for the | price of 12, for instance | | That doesn't sound like very good deal to me, I'd prefer 12 | months for the price of 10 or pay as you go for minutes/hours of | actually watched content. Though Netflix has so much trash it's | not really worth paying for. Had it for many months and hardly | watched anything there. | bjornlouser wrote: | I wish they would allow viewers to sync the playback of a podcast | on their phone to the video on a separate screen. | | I would probably watch more of their terrible shows if I could | listen to commentary through an unsanctioned channel | indigodaddy wrote: | " Instead of producing two mediocre shows and an algorithmically | designed movie every single week, they could make three excellent | series and three much-talked-about movies every two months and | scale back on spending from $17 billion to $10 billion a year and | actually grow -- and maintain -- their subscriber base." | | I think it's inevitable that Netflix will sell to one of the | media behemoths. They simply don't have the time that it will | take to make the kind of major pivot mentioned above. | nerdjon wrote: | I finally canceled Netflix as many of the shows I loved were | canceled (largely the expensive to produce ones). | | Sense8, Travelers, Altered Carbon, basically there expensive | science fiction. | | Sure nailed it is fun but I won't miss it. The only one that I | will truly miss is Big Mouth... but there are alternatives. | | Apple TV+ is quickly becoming my science fiction go to and they | seem to be going more than HBO route with a smaller catalog. | 1minusp wrote: | Ah finally a mention for Altered Carbon! Loved the first | season, and felt like they wrapped it up on the cheap the | second season. | WithinReason wrote: | I have the same problem, Netflix seems to be going for quantity | over quality. | starik36 wrote: | The problem is that Apple TV+ doesn't have that many shows that | I might want to watch. Once you binge through a couple, it's | all slim pickings. | makecheck wrote: | I think it would have been interesting if Netflix had shopped | around its tech stack, kind of how companies that make games can | also sell game-making engines. | | Maybe they could have had a huge windfall by offering to be the | "AWS" behind every "$CHANNEL+" streaming service. In other words, | instead of having 14 kludgey apps that all suck in at least one | way, we get 14 services but with a smooth implementation. | | I don't see how content is a long-term win for them. | mlex wrote: | Coincidentally, AWS has a video streaming service already: | https://aws.amazon.com/ivs/ | | Disclaimer: I work at Twitch, an Amazon subsidiary whose tech | it's based off of. | munchler wrote: | Interesting. Does Amazon Prime Video use this service? | flatearth22 wrote: | alanlammiman wrote: | This is the second article that I've seen on the front page of | HN. Both had comment counts in the high hundreds. I have to say, | for all Netflix's foibles, that certainly shows a lot of interest | in the product. In a sense having a product where people write | multi-paragraph comments on everything they dislike about your | design is a compliment. | markus_zhang wrote: | For me Netflix has too few classic movies/series while Disney+ | has a lot more. It also has too many foreign movies that I have | zero interest in. | MrMan wrote: | Netflix hates free speech! | WillPostForFood wrote: | I blame Netflix for popularizing the stack of horizontal | scrolling carousel of thumbnails. It is a terrible way to browse, | and so many companies mindlessly copy it. | jayd16 wrote: | You say mindlessly copy but what's the better solution they're | ignoring? Or do you mean you don't like TV focused controls | used in a browser? | wtetzner wrote: | How about a list you can vertically scroll through, with the | option to filter based on various criteria? | jayd16 wrote: | A vertical list is a waste of horizontal space when it's a | list of movie posters. They go with the carrousel for | better or worse because it lets you quickly scroll through | categories without scrolling through every item in a | category. If you want a grid, its basically what they have. | | If you just want more search options, I agree but the | search layout is also already a grid. | | I'm asking for a specific implemented app that feels better | in practice, not just something you think might work | better. There are subtle issues with getting this layout | right. Its not as obvious as you say when you need to deal | with crap remote dpads and no keyboards. | postalrat wrote: | You need to scroll though netflix both vertically and | horizontally. How about at least making vertical | scrolling the primary scroll direction. | jayd16 wrote: | Because then you can only traverse in one dimension as | opposed to two. You can currently scroll through | categories quickly. In a single list you have to scroll | through every title. | postalrat wrote: | I didn't mean to abandon two scroll axes. Only make the | vertical scrolling the primary method people use to | scroll though videos. Or do people prefer to scroll | through categories? | wtetzner wrote: | > A vertical list is a waste of horizontal space when | it's a list of movie posters. | | It doesn't need to be a list of movie posters. | | > If you want a grid, its basically what they have. | | It's not though, you have to scroll horizontally for each | section. That's not the same as a grid. | | > I'm asking for a specific implemented app that feels | better in practice, not just something you think might | work better. | | That's tough to do if everyone is implementing it poorly. | However, I would say that something like this feels | better in practice (even if it's still not ideal): | https://i.imgur.com/AU6Az7e.jpeg | Jcowell wrote: | That wastes more space than a horizontal scrollable grid | that'll go back and for with the mouse wheel. Even | Netflix large rectangular preview boxes still fit more | shows. | wtetzner wrote: | I don't think screen space is necessarily the right thing | to optimize for. It's not the only consideration in terms | of ergonomics. | marssaxman wrote: | All that automatic zooming and whirring and auto-playing as my | cursor moves around drives me batty! It's so distracting - it's | _harder_ to figure out what I might want to watch with all that | chaos trying to grab my attention. | mywittyname wrote: | fuuuuuuuuuuuuck autoplay. | LandR wrote: | Turn it off. | mywittyname wrote: | I had no clue that this was even possible. | LandR wrote: | The setting doesn't exist in the netflix UI on TVs and | your phone etc. But it's there if you log into the | netflix settings on a browser. | canadaduane wrote: | Can you point specifically to what you don't like about it? | | Personally, my "least favorite feature" is that hovering (with | mouse) over any video would auto-play. In other words, just by | moving the mouse you would be under threat of accidentally | distracting yourself. Maybe some people don't feel the same | way, but for me, it was destabilizing to the point that I | couldn't recall what it was I was searching for / interested in | in the first place. I think they have "fixed" this in the past | year, but there are still times when auto-play completely | interrupts my thought/intentionality. | Mindwipe wrote: | You could just turn autoplay off in settings. | denimnerd42 wrote: | that's only a recent feature! | dymk wrote: | It's quite annoying to turn it off, you have to do it from | a web browser. | | Most people don't even know that it's an option. Horrible | design for this particular feature's UX. | cronix wrote: | I have to change from the traditional 2 finger vertical | scroll to get to the bottom of the page to a single touch | pointer action to bypass the area of the screen so I can get | past the area and continue to scroll to the bottom. It's | horrible UI if you have a multigesture touchpad, like apple | macbooks. Instead of scrolling from the top, it starts | scrolling vertically (like it's supposed to) to suddenly | scrolling horizontally as soon as you hit that area. Amazon | prime does it too. Instead of speedily cruising around the | interface, it's a nonstop battle for control to go where I | intended. You end up fighting the interface, which leads to a | very poor experience day after day after day. If I want to | scroll horizontally, scrolling left-right should do that, not | horizontal to get a vertical action. | toomanyrichies wrote: | I'm aware that Netflix offers a tiered plan structure, but it | seems pretty lackluster to me. Really the only differentiator | between plans is the availability of HD or Ultra HD [1]. That | isn't much of a value proposition to a viewer like me, since I | only watch Netflix on my laptop. I'd be curious to see what other | tiered models Netflix has considered, if any. | | One would think there's room for a Netflix equivalent of Amazon | Prime, where you pay a yearly fee instead of a monthly fee (as | the author mentions), for which you get a discount off the | monthly rate for essentially "buying in bulk", as well as early | access to original content, and maybe even get access to content | that non-Prime subscribers can't access at all. | | Netflix's strategy contains several apparent contradictions that | I'm unable to make sense of. For example, charging by the month | seems to conflict with releasing an entire season of content at | once. If you're going to charge per-month, then as the author | mentioned, switching to a weekly-release model seems like the | smart move, so you can squeeze more months out of a viewer who | sees that content as "appointment viewing". If you're going with | a "binge-release" model, I would think you'd charge per-year | instead. | | Another contradiction- simultaneously raising subscription rates | and cracking down on password sharing seem to conflict with each | other. The more you raise your prices, the more you incentivize | people to share passwords. | | 1. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926 | judge2020 wrote: | UHD is often desirable for Smart TV / streaming stick usage. | giords wrote: | IMHO it's mostly about high prices in exchange of mediocre | content. With all the competition, the quantity of available | shows is now higher but the average quality is lower. Personally | I often think to drop Netflix as well, there's really little that | I feel like watching in it. | | I think many just pirate those show they are interested in or | subscribe just 2-3 months a year to binge watch. | rc_mob wrote: | The comments in this thread are 100 times more insightful and | interesting and accurate that the author of the linked article. | The article itself read like it has an agenda and its full of | logical holes. Why are internet authors so bad? | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | Honestly for me I just do not know all the content Netflix has | because the browsing is so bad. I wish instead of pushing shows | to me best on algorithms, it would just let me browse categories | and recent additions etc in a simpler way. Maybe categorised by | year. | civilized wrote: | The recommendation system crash is coming. Name a | recommendation system that shouldn't be replaced with simple | rules based on obvious and transparent metrics like popularity | and ratings, or by organizing things into categories. | | Less fancy ML nonsense, more working hard to gather high | quality simple metrics. | nhkcode wrote: | https://movielens.org/ is the best one I've used so far. I | find it almost creepy how good it predicts how I'll rate a | movie. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Netflix had a great recommendation system for their DVD | catalog 15 years ago without any ML hocuspocus. The problem | now is that their content is mostly mediocre and user driven | ratings can't be used effectively to identify similar | cohorts. That's why they got rid of the stars. | scrollaway wrote: | YouTube has the best recommendation system in the world. | | Of course it gets lots of complaints. But the amount of | fantastic content it has consistently recommended for me, | including even pretty small channels, is incredible. | | A few points though: | | 1. I find YouTube to be good for general educational content. | I don't know if it's as good for specific niches of | entertainment. | | 2. It's not just plug and play. You need to actively tell | YouTube what you like and dislike, remove trash | recommendations, and remove terrible videos from your watch | history. | | Do this, and you will be rewarded with a YouTube homepage | full of hours upon hours of absolute gold. When I don't know | what to do, I open YouTube and just let it run. It's awesome | and life changing. | xedrac wrote: | That doesn't work so well if you're trying to push a social | agenda to people who aren't interested in LGBTQ+ or racial | "wokeness". Imagine someone searching for all content that | doesn't include some form of LGBTQ+. There wouldn't be much | of a catalog to watch. | andrekandre wrote: | > Imagine someone searching for all content that doesn't | include some form of LGBTQ+ | | whats the reason for that? | aiiane wrote: | I've always preferred to use https://unogs.com/ which lets you | search with a lot of advanced search parameters and the | resulting pages are much easier to browse, and then just pull | up specific titles on Netflix itself. | dmitriid wrote: | After all major content providers dripped out of Netflix | (Disney, Warner Brothers, just to name two biggest ones), | Netflix can't afford to show you "all the content" because they | don't really have any content. | | So they are in a desperate situation to try and make you watch | anything at all. | encryptluks2 wrote: | But pay triple the price like they have all the content still | and then tell you the crappy shows you want to watch. | dmitriid wrote: | They have to recoup 14 billion dollars they spend on | producing content somehow :) | andrew_ wrote: | They started losing me when they took away the ratings. Just | got worse from there. | yosito wrote: | Absolutely, Netflix would be 1000 times better if they just let | me sort, filter and find content based on concrete metadata. | Instead, I'm forced to rely on their recommendation algorithms | that purport to know what I want to watch, but for some reason | keep recommending low quality content in languages I'm just not | interested in. I'd be happy if I could just filter Netflix to | only show me content with original audio in languages I speak. | The few shows I'm interested in watching with subtitles or | dubbed audio are things I can search for on a case by base | basis. And don't get me started on Netflix's non-intuitive | categories which seem more intent on forcing me to view | ideologically motivated content than on helping me to find | content in a category I'm interested in. I don't want to search | for "Christian Films with Family Values" nor do I want to watch | "Films With Black Female Leads". Nothing wrong with those types | of films, but I'm searching by "Action", "Romance", "Comedy", | "Sci-Fi" etc. | samstave wrote: | I have a very good friend who is a long time engineer at | netflix, this is his quote: | | " _They keep the search and browse capability so crappy in | order to mask the true size of the content library_ " | infiniteL0Op wrote: | ryandrake wrote: | Yes! I recently went on a little trip and the AirBnB host had | Netflix. This is the first time I've ever used Netflix. And | oh my god how do people find anything with it?? I didn't | realize that you could scroll horizontally for about a day. | And the categories are... useless. +1 for traditional | "action" categories. And the content was mostly straight to | DVD B-movies with a few "80s oldies." I did manage to watch | the new Blade Runner there so ok they did have something I | could recognize. | | And the TV shows were awful. Nothing I've never heard of. I | couldn't even find Seinfeld reruns or something normal. And | after watching a random selection of them I am so glad we | never wasted our money on the service. My wife picked a show | (neither of us ever heard of) apparently about a narcissist | woman who moves to Paris for work and it was just a low | budget list of every "arrogant American visits France" trope | and stereotype ever invented. | | The experience was very much like visiting my devout | Christian friend who has a huge bookshelf full of religious | movies I've never heard of, and nothing "mainstream popular". | Like when you turn on Netflix you enter an alternate universe | where nobody's ever heard of _The Wrath of Khan_ , _The | Godfather_ or _Pulp Fiction_. | yardie wrote: | Modern videostreaming is such a poison pill. Where the | rights come and go arbitrarily. So Netflix decided they | were going to do their own content because they couldn't | rely on production studios. Since they don't have to pay | royalties on their own content the streaming apps | intentionally push the homegrown movies and obscure the | slightly better 3rd party content. And it was not always | like this. In their early streaming days the AAA titles | (The Godfather, The Matrix, etc) were front and center. The | recommendations engine was actually useful. And there were | few competitors so AAA titles would stay on their platform | for years. | | I've been using their service since 00s when they were | shipping DVDs. I barely recognize the same company even | though they are wildly successful. | chucksmash wrote: | > I couldn't even find Seinfeld reruns | | Guess it depends on what you mean by "recently" and maybe | it depends on region as well, but Seinfeld is on Netflix! | chx wrote: | I actually want to search for "action series with female | leads" but I have no idea how to do it with Netflix nor does | Netflix carry most of them. Instead, I "search" on Reddit and | pirate them. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/ifyoulikeblank/comments/rdpmp9/tv_i. | .. | pojzon wrote: | I can assume Netflix does not have this kind of browsing | simply due to amount of content they have. | | Offering of Netflix is extremely poor if you crop out all the | duplicate shows popping on your feed. | | Ive decided to drop Netflix simply because: | | - new interesting shows are popping up so rarely, there is no | point to pay the monthly sub | | - there is too much political agenda sold even in children | shows (Kids really dont need this kind of crap) | roody15 wrote: | "there is too much political agenda sold even in children | shows" | | Yes sadly this has become much more prominent in the last | couple of years. It has blatant political propaganda | inserted into all of their original content that is clearly | forced and hurts the quality of the programming. | cguess wrote: | You never watched Sesame Street did you? They've been | explaining social issues to kids since the 1960's. Of | course Mr. Rodger's first episode was explaining the | Vietnam War. Kids shows are and have always been | political if they're not pure fantasy (even then...) | otterley wrote: | Can you provide some examples of this, and how it's | impacting children in some sort of harmful way? | roody15 wrote: | I didn't suggest it was "hurting" children however I do | believe it hurts the overall quality of the programming. | | One example that probably flirts the line with hurting | children was Netflix's Cuties. | | "Netflix is also the streaming service behind "Cuties," a | wildly controversial French film that tells the coming- | of-age story of an 11-year-old girl as she discovers her | maturing self, all while looking for acceptance in her | religious family and group of young dancers she hopes to | befriend" | | If you want examples of pardon the term but I guess | "woke" programming, this list is pretty extensive on | Netflix. You can do a quick google search yourself to see | lots of examples here. | | My personal take (as someone who is left leaning) is when | these messages are bombarded into programming it often | feels forced.. even perhaps propagandized. This level of | inauthenticity hurts the overall artistic and | entertainment value of the programming (just my two | cents). | jdlshore wrote: | Cuties isn't a children's show. It's a commentary on | sexualization of minors in France. Do you have any | specific examples of political agendas in childrens' | shows? | Kranar wrote: | Cuties isn't a children's film, it's rated MA (for mature | audiences). | | There is no dispute that Netflix has woke programming, or | heck many other kinds of programming and no sensible | person would claim otherwise. What is being asked is | which programs for children/kids are you arguing is | politically motivated? | | The only examples anyone has been able to produce are | children shows that have homosexual characters in them. I | am going to assume the best of intentions here, but it's | very hard not to find it appalling that many people would | think that a show that has some gay characters in it is | making a political statement or has a political agenda. | babypuncher wrote: | I've been seeing people complain about the presence of | PoC in many of these programs too, even though artificial | diversity has been a staple of children's programming | since at least the '70s. | | The fact that the inclusion of LGBT and/or PoC in a | children's program is at all controversial tells me we | still have a problem that needs to be addressed. If you | really don't like the idea of seeing a black or gay | person on TV then you are the problem. | | The sad thing is that a big majority of people | complaining are people who are past child-rearing age and | thus not even the target market for any of these shows. | otterley wrote: | Can you give an example of a scene or dialogue that poses | a problem, and why it's a particular problem? | ipaddr wrote: | I watched a recent program about a clothing brand who | they tried to peg as racist but failed. | | The content itself is political. That's increasingly | problematic. | tomnipotent wrote: | Except most content is always political, because it's | being written and created by people that belong to groups | and organized institutions. | | What you're really saying is that it's not your personal | politics, and is therefore bad. | roody15 wrote: | Not really. I am saying there is an artificial corporate | element of inserting political narratives into much of | the programming. Authentic pieces where writers just | create a good story typically reverberate better with | audiences .. despite the writers political opinions | whether they lean left or right. | | The opposite is true. If a writer feels or is outwardly | coerced that he/she must include certain characters, | topics, behaviors.... this comes off an not genuine, | propagandized, or even corporate commercially. My | personal opinion is much of the Netflix original content | falls into this later category. | aspaviento wrote: | Exactly. I don't know why is it so difficult for people | to understand that you aren't sexist, racist (pick your | favourite -ist) for noticing this. The time you take to | "educate" viewers about your preferred political agenda | is time you are taking from the plot, from character | development, from story cohesion... It feels forced no | matter what. | tomnipotent wrote: | Yes, really. A story about Christian values is going to | come off as political to Hindu or Muslim viewers. | | > this comes off an not genuine | | I get the feeling you'd say this even about authentically | written content, so it's a moot point. You've drawn a | line in the sand that characters and content that don't | look like you are bad, and that it's origins must be from | seedy beginnings rather than decades of hard work by | dismissed groups of people that are now finally getting a | chance to write stories about people like them. | nigerian1981 wrote: | You mean about Abercrombie & Fitch? The company whose | former CEO Mike Jeffries effectively spelled out his | tactics in a now-infamous profile on the news site Salon, | saying: "We go after the attractive all-American kid with | a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people | don't belong (in our clothes), and they can't belong. Are | we exclusionary? Absolutely."[1] | | [1]https://edition.cnn.com/style/amp/abercrombie-fitch- | exclusio... | ipaddr wrote: | When I see companies on shark tank say they are targeting | the black community most agree with the approach. Many | brands target segments. | DocTomoe wrote: | I fail to see the racism in that statement. Essentially | he's saying "it's not for everyone", and that's true for | a lot of brands. | rxactor wrote: | I disagree with the parent comment that is is commonplace | (I think it is rare) but I have definitely seen it. | Several episodes of shows for girls under 5 have the | trope "boys/grownups say girls can't do X" which the girl | characters have to overcome. This is absurd material to | expose to children of that age, who have never been | exposed to the concept outside of children's programming! | It's so far removed from the reality of young girls today | it makes me doubt that the people writing this stuff even | have children. | everdrive wrote: | They've been doing this my whole life, and it drives me | nuts. I used to complain that nearly every Disney movie | on TV contrived some reason for men to be assholes and | say something along the lines of "GIRLS can't play | soccer!" Only of course to be thoroughly flummoxed by the | end. It's endlessly tiring, and as you note, it | inadvertently demonstrates to girls the bigotry it hopes | to overcome. | someguydave wrote: | World Cup women's soccer lose to high school men | https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc- | under-15-b... | | Telling girls they can be stronger than men is a lie that | can lead to terrible outcomes. | otterley wrote: | Well, there are some who can. Why stop them if they have | that ability? Why not encourage them, under the right | conditions? | [deleted] | [deleted] | zo1 wrote: | Not OP. But I looked it up. A lot of the ones I found are | ones my kids watched and I didn't even notice! Just shows | how insidious and gently "slipped in" it is. | | https://www.romper.com/life/lgbtq-shows-kids-family | | Not that it's bad for those people to believe in those | things or anything. But I don't want my kids exposed and | normalized to these things until they're an appropriate | age to decide on their own. | 8note wrote: | I'm not clear that your children can become old enough to | decide things for themselves without exposure to the | world. Hiding things from them is going to make their | decisions more naive. | ryandrake wrote: | I clicked that link expecting to see opinions on "Trickle | down economics" or "abortion" or "ownership of the means | of production" being fed to children but all I see is: | "Same sex couples exist." | | "Same sex couples exist" is not a political view. It is a | reality of fact that children of all ages already know. | My kid's best friend since age 5 has two moms. Trust me: | she has no concept of what politics are but knows what | two loving parents are. | | If "gays exist" is the example of politics jammed into | TV, that's a really really weak example. | cdelsolar wrote: | (Spoiler: no, they can't) | petefromnorth wrote: | It's very real. I have friends in the industry working on | a Netflix series, and the amount of political correctness | being forced on them from the Netflix side is insane. I | cannot give a specific example due to exposing which show | this may be on, but if the stories I hear or true, the | Netflix staff must do a lot of Yoga cause the stuff they | force to change is a stretch. The artists I know on the | show went from being excited, to just there for a | paycheck after certain fruits were deemed racist around | black characters (not watermelons), and a LGBT plotline | was forced into a childrens show just because. | otterley wrote: | The info you've supplied doesn't support your premise. | You say "it's very real," but you admit you cannot cite a | single example, and your only evidence is some vague | hearsay. | o_1 wrote: | petefromnorth wrote: | I can, but I am choosing not to as to preserve privacy. | Just one data point, you are welcome to not believe it. | [deleted] | xedrac wrote: | In one kid show "She-Ra" for example, every relationship | is gay/lesbian save for one. I cannot prove harm in any | meaningful way, but I think this sort of | misrepresentation of reality is very confusing to kids. | xedrac wrote: | @ryandrake I believe the poster's comment about | "political agenda" was really referring to more of a | "social agenda". | ryandrake wrote: | Smurfs were all (but one) male. I wouldn't read too much | into She-Ra. And "same sex couples exist" is not really a | political statement. | | Now, when She-Ra starts having extended monologues about | taxation policy or the virtues of direct democracy vs. | representative government, I'll support ya! | robonerd wrote: | Smurfette was created by the evil wizard Gargamel to | undermine Smurf society. | | (I'm not joking, that's canon.) | jacobmartin wrote: | Gay/lesbian relationships are overrepresented relative to | real life in She-Ra, but there is far more than one | heterosexual relationship. Off the top of my head there | is Bow and Glimmer, Queen Angela and King Micah, Mermista | and Seahawk, and Entrapta and Hordak by the last episode. | heimidal wrote: | She-Ra is a show that takes place in a world where people | _wield magical swords while riding around half-naked on | giant armored tigers_. Yet your chief complaint is that a | friend group having several non-heterosexual | relationships is a "misrepresentation of reality"? | | Seriously? | everdrive wrote: | Political themes in TV shows are pretty ubiquitous these | days. In part this is because US politics are more | interested in "culture war" issues than they are with | specific political platforms. In other words, culture war | issues tend to deal with moral and social values. In a | previous time, political issues might be much more | limited in scope: what should the government tax? Which | regulations are helpful? etc. | | "Culture war" issues tend to be a bit more subtle, and | can usually be ignored as valid plot devices. There's not | even anything explicitly wrong with adding your own | cultural values to a movie, but rather it can get pretty | overbearing, even if you tend to agree. | | A good way to look out for these themes is to look at the | characters and ask some basic questions: | | - Which characters in the show are in charge? What groups | (racial, sexual, etc) are they from? | | - Which characters in the show are competent? What groups | are they from? | | - Which characters in the show are the villains? What | groups are they from? | | - Which characters in the show are the victims? What | groups are they from? | | - Which characters have "good" traits such as humility, | kindness, etc? | | - Which characters are shown to be bigots? | | - etc. | | This can get a bit more complex, too. The solutions to | problems, or explanations for the ills of the world might | also follow culture war lines. Who are the bad guys? Are | they from a corporation? From the government? From a | certain gender or ethnic group? etc. | | A great example of this might be the Mulan remake vs. the | original. In the remake, much of the movie is occupied | with showing how Mulan is better than everyone, and then | quickly cutting to show face-shots of men who are either | severely intimated, cowed, afraid, or impressed. I'm not | suggesting there is anything wrong with this. Rather I'm | just making the point that this was added to the movie | for political and cultural reasons. The original cartoon | didn't really have much comeuppance in this way, because | it was written during a different time. | | Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with people | putting their political views into shows -- really, | that's inevitable at some level. But, there's also a | certain level where it becomes too over the top, too | sanctimonious, too pervasive, and you just want to get | away from it all. | tomnipotent wrote: | Poppycock. Political issues in media have always included | cultural and social issues, it's just that they now span | a larger universe that includes more than white male | Christians. | otterley wrote: | I grew up in the '80s and it was there then, too. Some | example episodes from "Diff'rent Strokes," a show about a | white industrial magnate who adopts a couple of Black | orphans: | | * A social worker investigates the boys' home life and | tells Mr. Drummond that she believes black children | belong in black households. | | * Mr. Drummond scolds Arnold for secretly recording other | people's conversations. Arnold disobeys him and records | Kimberly's boyfriend Roger making racist comments about | Willis to his sister. | | * Arnold's poor dental checkup has Drummond suspecting | that the easy availability of junk food from vending | machines at school is to blame. But when Drummond begins | a campaign to replace the hot dogs, cookies, potato chips | and soft drinks with more healthy foods, Arnold's friends | try to convince him to get his father to reconsider. | | * Arnold's joy of being transferred to an all-white | school (and riding a bus to get there) is shaken to its | very core when a racist busing opponent calls the | Drummond household warning the pro-busing family | patriarch not to send his black children to the new | school, or else. | | * When it is learned that Drummond's upcoming | construction project may be located on top of an ancient | Indian burial ground, he faces protest from a Native | American who threatens to go on a hunger strike if the | land is built on. Arnold and Willis follow suit by going | on a hunger strike of their own. | | -- | | And of course, we mustn't forget "All in the Family" from | the 1970s; pretty much every episode was about politics | in some way. | bcrosby95 wrote: | How about Mr Rogers. Sharing water with a black man was | intensely political when he did it. On a _childrens_ show | no less. | twofornone wrote: | Except in virtually all of this woke programming white | male christians are deliberately and exclusively | portrayed negatively, if their characters aren't outright | replace with race and gender swaps. It's petty revenge | racism. | otterley wrote: | If you're saying that you cannot find a single example | where a white male is portrayed non-negatively, you need | to look harder. Longmire on Netflix is just one example. | Jack Reacher and Bosch on Prime Video are others. | | That said, there's plenty of room to make fun of white | male Christians, just like there's plenty of room to make | fun of everyone else. It's not like there's a shortage of | hypocrisy and foibles out there. | tomnipotent wrote: | But white Christian's negatively portraying the rest of | the world for the better part of a century is not | political? Dr. Fu Manchu, Breakfast at Tiffany's? | | Why is it only political when another group is creating | the content? | twofornone wrote: | >But white Christian's negatively portraying the rest of | the world for the better part of a century is not | political? Dr. Fu Manchu, Breakfast at Tiffany's | | This is dishonest. Minorities were also portrayed | positively in legacy media, and villains were also | frequently portrayed by white males. | | >Why is it only political when another group is creating | the content | | In the past studios were creating content relevant to a | predominantly (90%+) white audience. They were creating | content which was largely in line with their target | demographic culture. | | This recent media instead is creating content to disrupt | what it's owners and managers see as a "racist" culture. | That's what makes it political. It's less about money and | more about deliberately changing culture in a | hypocritical manner - fighting alleged racism with | explicit racism. Breakfast at tiffanies was not about | punching down on asians, but black feminist vikings is | about sending a politicized message. | tomnipotent wrote: | > creating content relevant to a predominantly (90%+) | white audience | | Sure, maybe a century ago in the 1920s but it's been | several decades since international revenues eclipsed | domestic. | | > That's what makes it political. | | Other people having their voices heard is what makes it | political? Or that you don't like what those voices have | to say? | twofornone wrote: | >Other people having their voices heard is what makes it | political? Or that you don't like what those voices have | to say? | | This is just as dishonest as pretending that D&I is not | discrimination against straight white men. People are | finally starting to see through your lies. This is isn't | about "having voices heard". Blackwashing characters has | literally nothing to do with having voices heard. | Portraying white males exclusively in negative roles has | literally nothing to do with having voices heard. Its | deliberate erasure in pursuit of progressive politics | which come from a place of self hatred (all the | brainwashed white women leading this charge) and petty | race revenge. That's the difference. It's racism, pure | and simple. | | >Sure, maybe a century ago in the 1920s but it's been | several decades since international revenues eclipsed | domestic. | | The US was still 80% white until sometime around the 80s. | And in any case US movies were made for US audiences | until recently, foreign box offices were a bonus and did | not dictate content. In any case this is another bullshit | justification because other markets, like china, don't | want to see american style diversity, i.e. black people. | otterley wrote: | > D&I is not discrimination against straight white men. | | Well, it isn't. As a straight white man myself, I don't | feel like I'm particularly suffering from discrimination. | Am I picked first for everything now, like maybe before I | would have? Maybe not. Does it adversely impact my life? | Not really. | | It's OK to let others to have the first sip from the | fountain once in awhile, and you can help lift up | historically-persecuted people without it necessarily | being a loss for you. Attitude goes a long way in helping | yourself be at peace with it. | | If you're a straight white man and you're feeling | seriously oppressed by D&I, I'd like to hear from you | personally and understand your situation better. | | Anyway, this is pretty far afield from the discussion, | which is really about specifically how media is harming | people and children in particular. | snovv_crash wrote: | This isn't some debate where you can score cheap points | on technicalities. Frankly comments like this lower the | quality of the discussion. | | If you want to know why D&I is an issue, it's because it | is re-entrenching all of the stereotypes by hamhandedly | trying to give everyone different handicaps, like life | can be simplified to a game of golf. The reality, though, | is that it doesn't matter what handicap I'm given, due to | my poor golf game I'm never going to play against Tiger | Woods. | | The only thing the handicaps change is what we're | measuring, and at some point people decide not to play | the game, or lobby to change the rules. Look at the | resurgence of the far right: it is D&I which gave them | the resentment in people's souls to which they could | place their hooks. | otterley wrote: | You're just reading the news and jumping straight to | conclusions. If you'd like to actually defend a position | against D&I and how it is actually net harmful (or | personally harmful to you), or specifically how it is | reenforcing harmful stereotypes with examples of such, | then that would be an enlightening discussion. | twofornone wrote: | >If you'd like to actually defend a position against D&I | and how it is actually net harmful | | Because it's racist and sexist? Because it reduces people | to their skin color and gender? Because it implicitly | reinforces the notion that minorities are "different" and | forces us to nonsensically pretend that differences can | only be positive in cooperative environments? Because it | suggests that minorities need special advantages to level | the playing field? Because top to bottom it is not a | cohesive, consistent, or rational policy and implies that | all inequities are exclusively the result of | discrimination on behalf of white males who have been | made into a target, are having their voices silenced, | their job opportunities removed, and their livelihoods | threatened for self advocating? | | On one hand your ideology implies that all of this is | deserved because of the past and necessary for an | equitable future, but then at the same time you blatantly | deny that any of it's happening and shame anyone who | speaks up against this discrimination by calling them | bigoted. It's insanity. | otterley wrote: | > forces us to nonsensically pretend that differences can | only be positive in cooperative environments | | What is "forcing" you to do this? The D&I training I've | been taking has been about finding positivity in | differences to our mutual advantage, but never does it | say that all aspects of it are 100% positive. | | > Because it suggests that minorities need special | advantages to level the playing field? | | The evidence on this is pretty clear, because several | minorities do suffer from historical poverty (in money, | in education, and quality of life) that has been very | difficult to overcome. A lot of damage was done prior to | the Civil Rights Act through mechanisms specifically | intended to keep Black people down, and we haven't | recovered from that yet. We're getting _better_ , but I | don't think we can just put our heads in the sand and | conclude that the Civil Rights Act was the end of our | journey to remedy the terrible legacy of slavery and | racism. | | > all inequities are exclusively the result of | discrimination on behalf of white males who have been | made into a target, are having their voices silenced, | their job opportunities removed | | You _cannot_ be serious about the silence of white voices | in the media. Maybe some individuals are being silenced | (see below), but the sentiments certainly are not. For | every 1 person who may have been silenced, it 's easy to | find thousands who haven't, whose opinions track roughly | identically. And those people who have been "silenced" | seem to have no trouble getting their voiced heard | through other avenues. Alex Jones still has plenty of | mouthpieces, as does Donald Trump. (Both also happen to | _own_ those mouthpieces...) | | And it is especially ironic when a person claims they are | being silenced... on Twitter, and then when it is | republished through various blogspam ad nauseam. | | > ...their livelihoods threatened for self advocating? | | I think it depends on the nature of the advocacy in | question. If you're saying, "I want the opportunity to | learn, to work hard, and be successful," I would be very | surprised if people were to threaten your livelihood over | that. On the other hand, if your advocacy consists of | lies, exaggerations, and hysterics, then people might not | want to associate with you. | | I don't accuse anyone of being a bigot because they have | genuine and good-faith concerns about whether we are | remedying social inequity the wrong way. It's when they | flat-out lie, deny the past, make racist remarks | themselves, or make themselves out to be the victim | without evidence that they deserve that moniker. | [deleted] | otterley wrote: | > Breakfast at tiffanies was not about punching down on | asians | | You seem pretty sure about that for a person who wasn't | involved in its production. Even assuming, _arguendo_ , | that it wasn't, would you contend that it would be | appropriate to have such a character in a modern movie? | Have you surveyed Asian people about how they feel about | the Fu Manchu character? | orangepurple wrote: | This is designed to shift the overton window. I'm not | sure who benefits from it or why it's being rammed | through though. | 0xcafecafe wrote: | Can you please provide examples of said propaganda in | NFLX programming? Genuinely curious. | xedrac wrote: | See my comment above about She-Ra. | tomnipotent wrote: | So not having only heterosexual relationships means that | the content is propaganda? | DocTomoe wrote: | When they go to the polar opposite - only homosexual | relationships - then it might be. | splatzone wrote: | I haven't seen She-Ra, is it only gay relationships? I'm | curious if you think a show with only straight | relationships is propagandistic too (ie most TV ever | made) | princevegeta89 wrote: | Exactly. A lot of new content made seems to be really poor | to me. And oh, did I mention content that keeps making | frequent trips in and out of Netflix? (Movies like The | Terminator franchise, Troy etc.) So cringe I just want to | cancel it after this month. | ODILON_SATER wrote: | `- there is too much political agenda sold even in children | shows (Kids really dont need this kind of crap)` | | This is what pushing me over the edge. I have both Netflix | and Amazon prime subscriptions. I have thought several | times to drop one. The only reason I still have Netflix is | because my wife and kids watch their shows. But I have had | a hard time finding good shows because everything is | political, and I hate when the trailer deceives me and they | just inject pure political propaganda in the middle of the | show. | | Suddenly I found myself reading about Synology NAS and how | to set up Plex on it. I am very close to buy a Synology | NAS, and to boot I can get host my own VPN server, seems | like a good idea. | 8note wrote: | Everything is political, if not your view, to somebody | else's. you might prefer to watch fox news for | entertainment that doesnt feel political? | otterley wrote: | Can you give some examples of shows, scenes, or dialogue | that you find particularly objectionable, and why? | andrew_ wrote: | I've never seen a question like this asked in good faith | on HN. Seems it's always to pick a fight. | sofal wrote: | I think it's because most of the time the "politics" that | are objected to tend to be things like having an LGBT | character in a show. While it's probably not true that | _everyone_ who complains about "politics" on TV these | days are objecting to LGBT people, it is almost certainly | true that everyone who watches TV and gets disgusted by | seeing an LGBT character will code their disgust in terms | of "being tired of politics" shoved down their throat, | etc. | | Thus it tends to be very likely that the person | complaining about "politics" is simply masking a disgust | of others' identities, but doesn't want to get into | specifics because it would be a bad look. Therefore the | question asking for specifics is interpreted as a way to | pick a fight, because they know what might ensue if they | actually got into specifics. | bcrosby95 wrote: | I'm honestly curious too. Our kids watch chip & potato, | octonauts, number blocks, and all sorts of things. None | of it seems political. But maybe I'm missing something. | | Hell, Netflix even has barbie cartoons, which leftists | don't exactly view highly. | stonogo wrote: | That's funny, because I've never seen a question like | this answered, except with handwaving about how the | poster can't say more, or they don't want to get | distracted with specifics, or a handful of other reasons | the original claim can't be backed up. | otterley wrote: | I ask to elevate the level of discussion here. Speaking | in generalities and characterizing people's work without | evidence is too facile; you can go to other popular | social media sites for that. Elsewhere in this thread, my | gentle prodding has led to discussion of some actual | shows and scenes that people are thinking of, and it's | led to much more interesting - and less heated - | discussion. | arghnoname wrote: | I think water sanitation is vital, good, etc | | If every show I watched had ham-fisted dialogue about how | great water sanitation is, how we should all happily pay | more taxes to support it, how flushing chemicals down the | toilet is evil, etc, I'd turn the channel off. | | Even if you agree with the message, being preached to can | be off-putting. If you disagree with the message and | people like you are framed as cartoonish villains, it's a | different matter entirely. | pineconewarrior wrote: | Thank you for taking the time to call these people out | (or at least asking them explain themselves). | | Calmly thinking through ones prejudices, even if only to | defend them, is an easy way to erase them. | AlexandrB wrote: | > - there is too much political agenda sold even in | children shows (Kids really dont need this kind of crap) | | What do you mean by "political agenda"? Like open advocacy | for certain policy position or political parties? Or just | stuff like "gay people exist and should be treated with | respect"? | | Also, when I was a kid I would listen to conservative talk | radio _all the time_. It 's the only thing my dad would | listen to while driving. And I don't think it was | corrupting or traumatizing or anything. | ipaddr wrote: | Michelle Obama programming. Me too related programming. | Forced lgt story lines in unrelated programming. | | Everything you experienced in your life can and does | corrupt you. | samstave wrote: | This is why Disney is an abomination. | | Also, if you look at the content tropes constantly used, | and especially used in much of the netflix library: | | --- | | - Lots of satan/evil | | - The constant CIA/NSA/FBI/Cop/Assassin Badass Porn, with | the invariable singular hacker support guy on the squad | that can get into any system and has a 3D blueprint with | wireframe models of every building | | - The hero cop constantly going against the bureaucratic | system that holding back his personal justice | | If you cant see the constant hero worship of rogue | cops/cia agent/killer/evil etc in literally 90% of | hollywood content puts a subconscious desire in the | impressionable young minds of males to acquiesce to a | violent society where they can see themselves as the | fictitious bad-ass action person. | | Etc... | | The entire hollywood movie-narrative is an incestuous | cess-pool-adrenochrome--eating-gay-frog-orgy. (Tongue in | cheek alex jones reference, relax) | notpachet wrote: | Occasionally it redeems you. | tomnipotent wrote: | > Forced lgt | | So you agree then that hetero relationships in children's | media is also a political agenda? | chernevik wrote: | Maybe by your lights. | | It is a fact that gay marriage is an experiment, never | before tried in human history. We do not know how | successful it will be in raising children to be healthy, | productive human beings -- which is the chief social | purpose of marriage. | | Likewise the whole sexual revolution and the | normalization of sex outside marriage is an experiment. | | We do know that "hetero" relationships, and married ones | in particular, can succeed enormously at producing | children and raising them successfully. Perhaps these | various new arrangements will succeed just as well, and I | expect enormous political pressure on evidence and | analysis to support just that conclusion, but we will | see. | | Until time has told, the presumption that homosexual | relationships are the same as heterosexual is a matter of | conjecture and, well, politics. | Kranar wrote: | Human history has existed for much longer with same-sex | marriages than without it. It was mostly outlawed with | the rise of Christianity. The impact of same-sex marriage | on child rearing is well understood as same-sex couples | raising children predates same-sex marriage by decades | and studies can be found going back to the 1960s on the | subject. | ipaddr wrote: | What societies had same sex marriages? | Kranar wrote: | I mean almost every single one of them prior to the rise | of Christianity and the influence of modern western | culture. The Chinese had no qualms with gay marriage or | homosexuality in general, there are records of famous | Japanese Samurais who married one another, Native | Americans have the concept of two-spirit marriages, | numerous Roman Emperors married male husbands, and | neither the Greeks or Egyptians differentiated much | between homosexual or heterosexual relationships. | | The decline in same-sex marriage, and same-sex | relationships in general can be predominantly attributed | to the changing attitudes about sex that came about with | the rising influence of Christianity. Christianity did | not just ban same-sex relationships, it advocated for | sexual abstinence in general, forbidding any form of sex | outside of marriage and even within marriage promoting | sex as strictly for the purpose procreation going so far | as to forbid the use of contraceptives, oral/anal sex and | even masturbation. There are numerous reasons for why | this change in attitude gained popularity from economic | reasons to major shifts in demographics due to the | outbreak of numerous wars in the 3rd century resulting | in, among other things, growing discrepancies between the | number of men and women. | | It would take on the order of a thousand years before | attitudes on sex became more liberal, with the Anglican | church among the first to formally permit the use of | contraceptives, and Protestant movements recognizing | sexual acts between husband and wife as serving a | "unitive" purpose rather than strictly procreation. | | The point is to say that homosexuality was a casualty of | very strict views on sexual relationships in general that | came about with the rise of Christianity, but prior to | that most societies didn't care to think much of it one | way or another. Some people like vanilla, some people | like chocolate; why would the people who like vanilla | care too much about the people who enjoy chocolate? | chernevik wrote: | > numerous Roman Emperors married male husbands | | Ok, name two. | | > The decline in same-sex marriage, and same-sex | relationships in general can be predominantly attributed | to the changing attitudes about sex that came about with | the rising influence of Christianity | | Name a same-sex marriage in pre-Christian Greece or Rome. | | The Greeks had no problem with homosexuality, Plato is | full of jokes about it. And it wasn't that big a deal | among the Romans, Julius Caesar's own legions would sign | songs about his escapades. But I don't know of any | evidence that it was ever the basis of a household. None | of the great Greek dramaturges bothered to write a play | noticing it. | | > There are numerous reasons for why this change in | attitude gained popularity from economic reasons to major | shifts in demographics due to the outbreak of numerous | wars in the 3rd century resulting in, among other things, | growing discrepancies between the number of men and | women. | | I don't know where you're getting this stuff, I know a | fair amount of history and I'm aware of nothing so | remarkable as a shift in gender balance in the 3rd | century. | | > homosexuality was a casualty of very strict views on | sexual relationships in general that came about with the | rise of Christianity | | I don't think Christianity/Christians have ever cared | that much about it, really. They/it think it wrong and | immoral, sure, but it isn't something that has ever | attracted an enormous amount of attention or effort. It | wasn't important enough to get much attention from | Chaucer, Dante, Bocaccio, Shakespeare -- none of whom | were shy about the range of human experience. | | I know there are historians of gay sexuality, of which I | am ignorant, but as a layman familiar with some of the | core texts, my impression is that the overall view was | "eh, whatever". | InCityDreams wrote: | I'm of the opinion _all_ marriage is bullshit, and the | very notion of anyone needing to register their social | standing, regarding who they live with, as a very | peculiar practise...likely to mess up children more than | having any two persons ensure they are loved and cared | for, and just getting on with it. | colinmhayes wrote: | Sorry treating people with respect is unacceptable in | children's shows for you. But I don't think that's | changing soon. | AlexandrB wrote: | > Likewise the whole sexual revolution and the | normalization of sex outside marriage is an experiment. | | This seems extremely ahistorical. I'm pretty sure humans | were having sex _exclusively_ outside of marriage for | most of the history of Homo Sapiens as a species. | Marriage, and especially exclusively-monogamous marriage, | is a relatively recent invention. | | > We do not know how successful it will be in raising | children to be healthy, productive human beings -- which | is the chief social purpose of marriage. | | We kind-of know though[1]: | | > To date, the consensus in the social science literature | is clear: in the United States, children living with two | same-sex parents fare, as well as children residing with | two different-sex parents. Numerous credible and | methodologically sound social science studies, including | many drawing on nationally representative data, form the | basis of this consensus. These studies reveal that | children raised in same-sex parent families fare just, as | well as children raised in different-sex parent families | across a wide spectrum of child well-being measures: | academic performance, cognitive development, social | development, psychological health, early sexual activity, | and substance abuse. | | Families with same-sex parents are not a new thing in | 2022, there's been plenty of time to draw conclusions. | | [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091994/ | chernevik wrote: | Your kitchen drawers are full of chipped flint tools, | right? I mean, that's what was used for cutting and | chopping for most of human history. | | Marriage might be "a relatively recent invention", but it | was so successful and adaptive that we really don't have | much (any?) record of any other arrangement of human | sexual relations. | andrekandre wrote: | > Marriage might be "a relatively recent invention", but | it was so successful and adaptive that we really don't | have much (any?) record of any other arrangement of human | sexual relations. | | then why do we have so much divorce? | lurker619 wrote: | I sense a pattern in your complaints...by any chance do | you also oppose abortion? | e40 wrote: | BS. There is a very high correlation between imdb rating | and if I enjoy something. Give me a sort by that and I will | be very happy. | samstave wrote: | https://www.imdb.com/list/ls055592025/ | magicalhippo wrote: | I cancelled my Netflix premium subscription some years ago due | to the UI. | | I just want to read what the movie/show is about without it | starting to play some distraction, or worse, revealing | trailer/intro. | | When I'm done I want to easily find relevant movies and shows | on my own, not get some random suggestion on auto-play shoved | in my face which I have 3 seconds to get rid of. | | Since then they've lost a lot of content and produced a lot of | terrible stuff, so slim chance I'll sign up again anytime soon. | cynusx wrote: | Or just allow you to hide movies that you've already watched or | decided you don't want to watch | babypuncher wrote: | Algorithms like this in general have made UX worse across the | web. | | Facebook was also way more enjoyable to use when your home page | was just a chronological list of all your friends wall posts. | SkyPuncher wrote: | Youtube is suffering a similar issue lately. | | I'll watch a tutorial video then suddenly that's the _only_ | thing my feed recommends to me. None of my subscriptions. None | of my established preference. Just dozens of videos on a topic | that I likely don't actually care that much about. | cellularmitosis wrote: | Just yesterday I discovered that youtube's "home" feed in the | iOS app is not actually endless. I know this because I | reached the bottom of it without tapping into a single video! | For the past 6 months or so in particular, their | recommendation engine has just been abysmally bad. | timmahoney wrote: | I can't agree with this more. I find it extremely difficult to | find something I want to watch, because I simply can't find out | how to look at their entire library. | nradov wrote: | Back when Netflix had DVDs the recommendation algorithm worked | pretty well, at least for me. It's gotten gradually worse over | the years. Or perhaps they no longer have much good content, so | no recommendation algorithm would work well? Either way I guess | it's time to cancel my subscription. | carride wrote: | Dvd Netflix[0] is still sending movies to your house (in | USA). Many movies which are not available in any streaming | service. They got worse with new releases since 2020, but for | many famous movies of the past this is a decent service. | | [0] https://dvd.netflix.com/ | bombcar wrote: | It works pretty well but for anything big name I can get it | used on Amazon for cheap, and anything new is in Redbox. | eatbitseveryday wrote: | They still do rent discs. I am a subscriber thereof. | | dvd.com | zupzupper wrote: | Same here, much better selection on DVD / BluRay than their | streaming. | everdrive wrote: | The algorithmic feed alone is reason to leave Netflix. Briefly, | I had Netflix working on a 3rd-party add-on for Kodi. (it's | since broken) | | It was beautiful: | | - There were no video previews. | | - All selection was text-based only. | | - There was no algorithmic feed: only lists based on category / | genre / etc. | | If Netflix offered this, I might actually pay for it. For now, | I'm just using a relative's login, and I won't be paying if | they boot us off. | at_a_remove wrote: | The sorting is brutal. | | The sorts should be partitioned. For a given category, that | list they show you? Movies you have seen and rated down should | be the very, very last on the list. Then movies you seen and | rated up would be just before that. Then movies you haven't | seen, but are older. Up front should be movies you haven't seen | but are new to Netflix. | | A movie should appear in no more than three categories, because | they like to pack these with spam. I marked horror as my #1 | category, why do I have to scroll through a ton of stuff like | "Strong Female-Led Dramas" to get to it? | xhkkffbf wrote: | I have to agree. If I remember a show, I can search by name but | I can only browse through the stuff that their algorithm shows | to me. And that's just a few dozen titles. | tailspin2019 wrote: | Agreed. I have never used such a non-deterministic UI. Every | time I load the app I have to hunt around to find the show I | last watched and continue it. It feels like it's in a different | place every single time. | | And actually trying to browse the catalog is painful. | | I like some of their content but I really hate the Netflix | apps. (Not to mention weird subtitle issues and play position | sync issues). | | The one thing I will say though is I cannot remember the last | time I saw a single bit of buffering. Everything starts playing | immediately, every time. The actual reliability of the | streaming itself is superb. | the_biot wrote: | Algorithms? Netflix hasn't done actual recommendation | algorithms since the DVD days. These days it just relentlessly | pushes its own third-rate content to viewers, presumably | because it's cheaper than licensed content. | throwaway042122 wrote: | I particularly hate the way they keep pushing serial killer | documentaries, and there seems to be little way to get them to | stop. When it's late at night and I'm trying to find something | relaxing to watch before going to bed, the last thing I want to | see is a serial killer's face staring at me and then footage of | them starting to play. It ruins my night. Honestly that's been | the last straw for me. They're happy to force their customers | to see disturbing things, as long as it boosts engagement. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | True crime is extremely popular with the female demographic. | That can be influencing what they push on you. | 999900000999 wrote: | I went and quit most of my subscriptions, just because I | literally don't have enough time . | | It's at a point where I'll probably resubscribe for maybe the | next season of Squid Game, like I'll resubscribe to HBO Max if | they do another season of Righteous Gemstones. | | The streaming market is so over saturated, it makes more sense to | cancel all your subs, get your entertainment from YouTube, and | then subscribe just for a month to binge your favorite shows. | jbverschoor wrote: | Well it's simple.. The movie industry almost killed itself, and | now it's getting greedy again. More and more people are simply | downloading again. Not because they refuse to pay, but because | they refuse to pay for 6 platforms, and get annoyed by not being | able to find where they can watch things. | diogenescynic wrote: | I'm not even against piracy but this comment smacks of | entitlement and lack of nuance. The "movie industry" isn't some | monolithic thing and no one needs 6 platforms. Pirate content | if you want, but don't pretend you're entitled to tv or movies. | throwpp034578 wrote: | jstummbillig wrote: | At this point, you would think a branch of the media industry | realized establishing a unified platform before a 3rd party | inevitably does it and then also wants to be cut in (Steam for | games, Spotify and Apple Music for music) is the only move. You | would think. | ZYinMD wrote: | I just want to buy the shows I want to watch, and permanently own | them under my Netflix account. I don't mind buying them for $30 a | season. Just like Steam. | | Hey you know what? I think Steam should probably do just that! | nabla9 wrote: | * I wrote 3 years ago (June 20, 2019) | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231341 | | >Even when someone is the first with tech and prioritization, it | does not mean they succeed in the long term after the field | matures. I don't have high hopes for Slack in 5-10 years. Neither | do I see Dropbox or Netflix justifying current valuations in the | same time period. | | Since then NFLX: -40.90%, SP500: +51.14%, DBX: -10.08% | | * 2 years ago (Aug 4, 2020) | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24054157 | | >Almost all Netflix competitors (Disney, Amazon, HBO Max, | Peacock, Apple ... ) will have other sources of revenue besides | streaming so they can afford to keep loosing money to gain market | share. Netflix can't cut prices too much. | emsixteen wrote: | What's the realistic Dropbox competitor, with partial file | sync, selective sync, share links and the like? Have tried | Google Drive, Mega.nz, iCloud, OneDrive, Jottacloud and others | and none has really impressed. | mathattack wrote: | Google and Microsoft only have to be 60% good enough when | they're bundled in with other products to be free or almost | free. | nabla9 wrote: | Valuation is thinking about the [future profits]/[stock | price] ratio. | | No matter how good the company business and it's position in | the market is (= future profits), it can be overvalued if the | price is too high. | | I think Dropbox seems like really nice product, but not at | the valuation it had or has. It has no permanent competitive | edge. | dgb23 wrote: | Very bad taste of Amazon to make a competing product to | Netflix, which has to be one of their biggest clients. | altdataseller wrote: | I'm not sure if this is a joke or just a very very bad take. | joezydeco wrote: | Where have you been the last twenty years? This is their | whole business model. | naveen99 wrote: | What about now that they will switch to advertising model ? | ericmay wrote: | I agree re: Netflix and Dropbox. Salesforce acquired Slack | though. | | The main issue with a thesis about Slack is that for some | completely unknown to me reason, nobody has even attempted to | make a competitor. Discord is the closest but using both I | don't think I could use Discord for work at all. It's just off. | altdataseller wrote: | Teams and Mattermost are competitors | onphonenow wrote: | Zoom is trying to compete in that space and doing pretty ok | ericmay wrote: | Yea Zoom has a chance to make some inroads here. It's not | even close as of _today_ but that doesn 't mean it can't | get better. | maxerickson wrote: | Is this a Teams joke? | WaffleIronMaker wrote: | No, Teams is a joke. | sofixa wrote: | A _bad_ joke. | usrn wrote: | XMPP still exists. | hotpotamus wrote: | IRC still exists even. I was recently told that it's | basically Dischord for old people and I can't really | disagree with that perspective from the eyes of a kid | today. | polka_haunts_us wrote: | Netflix, at least compared to Dropbox, had the opportunity to | transition to producing 1st party content which they could use | to continue to generate revenue even after all the 3rd party | content went proprietary. My gut instinct is that Netflix has | failed to succeed on that front, but there was an attempt. | | Curious where on your crystal ball you see the likes of Spotify | and the music (and podcast I guess) industry in 10 years. | markdown wrote: | > but there was an attempt. | | Unfortunately it was data-driven. This meant that if a new | show didn't catch on within a season or two, it was | cancelled. They've killed so many great shows chasing the | lowest common denominator. | | The formula they settled on was: big name star in a generic | designed-by-committee (or AI) show. | | Shame. | dougmwne wrote: | This is where Apple TV+ has been a breath of fresh air, | like eating a garden fresh tomato after years of canned | tomato paste. | thedougd wrote: | I think you're spot on about this. Oddly, Netflix has seen | some success by reviving shows that were discontinued on | major networks. You'd think they'd know better than to | cancel shows like The OA before completion. | jon-wood wrote: | I'm really disappointed that creators didn't catch on to | this and design their shows to run for one or two seasons. | Not everything needs to be a decade long odyssey, and in | fact a great many TV shows that were great at first were | IMO destroyed by trying to keep running for as long as | possible, long past the point where they ran out of things | to say. | gilbetron wrote: | Not OP, but I don't see why anyone would invest in Spotify - | there's many other options out there for great music. Spotify | doesn't have sole rights to really any music as far as I | know, plus music is far easier to make than movies & series. | If you cut me off from established artists, I can still get | great joy in a multitude of music being developed today. | Beyond that, there's always the option of just giving money | to the artists I like directly. The only thing Spotify has | going for it is convenience, and I still would rather use | Google/Youtube music. I pay for Youtube premium and get music | for free with it, as does my entire family. Furthermore, it | doesn't matter to the artists where their listeners get their | music, there is no extra cost to them licensing it out to 2 | or 1000 Spotifys, although there's an argument to be made | that just 1 legal license would benefit them, but with | pirating I don't there's much to that argument. | | There was an article in the Atlantic about how people are | listening more to "old" music these days, which makes sense, | but will have a big impact on the industry as well: | https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old- | music-... | nabla9 wrote: | > continue to generate revenue even after all the 3rd party | content went proprietary. | | They did and they do. They put all their money into the 1st | party content. They produce huge number of bulk mediocre | content and also some really good shows. I can't see how they | could do anything different. It's not enough. They have no | competitive edge in 1st party content creation except size. | That edge is in danger. | | The competition has either deeper pockets, more content, or | other income sources. | | I have no idea about music streaming. I assume its similar | network externalities, economies of size business. | | --- | | edit: | | As an infrequent investor, the company must do better than | relevant index fund (SP500, NASDAQ composite, and so on) over | the next 5-10 years to make sense to me. Netflix may | establish itself as a good blue-chip company, but that's not | enough a reason to buy it. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | >some really good shows | | That they almost always cancel after two seasons regardless | of popularity or story progression. As a result, lots of | people are wary of starting to watch anything new on | Netflix since it's almost guaranteed to be cancelled | prematurely. | ilaksh wrote: | What actually happened is that Netflix is one of relatively few | companies who have put out honest assessments in a time of severe | economic stress. Also their competition has been growing for | years. That's it. | | People are so used to having smoke blown up their asses that when | someone tells them honestly about slightly negative news, they | get confused. | zmmmmm wrote: | All the handwringing over Netflix subscriber loss seems to be | overlooking the fact that they raised their prices - | significantly. Of course they could lose subscribers from doing | that. But 200k subscribers out of 150 million? Combined with the | end of the pandemic and sky high inflation meaning many people | have less opportunity to watch and less money to spend. The fact | they raised their prices something like 20% and lost less than 1% | of their subscriber base in that environment could almost be seen | as a positive. | | The there is definitely a question whether, now that they have | moved so solidly into content production, Netflix is actually a | scalable / viable company any more. When they were just sending | other people's content around and doing it much cheaper and | better that was innovative and different. But content production | is an expensive treadmill you can never get off and unless they | find a way to innovate on that front, they are up against much | more experienced and well established players with no | differentiator at all. | | But reading the sky falling into the current reported figures | seems a little over the top. | zenithd wrote: | rdtsc wrote: | > they raised their prices - significantly | | Yeah, and I was right on the edge, not really watching it | enough to justify the previous, cheaper, price. When they | raised the price it served as a motivation to cancel it. In a 6 | months I might join for a bit to watch some newer shows, then | probably cancel again. | | Raising prices works well perhaps if people are in love with | the product or there is just no other alternative. But people | have been auto paying and not really thinking much or using it, | raising the prices is a decision point to re-evaluate the value | of the service. | hamiltont wrote: | Think I read somewhere that of one of their content production | differentiators is their direct-to-consumer approach. | Classically lots of content was produced for the "average" | consumer. Netflix can use their subscriber data to create low- | cost content for extremely niche consumers, who might love that | extremely relevant production (think super edgy, super graphic, | super cartoon, etc - the type of extremes not covered by the | average). | | Not sure how much this holds true anymore, as now many big | players have direct-to-customer streaming, but just sharing | since it was a neat thought when I first read it | nine_k wrote: | I wonder why the market reacted so harshly though, with NFLX | losing 1/3 last Wednesday ($347 to $215). | Silhouette wrote: | Many of the big tech stocks are _insanely_ overpriced | according to traditional investment measures. The rational | reasons to support those prices are expectations of similarly | extreme future growth or a belief that it might be a | speculative investment but the dollars will keep pouring in. | | The discussions this week aren't just a wobble, they're about | whether Netflix can still generate that kind of extraordinary | future growth. If there's even a strong hint that it might | not then the speculative bubble bursts. If there's a serious | expectation that it won't then the growth investors are out | as well. One stock price crash, coming right up. | killingtime74 wrote: | The market disagrees with the higher poster's analysis | paxys wrote: | The market reacted because a much higher subscriber growth | was factored into the price. After the massive drop Netflix | is still worth $100B and is one of the largest media | companies out there, which is nothing to scoff at. | jurassic wrote: | I completely agree. I was only lightly using Netflix so when | they last raised prices it was the push I needed to actually | cancel. The recent content they've rolled out doesn't justify | the heftier price tag compared to competitors. I love the UX of | Netflix, but content rules and they're losing that battle. I | don't even want to try new shows because of their reputation | for cancelling things unceremoniously. | cmckn wrote: | I think many single-season Netflix shows would have been | movies 15 years ago. But many types of films just don't get | made anymore, and many directors and performers would rather | work on series. | | I'd still watch a show with one season, just like I'd watch a | film without a sequel. I don't tend to watch Netflix shows | because they just aren't that good. | Silhouette wrote: | I've watched some great shows that were one-season-and- | done. Unfortunately in the Netflix era you might instead | instead get half-and-dropped or one-and-unresolved- | cliffhanger. A lot of us find those endings very | disappointing and so don't engage with new shows at all | even if they look like we might enjoy them. Fool me once, | shame on you. Fool me seven times since the start of COVID | binge-watching... | toofy wrote: | i agree, as long as it has a clear finale. cancelling | series which were meant to have more seasons is what | troubles me. | | I absolutely agree where i'd rather watch an entire season | than a movie, tho. i really enjoy the depth that can be | exlores from doing an entire season. but like i said above, | if a show requires further seasons to finish the story, | it's very frustrating when it's canceled. | | to me it feels like reading a third of a novel and having | it yanked away. | stingraycharles wrote: | > I don't even want to try new shows because of their | reputation for cancelling things unceremoniously | | Ah, so I'm not alone in this! Nowadays, I typically only | consider shows that have at least a few seasons, I will never | ever try one with just one season. The chances of them | killing it off are just too high, and that would ruin it | completely for me. | | I like to binge watch, I can't enjoy that when they keep | killing off shows. It feels like a restaurant with only | starters. | Silhouette wrote: | It's an unfortunate self-fulfilling prophecy of the modern | data-driven mindset. Sometimes the very act of collecting | and acting on that data materially affects the data itself | by creating perverse incentives. | | The two parent posters are _far_ from alone in my | experience. Lots of people are getting turned off by the | variable quality and uncertain future of the home-made | productions, which means lots of people are holding off | starting to watch a show until it 's somewhat established | and had some positive reviews. If your management strategy | is to measure early engagement with your own shows and | viciously kill off anything that doesn't make the cut, and | if your viewers know this, then you have defeated yourself | no matter how good the show is or how popular it would | naturally have become. | | A few years ago there was almost a trend for shows that | weren't getting the numbers to get wrapped up with some | sort of mini-series or TV movie so at least there was a | chance for the production team to finish telling their | story and give some closure for the fans (who might be | fiercely loyal in sentiment even if too few in number to | sustain the show). It's a little ironic Netflix would | probably have been in a better position than anyone to | adopt this kind of strategy and establish a reputation for | being trustworthy and loyal to fans. Now it has the | opposite reputation and we're openly speculating about | whether it will ever recover. | WiseWeasel wrote: | Tapas 4 life! | ripe wrote: | It's sad that we cannot own titles but are forced to rent them | from these streaming services that can't seem to get their shit | together. (Not blaming Netflix per se; this is a pox on all their | houses). Used to be nice in the DVD days. I built myself a nice | collection then. | | This was the idea behind digital rights lockers: UltraViolet, | which Disney refused to participate in and which closed down in | 2019, and its successor Movies Anywhere, in which Paramount, MGM, | and Lions Gate are not participating. | | [Old HN discussion: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19046108] | bogomipz wrote: | Not just that but it's sad we can't even just rent the titles | we used to be able to rent from videos stores. There is no much | content that is just not available and I fear it never will be. | If you were fortunate enough to have lived near a cinephile | type rental place then you probably remember how directors | often had their own sections. You could browse Kurasowa, Orson | Welles, Robert Altman, Godard ... | | I remember looking at the Criterion Collection streaming | channel not that long ago and what struck me was just how much | of the Criterion Collection was not even available on their | streaming channel. | selimthegrim wrote: | I don't think the service is doing too hot subscriber wise | numbchuckskills wrote: | thot_experiment wrote: | I pay for a handful of streaming services but that's only | because they're decent for content discovery and ease of use. | If there's ever anything on there that I genuinely like I just | pirate it (Arcane most recently) because the UX of having files | that just work everywhere is so much better than the | alternative. I would happily pay for unencumbered .mkv | downloads if my recent buying trends wrt bandcamp .flacs are | any indication. | | The only way to stop me from pirating the media I like is if | you actually let me buy the superior experience I can have as a | pirate. | | P.S. copyright and IP law in general need severe reform if we | want to serve creatives and not executives | jmyeet wrote: | What people don't realize is that part of the pricing model for | various physical media is that the media wouldn't last. VHS | tapes, CDs, DVDs, etc all age, get lost, break, get scratches, | whatever. They're not "forever". | | Now you can say "I can make a digital backup of my DVD". | Depending on your jurisdiction you may have the rights to do | that. But your own backup of that is unlikely to be durable. | | A cloud copy of something on Google, Apple, Amazon or Netflix | is essentially forever. | | People don't realize what they're effectively asking for is | digital rights to something in perpetuity. And you can't really | price that realistically. | | Streaming services actually far better match what users | actually want (in general). There's no issues of storing media | or keeping digital copies safe. The limited time you can view | something is what makes it economical. | | Remember too that most things tend to only ever be watched | once. The satisfaction for collection isn't relaly about repeat | viewing at for the most part. | runnerup wrote: | Streaming services would match what I want if the content I | want was on all services and the services competed on service | quality. | | Instead I want to watch "The Expanse" and I dont know if it's | a Netflix special or HBO or Hulu or Amazon or what. I logged | into three of them and it wasn't there. | | Oh look, it's on the Pirate Bay. Also, it's not throttled / | forcibly downgraded to 720p or whatever. | WalterBright wrote: | I rely on the NSA for my forever backups. | Godel_unicode wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean about being forced to rent content, | even some Netflix original shows are available for purchase. | | https://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Things-Complete-Blu-ray-Orig... | | https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07DNZHV3M/ | standardUser wrote: | It would be much worse if we were forced to buy the rights to | watch a TV show or movie before we know if we even like it. I'd | have a massive virtual library of half garbage. | nyx_land wrote: | If only there were a way to get a file of the same movie from a | different site and then make a copy of it to save to your | personal archive of movie files, ensuring you never need to | worry about paying for multiple streaming services that will | probably remove titles you like and never carry others in the | first place... | odshoifsdhfs wrote: | Doesn't apple still allow you to buy movies on their service? I | only bought two (the iron giant and the bucket list) but i am | pretty sure iron giant i bought close to 15 years ago. I can | still download it from their service without any problems(just | went to the tv app on my phone to confirm and just started to | download them right now) | bognition wrote: | Yes many online services do but there is little to no | interoperability. | babypuncher wrote: | Yes, lots of services do. Apple is unique though in that a | purchase entitles you to all versions of a film, including | future versions. I bought 3:10 to Yuma on iTunes in 2008 and | I can watch it in 4K/HDR today without spending another cent. | | I still prefer buying and ripping Blu-Rays though. | j4yav wrote: | I have been rebuilding my DVD collection through thrift stores. | It's incredibly cheap to do so now, and pretty fun to see what | you find. | lostgame wrote: | I think an issue for me that prevents me from collecting | DVD's, to; say - collecting CD's - is that while a CD from | the 1980's is pretty much the best quality of audio you can | still get today, DVD's unfortunately suffer from an issue | where the SD quality has aged very poorly, and the difference | in resolution and image quality is insanely noticeable on, | especially 4K, TV's. | | Of course, since CD's are uncompressed audio, it doesn't | matter if you play them on the most modern sound systems, | they're still going to sound great. | | Streaming allows me to find a nice balance between quality | and bandwidth, unfortunately while DVD's are neat for bonus | features, the quality unfortunately makes it rather | unpalatable on even semi-modern (1080p) TV's. | gramie wrote: | Surprise, the physical layers in your DVDs and CDs is also | decaying, so a CD from the 1980s may well be unplayable | now. I've found that with many of my old commercial disks, | let alone the ones I've burned myself. | lostgame wrote: | Unfortunately as a SEGA Saturn collector, this is no | surprise, and disc rot has taken claim to games that | could otherwise be worth hundreds of dollars today. :( | | Weirdly, almost all of even my much older audio CD's - | stored in the same bin away from heat and moisture - | don't have this issue. | | I have to wonder what effect the specifics of the | manufacturing process have on how likely a disc is to | experience disc rot, as actually even within the SEGA | community it's widely accepted that Saturn discs have an | unusually high rate of failure compared to other compact | disc collectables. | | However - importantly - my original point about quality | also applies to backups of these mediums as well - so, | assuming any copy of that audio CD has been properly | archived and backed up, it will pretty much always be the | best quality it can possibly be. Backing up a DVD these | days - when there is a majority of the time a superior | Blu-Ray or streaming release, is frankly pretty | pointless, except for, unusually - the much more abundant | amount of special features often found on DVD's. | | I never understood why special features pretty much went | the way of the Dodo when Blu-Ray became the standard. | [deleted] | digisign wrote: | My 80s CDs are all perfect, even my 90s burners. | | https://imgur.com/a/I7fokrx | digisign wrote: | Many remasters sound better than the original disc. It is a | small improvement however, perhaps 1.2x better at most, not | a 4x one like dvd to bluray. | [deleted] | chrisseaton wrote: | What stops you buying on iTunes for example? | | And did anyone ever use those UltraViolet codes? I never tried | them. What did they even do? | | I guess streaming won out because consumers prefer it - I know | I do. | GekkePrutser wrote: | > What stops you buying on iTunes for example? | | DRM. If it's DRM your still don't own anything | chrisseaton wrote: | You never 'owned' any copy - you only had a licence. | brimble wrote: | Try selling a Blu Ray. Now try selling a movie you bought | on iTunes. | [deleted] | throwaway0x7E6 wrote: | those DVDs come with an EULA backed by a dozen laws, which, if | they were universally enforced and followed to the letter, | would put you in jail for the criminal act of making a backup | copy, among a myriad other possible violations | flyinglizard wrote: | I don't want to own movies. I watch them once. I'd rather have | the selection any day. | lostcolony wrote: | The cost is part of the reasons those never really caught on, | not just participation. The number of titles I (and I assume, | most people) will watch enough to warrant paying $20 for is | vanishingly small. Even $4 a rental is a hard bar to pass at | this point with streaming competing. | | $1-2 to rent though? I'd be all over that. Weirdly, that's the | cost to rent a physical disk at Redbox...but an on demand title | anywhere is higher than that. Despite a streaming solution | being cheaper to distribute, the fact it's more | convenient/desirable, I guess, means it costs enough to price | it outside of what I want to pay. | | This feels like a really inefficient market. | m463 wrote: | used dvd stores can be fun | brimble wrote: | I would do a whole lot more digital rentals if the prices | weren't so damn high. How is it that it can be significantly | cheaper to rent the _physical disk_ than to stream the movie | once? How can I watch 20 hours of stuff on HBO in 4k for like | $10 or $12 or whatever that runs now for a month, but a | single 2-hour movie is $5? | | It'd also help a lot if I didn't need a different "app" for | every store, with its own player UI. Learning how to use yet | another designer's cute "experience" just to do the same | thing I used to do with a few buttons on the front of a VCR | that were the same for every single movie, isn't my idea of | fun. | WalterBright wrote: | > How is it that it can be significantly cheaper to rent | the physical disk than to stream the movie once? | | The cost to build out the infrastructure to stream movies | is tremendous. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > How is it that it can be significantly cheaper to rent | the physical disk than to stream the movie once? | | Price discrimination or price segmentation is the technical | name. | | If you are selling an identical good which has near zero | marginal cost to reproduce, then the way to maximize your | profit is to sell it to each person for the maximum they | are willing to pay. | | Ideally, you want to sell (or rent) the same movie or tv | show or song to someone willing to pay $5 for $5, $10 for | $10, and $1 for $1. | | In practice, it is logistically infeasible to target each | and every person's maximum price, but you can try to target | populations as a whole. For example, grocery stores with no | discount to people who are willing to pay more, versus | giving out paper coupons or online coupons to those willing | to spend time to save money. | | In media's case, I am assuming that the media sellers are | betting the people willing to buy online are willing to pay | more, on average, than people willing to go through all the | trouble of renting a physical disk. | | At least in my case, it would ring true. If I really wanted | to see something, I would not care about paying $5 in the | moment on my TV and start watching in seconds, rather than | remembering to get and dealing with a disc from a Redbox | kiosk for $1. But there are people who would want to save | the $4, and so the content sellers are able to get $5 from | me and $1 from the person using Redbox (although they are | also losing sales from people not willing to buy at $5 | online, and not willing to pay $1 at a Redbox, but the bet | is that population is smaller than the total of the other | populations). | mason55 wrote: | To put it another way, you're literally paying for | convenience. | dylan604 wrote: | If you want to sugar to help the medicine go down... | | Compare the current digital rental prices to taking | yourself to the theater. While the digital rental rate is | high, it is less than one ticket for admission. If you buy | concessions, it only goes up. If you take someone else, it | gets higher. That one digital rental starts to look less | steep from this vantage point. That being said, I still | don't do the digital rental. | dataflow wrote: | > How is it that it can be significantly cheaper to rent | the physical disk than to stream the movie once? | | Note you're not just paying the marginal cost, you're also | paying for the streaming infrastructure they invested in | setting up. | brimble wrote: | Yes, of course, but that's still much cheaper than | physical disk distribution. | Godel_unicode wrote: | Is it? Stamping and shipping discs costs very little, the | license is the major cost in most cases. | | Edit: very old numbers can be found here. | https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/03/6400-2/ | svachalek wrote: | Netflix used to be an unlimited dvd rental service. It turned | into the same thing without the mail step, so of course we | stopped using it. I think if we had known what streaming | would look like today, a lot of people including myself would | have held on tighter. | gh02t wrote: | Except back in the DVD rental days, Netflix could rent out | basically everything instead of having to fight for | exclusive content rights. You could subscribe to Netflix or | go to Blockbuster but you could get the same selection more | or less at either. | LVB wrote: | I let go of DVDs for quite some time but have re-enabled | https://dvd.netflix.com recently. Good selection, plus the | much slower act of selecting, receiving and exchanging is | sort of a welcome restricted diet compared to the endless | buffet over the past decade. | ghaff wrote: | It's OK although the back catalog has rotted a lot. I | suspect that they repurchase a lot fewer disks that have | been reported as defective for older films. I agree in | general that most people dismiss this as an option--or | even consider it weird--but many people I know who are | much more into films than TV find this a good option. I | do off-and-on myself. | dylan604 wrote: | The one thing about the DVD aspect of it is that DVD | content just looks bad on my current viewing screen. Blu- | ray discs are okay. However, the DVD catalog is much much | larger. Whachagonnado | ghaff wrote: | I admit I'm still at just HD. And getting rid of that TV | with a higher-res one would be something of a task. So I | mostly just stick with regular DVDs and HD streaming | content. | jbverschoor wrote: | The problem with pay per item is that they try to stretch and | tretch the amount of items/movies/episodes you watch. | | Netflix overdid it with making everything a serie. It's super | annoying, and I simply don' have the energie to start another | serie simply because Netflix's analytics say that it's better | for engagement that you have use the serie format instead of | a simple movie. It has very little to do with the actual | story telling. | Godel_unicode wrote: | Totally disagree, all of my favorite shows would have made | terrible movies. Breaking Bad is just barely long enough as | it is, trying to compress that down into even a long movie | would have destroyed the story. | ghaff wrote: | This happened irrespective of Netflix streaming. Breaking | Bad, The Sopranos, BSG, Lost, etc. The thing is serial was | fairly annoying if you had to be in front of the TV on | Wednesday at 9pm every week to watch something. People | would do it for a must-watch miniseries. But as soon as you | could do on-demand it was a nice format for a lot of | things. | davidw wrote: | I kind of long for the sitcoms of my youth. Something like | Night Court, where it's a half an hour of jokes and then | you're _done_. It 's nice and relaxing and doesn't try and | hook you into watching hours on end. | burntwater wrote: | I've started watching Cheers on Hulu for exactly this | reason. Next will be Mash. | kenjackson wrote: | A family show that holds up surprisingly well is The | Brady Bunch. There's some weird 70s things in it -- but | overall maybe better than I remember it. | nostrademons wrote: | This niche has largely been replaced by casual mobile | games. Pop open Candy Crush and play for as long as you | have time. You're never really done, but each session is | basically independent of the past and doesn't require a | whole lot of mental effort. | | TV in general is losing viewership to games. A decade | ago, the watercooler conversation at work would be "So, | what TV shows are you watching?" Now, it's "So, what | games have you installed lately?" This may be a big part | of Netflix's problem. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | I have trouble imagining what the games / movies hybrid | of the future will be. It's clear something is changing | (game revenue exceeds hollywood - even if that's not a | totally fair comparison). | | There is a VR-movie called Pearl by an ex-Disney director | - you basically sit in a passenger seat watching the plot | but can turn your head etc. | | Take that one step further and be at the table with | Michael Corleone and the Police Captain. But what happens | if you wonder out into the kitchen and check on the veal. | Linearity and emotion get sacrificed. But the techniques | games designers find to bring our attention will | undoubtedly be useful for journalists and campaigners to | highlight real issues, and marketers to highlight crap. | | I can sense it matters. I just don't understand it. I do | wonder if i played more games it might help ! | foota wrote: | I think your s key is broken | ben0x539 wrote: | "serie" is the singular for series in a bunch of | languages, which honestly makes more sense than having a | singular noun ending in s and the plural form being | identical to the singular. | assttoasstmgr wrote: | I still buy hard media (which makes me a Luddite apparently) | because I consider it art and refuse to pay for digital media | that is allegedly perpetual and then one day it goes missing | because the wokes decided it should be memory holed. | | One of many, many examples: https://screenrant.com/its-always- | sunny-blackface-episodes-m... | | Even things like iTunes Music Store which once claimed that all | your past purchases are available for download from iCloud | forever quietly became untrue when I discovered parts of my | music library went missing. Come to find out the record company | decided to pull licensing from Apple which made that media | forever unavailable. So don't forget your backups..... rule of | thumb is that you can never trust any company with your media | no matter how much bullshit they sell you. | managerclass wrote: | But how do you actually find content that you like? | | Sometimes I have to go though 4-5 different shows/movies on | various streaming networks before I find something worth | watching and even then, the shows usually get really bad by | season 2-3. I can't imagine how wasteful it would be to have | to buy all these bad shows instead of just streaming them. | Silhouette wrote: | _But how do you actually find content that you like?_ | | Recommendations from friends. Reviews by trusted critics. | The same ways we've always found other things we like | really. | | _I can 't imagine how wasteful it would be to have to buy | all these bad shows instead of just streaming them._ | | I have a significant disc collection of movies and TV shows | I enjoy. I have almost nothing I haven't rewatched at least | once and enjoyed again and/or lent to friends or family at | some point for them to enjoy as well. I don't really know | how that happened but I can tell you that almost none of | those discs were bought as new releases other than big | names that I was already fairly sure I'd enjoy or | sequels/spin-offs of things I'd previously enjoyed. | eagsalazar2 wrote: | Almost a decent comment. | password4321 wrote: | Do you have any little disc destroying demons around... oh | wait, did I say that out loud? I meant little kids. | | Discs are good for ripping then straight to storage (or | mailing back to Netflix?) but that's about it. | | It would be cool to have a shared database of | binaries+commands to recreate scene rips from the discs. Or | just following along with someone who knows what they're | doing and doesn't go for one-size-fits-all compression. | disqard wrote: | I'm in your camp, but I think you used the antonym of the | word you intended to: "ephemeral" vs. "eternal" :) | assttoasstmgr wrote: | You are correct, thank you. I blame lack of sleep and | coffee. :) | eweise wrote: | I don't know about movies, but music streaming is awesome. I | have a couple thousand CDs that are sitting in a closet | somewhere. For a while I kept them as mp3s on a hardrive, | copied other people's mp3s to build up my collection. But its | still so limited. I love going through my favorite artists on | spotify, listening to the less popular albums I never would | have bought and discovering new artists. | yeetsfromhellL2 wrote: | I did the same thing. I used to put a lot of effort into | getting a perfect FLAC rip of everything I ever listened to, | having them on my devices, or setting up streaming from a | home server. I threw that shit out a long time ago, partly | because I don't listen to the garbage that I used to, and | partly because I've got better things to fuss over now. The | amount of time worrying about file integrity, backups, server | being up (and updated)...sorry, 90%0 of it is music I'll just | get tired of soon. It wasn't worth it. Spotify makes more | sense for me. | | Same with movies. As I've gotten older, I can name about a | dozen movies I'd like to watch again. I can afford to buy the | next "highest quality release ever" when the time comes. | bartekrutkowski wrote: | Isn't it because it differs so much from movie streaming? On | major music streaming platforms you can find most of the | popular music artists. I don't have any numbers to back it, | but my gut feeling tells me a-number-so-close-to-100 percent | that it doesn't even matter anymore it may not be actually | 100. Movies? You can't get Disney on Netflix, you can't get | Apple on HBO, you can't get... you just can't. Imagine having | Metallica on Netflix, Madonna on Apple, Beatles on Sony and | Silent Poets on Amazon. | [deleted] | mqus wrote: | That works until UMG etc start their own streaming services | and take their content off spotify for this or any other | reason. | s3233323 wrote: | lostgame wrote: | Music streaming doesn't suffer _nearly_ the fragmentation | issues film and television streaming services have, though. | | If I want to listen to something as common as Kanye or | something as obscure as MSTRKRFT, I can do it on Spotify, | Apple Music, Amazon Music, pretty much anything. And I only | need to subscribe to one service. | | If I want to watch something as common as 'Inception' or as | indie as 'Twin Peaks', there's virtually no chance I'd be | using the same services. | | The experience with video streaming is literally just some of | the worst ever in terms of finding content. You pretty much | have to just pick whichever one seems the best and pirate | whatever else you need, which begs the question of why not to | just pirate in the first place. That's just not the case with | music. | heavenlyblue wrote: | > MSTRKRFT | | 17 million listens. I would not call that obscure. | | As a matter of fact a lot of truly obscure stuff barely | gets to SoundCloud, let alone Spotify. | lostgame wrote: | I don't think this really affects my point that the | fragmentation situation is _infinitely_ better with | streaming music than it is with video. | | Here's - perhaps - a better explanation as to why. | | The majority of major music labels - Sony/BMG, Columbia, | EMI, etc - have the majority of their music available on | the majority of the available streaming services. | | This situation is unfortunately _worsening_ on video | streaming platforms as every major studio and their | brother wants to completely commit to their own service. | | It's even worse as the result of this weird licensing | moving around is series and films being removed from | services you'd previously subscribed too mainly for those | particular shows or films. | | The only result of this is value loss and confusion | presented to the consumer - as the recent CNN+ disaster | shows, along with Netflix's flailing subscriber count. | | The music streaming world is exponentially better. Like - | subscribing to a music streaming service is actually | worthwhile. Video streaming services decrease in value | with every new one that is introduced. | paul7986 wrote: | Netflix is something I subscribe to during Christmas but ignored | all other times. I quickly canceled when they hiked up their rate | recently. | | I have and will keep Disney Plus and HBO Max even when I watch | them infrequently cause of Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Pixar and other | big tentpole IP properties that Netflix has none of! | 28304283409234 wrote: | Right now, on my screen, on the 'Recommended' tab of 'Breaking | Bad': 1) Shrek, 2) Shrek 2, 3) How to tame a dragon ... | etc..etc.. | | How is this company still alive? | hemreldop wrote: | isaacfrond wrote: | Link is overloaded. This one works: https://archive.ph/RXo0I | gumby wrote: | Netflix always had a terrible business model dependent on | transient properties of the media environment. I thought from the | beginning they were not masters of their own fate (remember | Redbox's hack to get around publisher restrictions? Weird | streaming windows even from the streaming era's earliest days?) | and once they started spending the big bucks to try and stay | afloat it was clear they were doomed. They were only in "FAANG" | to make the acronym funny. | | I expect the entire streaming business to follow the cable TV | model: 1 - start with a paid, high quality and/or increased | supply without ads; 2 - bleed ads into some of the streams | because the first stage was unsustainable; 3 - race to the bottom | with bundles, because the individual streams are too expensive. | Expect Comcast to be the big winner here through a roll up and | cross-sale of carriage to their cable channels into streaming | bundles (because aggregated bundle fees will provide at least | some revenue without the cost of running your own streaming | platform. | | Youtube ought to win this battle but have to date demonstrated | little competence. Comcast is the superpredator. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > They were only in "FAANG" to make the acronym funny. | | https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-faang | | See "The origins of FAANG". At some point, presumably because | it is a catchy sounding acronym, people started using FAANG to | mean large tech companies, or large tech companies with very | high payrates. | gumby wrote: | I suppose it's MAAMA these days, much as I'd prefer MAGMA | bombcar wrote: | FAANG or FANG without N becomes a very unfortunate acronym. | 8note wrote: | GAAF | robonerd wrote: | _gaffe: A foolish and embarrassing error, especially one | made in public._ | | GAAF is certainly better than the reverse, but it lacks | the _bite_ of FAANG. | jeffwask wrote: | It's funny they talk about the binge model and how Netflix has to | change. I don't engage in the weekly drops on other providers I | just wait the 12 weeks anyway. FOMO and WFH cancel each other | out. | MillenialGran wrote: | This has been amazing to watch unfold. | | Netflix after canceling all of its best shows during a period | when piracy has never been easier: "Let's start doing ads!" | | I wonder if anybody at Netflix has seen the UX of popular | streaming apps like (now defunct I believe) terrarium and its | successors. They're easier to use, just as fast as Netflix, have | much larger libraries, allow DRM-free downloads, ad-free, no | algorithmic spam, etc. It is incredible that when faced with that | as another consumer option they've gone for "severely degrade | user experience" as the strategy. | | At this point, some vulture private equity firm should just take | them private and sell it for parts. Clearly they've spent far too | much time being the biggest player and have completely | disconnected from what their customers want. | judge2020 wrote: | > canceling all of its best shows | | Care to list? Most of the loss of shows I see are from studios | pulling them off Netflix to make them exclusive to their own | streaming service - a bunch of Disney stuff is now Hulu or D+ | only for instance. | MillenialGran wrote: | Ozark, Stranger Things, Grace and Frankie are all wrapping | up. Archive 51 was great and very well received and cancelled | immediately. | | Right now there's kind of a shortage of Netflix-unique _good_ | shows. I 'm not spending money that I worked for in exchange | for... a nature documentary narrated by Obama. | | Derry Girls is great but you can watch it months in advance | on All4 with a dirt cheap VPN. There is a similar situation | for Bodyguard. | | They are expecting people to actually sign up (instead of | sharing passwords lmao) and watch ads for the off chance that | in a year or two maybe Squid Game season 2 is as good as | season 1, or that they need to not miss out on Red Notice 2 | and 3. It feels like they are literally betting that people | need forgettable Gal Gadot movies in the same way that they | need cigarettes. | beckler wrote: | I'm mostly bitter about Santa Clarita Diet being cancelled, | but these were some other shows I enjoyed that were also | cancelled: The OA, GLOW, I Am Not Okay with This, Teenage | Bounty Hunters, Daybreak. | MillenialGran wrote: | Canceling GLOW was one of the first indicators that | nobody in charge at Netflix appears to actually watch | Netflix shows. | | Did they ever clarify exactly why it was cancelled? I | remember reading that the cast and crew wanted one more | season to finally wrap up the story, and the fans | DEFINITELY wanted another season so... ? | johnchristopher wrote: | https://decider.com/list/canceled-netflix-original-shows/ | | Personally I am still not over the cancellation of Sense8 and | The Oa. | mike00632 wrote: | The Dark Crystal, Travelers | MillenialGran wrote: | Travelers was great! I would have loved another couple | seasons! | ripe wrote: | I agree with your point that Netflix UX is terrible. But what | do you mean "canceling all of its best shows"? It's not | Netflix's fault if the studios pulled their licenses for their | content, for their own streaming services. | saurik wrote: | When I read that phrase I presume they mean Netflix's first- | party content, not content being licensed. | Ataraxic wrote: | I think it's not just canceling their "best" shows. They have | lots of data on what people watch. Rather I'd say that when you | cancel shows people _love_ whether or not they have great | ratings you 're creating a lot of brand damage that is not | accounted for. I think this latest price increase really tipped | that over the edge for plenty of people that weren't getting | much use from Netflix. | | Price increases bring increased scrutiny on the value of the | service compared to just hiding as a monthly $15 charge or so | amongst a sea of subscriptions that products are sold as. | | This is anecdotal but this is my experience. I used to love | Netflix and though maybe they didn't have the most shows they | had shows I realllllly wanted to watch. Now? There is so little | that I care about and the positive brand sentiment is gone. | Great shows that I became attached to were canceled so | regularly that I am truly not interested in investing time into | their shows. Not all shows should go on forever but then you | might as well commit to making everything a limited 2 season | series and be honest about it. | | I actually canceled Netflix and had not had it for a year | before the pandemic (where I gave in) but I think many people | in this economic environment are finding it easier to give up a | TV subscription to a company that produces _mostly_, | mediocrity. | | It truly has been interesting to watch a giant brand so | committed to their own internal analytics that they've lost so | much of their brand reputation. | jasonlotito wrote: | ITT: Developers, who are so normally concerned about copyright | and licensing, making excuses as to why they should be able to | ignore copyright and licensing for things they want. | | Next time HN pops up with a licensing thread, it would be helpful | to reuse arguments here as to why any company or person should be | able to freely do what they want with source code, art, graphics, | etc. | smm11 wrote: | Netflix used to offer movies that were previously shown in | theaters. You could get a DVD in the mail, and watch a movie you | hadn't seen otherwise. When streaming became a thing years later, | you could again watch a movie you hadn't seen otherwise. | | We used to watch five to ten movies a month via Netflix. We | haven't used it in two or three years now. | OskarS wrote: | The thing I find interesting with Netflix is how much they spend | on content and what a terrible rate of return it has. Look at | Apple TV+, they're absolutely TINY compared to Netflix in both | library size and money spent on new production, but they have | arguably more hits than Netflix. Like, since when has any drama | on Netflix been as buzzy or as good as Severance on Apple TV+? | When was the last time they had a comedy success like Ted Lasso? | | They have a couple of things that are very good (including | Russian Doll, which is better than the article gives it credit | for). But it's the ratio the that's troubling: the value of [good | shows] / [shows produced] is absurdly much lower for Netflix than | for Apple TV+, HBO Max or Disney+. All their spending seems to | result in is endless mediocre True Crime documentaries that try | recapture the magic of the first season of Making a Murderer, and | the occasional golden nugget you binge in a weekend. | | The article makes a big deal of the binging thing, and I agree | it's a terrible model compared to weekly releases. But I feel | like Netflix's real problem is that they just don't make enough | good stuff. | muh_gradle wrote: | I was really skeptical of subscribing to Apple TV (an | additional streaming service really?) but after watching some | of the Apple content I'm a convert. Ted Lasso, Severance, | Pachinko, and many more. | | There's just so much cheap, quickly produced, B-level content | that it dilutes the brand. | rhino369 wrote: | I think they've over-interpreted their viewing data. Seems like | they concluded that viewers spend most of their time watching | garbage filler, which is probably true. But they shouldn't | presume that each viewing hour is equal to the next. | | I'll watch some garbage on streaming. But I'll make | subscription choices based on flagship shows since everyone has | garbage filler content. | 8ytecoder wrote: | Based on the cancellations of some beloved shows, I'd also | say they give a disproportionate weight age to binging. | shp0ngle wrote: | I have no idea what happened with Netflix. | | Their first few originals were great, or if not great, then at | least interesting. | | Now, they produce _so much_ , but most of it is just... feeling | like made by AI | | Like they see what is popular elsewhere and trying to produce | exactly the same thing. But as with GPT generated text, after a | while, you can sense something is off. | rnd0 wrote: | >The article makes a big deal of the binging thing, and I agree | it's a terrible model compared to weekly releases. But I feel | like Netflix's real problem is that they just don't make enough | good stuff. | | Personally speaking, I'd be happy if they simply completed the | stuff they do make -instead of cancelling it prematurely. | prasadjoglekar wrote: | "The thing I find interesting with Netflix is how much they | spend on content and what a terrible rate of return it has." | | Bingo - that's the real reason for the long term (or secular ) | decline we're seeing. With 0% interest rates, it didn't matter | what the payoff time horizon for Netflix was. With 4% interest | rates, longer horizons are gone. Couple that with Netflix being | a discretionary expense, and we see the compounding effects of | inflation. | | Two things will happen - we'll see the real value of Netflix's | library content. Do people really value that at $12 per month. | | And we'll also likely see an appreciation in the value of the | library content from legacy studios like Paramount/NBCU etc. - | who have complained for the longest time that this is | undervalued relative to Netflix. | fetus8 wrote: | $12 a month? The cheapest Netflix plan is $10 for STANDARD | definition. $15 for HD on two screens, and $20 a month for 4K | resolution. | | I think bumping up past $15 has hurt them a lot too. $20 a | month for a streaming service is outrageous. | juki wrote: | They have different prices for different countries. | matwood wrote: | > Apple TV+, HBO Max or Disney+ | | Exactly. If I pick a random show on any of those, it's probably | at least ok (depending on the kinds of shows I like). Pick a | random Netflix original and it's probably terrible. And, the | ones you do find that are ok end up canceled after a single | season. | 29athrowaway wrote: | Netflix suggestions are not good. It takes a long time to find | something decent to watch. | | I have enjoyed Narcos, Tiger King, Stranger Things, Queen's | Gambit and others. | | But there are so many bad shows, that are formulaic, unoriginal | and overall, lame. | | Then, I have nothing against noble causes such as social justice | and such. But compare a good movie, such as Men of honor, or the | Green Book, with the unoriginal content on Netflix. It is just | not watchable. | itqwertz wrote: | It is absolutely the woke aspect that is driving people away. | Mongo_Mak wrote: | They raised prices. | | They've reduced content. | | They consider emplacing password locks for their users. | | These things say to me "we no longer want your business and will | blame our decline on what YOU'RE doing rather than our policies | that aren't keeping up with the real world." | me551ah wrote: | The biggest problem Netflix has is content. When it first came | out, it enjoyed a near monopoly and had access to content from | every single major network. But as networks have started to roll | out their own subscription services, Netflix is suddenly finding | itself in a position where it lacks content. It has tried to | become a content machine, but hasn't been very successful at it. | Netflix is a tech company and not a media company, and as | streaming tech becomes commonplace, Netflix is losing its edge. | dehrmann wrote: | > algorithmically designed movie | | Still more original than the next MCU movie. | rcurry wrote: | I just got tired of them putting the same movies in every damned | category: | | Horror? How about The Truman Show! | | Sci-Fi? How about The Truman Show! | | Action? How about The Truman Show! | | Adventure? How about The Truman Show! | | Finally I just unsubscribed. | TheAdamist wrote: | Arguably Truman Show fits into all those categories, plus | romance and more, depending what part of the movie you are | talking about. | asciimov wrote: | The only think that keeps me subscribed is my partners addiction | to Asian dramas (K-dramas, J-dramas, C-dramas, etc). Yes, we also | have several other dedicated Asian Drama streaming services, but | Netflix has some exclusives. | julianbuse wrote: | What is a C-drama? | asciimov wrote: | Chinese Drama's. Interesting thing about them is that they | usually dub over their local accent with Standard Mandarin. | maerF0x0 wrote: | For myself I'm on the cusp of cancelling. Mostly just for the | slant of most of the content. I'm not interested in paying for my | propaganda feed. | zach_garwood wrote: | Since Netflix is sticking with the binge-watch release model they | pioneered, I wish they would provide a 1 or 2 week-long "binge" | one-time payment option. They could charge as much as for a | month's subscription, but you wouldn't have to deal with | canceling your subscription when you're done watching the 2 or 3 | shows you actually signed up to watch. $20 for a limited time, no | hassle binge is a pretty good deal; it's cheaper than buying a | single movie on Prime Video and much cheaper than buying movie | tickets for me and my partner. | jmull wrote: | It seems like that would hurt their business, not help it. | | They don't want to to get in and get out. They need subscribers | and the revenue flow they bring. I think they should stop the | binge model for new, original content. That is, release new | seasons one episode at a time rather than drop them all at | once. | seoaeu wrote: | If you sign up and cancel right away, your subscription lasts | for the rest of the month (and they charge you accordingly). It | is a couple extra clicks but basically what you are asking for | padseeker wrote: | The biggest issue is there is too much competition and too many | streaming services. When Netflix was the only game in town it was | a no brainer. However I'm currently paying HBO, Hulu, Disney, | Apple and Amazon along with Netflix. each platform has something | worth watching, but not all are worth paying for. I should cancel | Apple+ and I most of whats on Amazon is terrible but it comes | with Prime already. I still think Netflix is worth keeping | compared to some of the other services but they keep raising the | price. | indigodaddy wrote: | "4-5 new HBO episodes every Thu and Sun" | | There's not anything particularly compelling right now IMO on HBO | dropping new episodes except for Tokyo Vice... which others am I | missing? | dehrmann wrote: | I'd be careful to make a claim as big as "the bottom is dropping | out," but Netflix is facing a few headwinds. | | - Lots of competition, some more serious (Disney+) than others | (Amazon) | | - Nearing the top of the streaming adoption curve | | - End of the stay-at-home covid bump | | The covid impact is noise in the long (5+ years) term. | | Reaching full adoption is a sign of maturity overtaking growth. | You run the company differently, but it's not "the bottom | dropping out." | | Competition is rough. The competitors have deep pockets and back | catalogs, but consumers have no appetite for 6 separate services. | This is where I'd be worried. | | I empathize with the recommendation and UI gripes, but I doubt | they're driving Netflix's woes. | adam_arthur wrote: | Moving from a growth company to a stable company just implies | it deserves a much lower valuation multiple, which is what the | market is adjusting to. | | My question is, how did people not expect this given that a | huge XX% of the first world already uses it, and there are tons | of viable competing streaming services popping up like weeds? | They had a first mover advantage, and that was pretty much it, | but streaming is a solved technology now. Competition took much | longer to mobilize than it should have, but it's finally here | now. | | At the end of the day the only differentiator for Netflix is as | a production company. Up to you to decide what their moat is | there | rc_mob wrote: | Hi. You are 1000 times smarter than the idiot author of the | article. The linked article mentions none of these. | nova22033 wrote: | Perhaps a more appropriate question: Why did NFLX jump from 363 | at the beginning of the pandemic to 690 at the peak of the tech | "boom". Was it really worth that much more? | Mindwipe wrote: | What a terrible article. It's literally just full of guesses and | conjecture about numbers based on the author's personal | prejudices. | ParksNet wrote: | "The woke mind virus is making Netflix unwatchable" | | Elon Musk, April 2022. Accurate. | rnd0 wrote: | "the blue bus travels over denmark" rnd0, April 2022. Also | gibberish. | | I mean, as long as we're going to be spewing content-free | sentences I might as well get mine in. | | "Woke" isn't a useful term because today in 2022 it basically | means "anything a conservative doesn't like". "Woke mind virus" | is particularly egregious -that's pure hyperbole without even a | pretense of meaning. | | The problem with Netflix in the main isn't that they show too | many people who are white, or show two many people who are | LGBTQ+. The problem with Netflix IN THE MAIN is that they are | cracking down on a subscription policy no one wants while | increasing prices beyond what people believe are reasonable | while at the same time hemmoraging content. It doesn't help | that they have demonstrated over the last decade that you | cannot rely on their own content to actually tell a full story | (because it will get cancelled prematurely). | | None of that has anything to do with the "woke" bugbear -it | would be equally true if Netflix's political stance matched | OAN. | gorwell wrote: | The "woke" all have the same opinions and aggressively attack | any deviation. It acts like a parasite or virus that contains | a payload of dogma replicating itself from host to host. It | turns rational people into zombies, so mind virus describes | it very well. Challenges to the dogma are considered | dangerous as it threatens the ability for the virus to | spread. | | You're right that the virus could be a different variant, | like the anti-woke variant, and it'd be a problem too if it | parasitized as many brains. | rnd0 wrote: | What are those opinions, please; if there is no variation | then that ought to be easy enough for you to detail. | | >It turns rational people into zombies, so mind virus | describes it very well. | | If you believe in literal zombies, I'd gently suggest to | you that your own grip on rationality may not be as firm as | you believe. | orangepurple wrote: | It may not be unfair to claim that it's "everything | conservatives don't agree with." While that may or may not | be true, it more specifically refers to a type of hivemind. | rnd0 wrote: | >While that may or may not be true, it more specifically | refers to a type of hivemind. | | It sounds to me like you meant "colliqually" -as in "in | informal or slang usage", not "specifically"? | | In every conversation I've had on the subject where I've | tried to nail down a definition of the term, the intended | meaning is always different. Unless I'm very mistaken | (please correct me if I am) there isn't an objective | universally-agreed upon definition of what Woke means. | | It's used the way "liberal" was in the 1990's or "SJW" | was in the 2010's -an empty pejorative that ultimately | only adds noise to any conversation it's unironically | used in. | orangepurple wrote: | Since you assert that "woke" isn't a useful term because | today in 2022 it basically means "anything a conservative | doesn't like" and Elon Musk uses the term liberally, do you | agree that Elon is not a conservative? | rnd0 wrote: | I don't honestly give enough of a shit about Elon to | remember what his politics are. | | All I care about is that "woke" is empty rhetoric which is | in practice meaningless. | sublimefire wrote: | Netflix has too many random choices of equal weight for me. I | search for 20 minutes then just jump to Youtube. | throwaway71271 wrote: | netflix content is the curse of data driven product building. | | building for everybody and in the same time building for nobody | | you optimize for the most impact, and yet you forget that the | average man does not exist. | ineedasername wrote: | On bad quarter for subscription losses-- driven by dropping out | of the Russian marked-- (they'd be up 500k subscribers if not for | that) and people are jumping on the "Netflix is doomed" | bandwagon. | | That seems very premature to me. Subscription growth has slowed | and they may still lose some more, but saying the bottom is | dropping out is hyperbole at best & clickbait at worst. (though | why not both?). They're facing more competition, and coming out | of COVID lockdowns probably means people aren't home as much to | binge watch shows. Not enough to doom them unless they start | hitting a bunch of own goals. | ehsankia wrote: | They seem to be stuck in the lose subscribers -> increase price | -> lose more subscriber cycle. | ineedasername wrote: | I guess it depends on how they react now, and who the price | increase hits. | | For now subscription loss is a one-off event, so it's a bit | early to call it a cycle. They project to lose subscribers | this quarter as well, so it could be the start but I'd guess | that a base price increase is at least a year in the future | since they just bumped it up. If they do it sooner, that | would be a key sign of the cycle you're talking about. | | They have hinted at a price increase for accounts that are | sharing passwords. On the other hand they've also hinted at a | cheaper ad-supported plan. If they go ahead with an increase | for shared accounts that could get messy. There's a lot of | potential for angry customers here. Get it right and people | will be frustrated at higher prices, maybe cancel, maybe | share the cost, but probably not be outraged. Get it wrong | and they've got a million or more customers essentially | getting fined for sharing an account that they're not | actually sharing. | | It will be interesting to follow along, I just think it's too | soon to project any particular path. They could pull it | together (maybe?) or they could proceed to botch things up | with customer-unfriendly punitive policies and lower quality | content as they try to cut costs, and maybe two years from | now we'll be looking at a Disney(+) buy out at a steep | discount. (more likely, at least the part about screwing | things up. A buyout... I don't know. Maybe just stagnation.) | bvm wrote: | how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy do you think all this news | about subscribers dropping off is for Netflix? I feel there a | danger that, much like when people join something because in part | other people were joining it (a big factor in me joining in | 2011), it becomes something people are doing because they've | heard others are; I know I'm definitely consciously evaluating | how much I watch it now, but perhaps I'm just a sheep. | indigodaddy wrote: | If Netflix would add 4K DVDs to their DVD service I'd drop | streaming NF for it in a second.. | jsemrau wrote: | Netflix is now a mature business that stopped growing. | https://app.finclout.io/t/NBbmd0A | glenjamin wrote: | The graph in your link appears to show an operating profit of | over $6 billion. | | What has gone wrong with our world that making a 6 billion | dollar a year profit is considered a problem? | marcosdumay wrote: | Stocks got valuations into the hundreds and lower thousands | times revenue. This is only sane if there is space for the | business to grow a hundred times, what for those large | companies is obviously not true. | | Now that the US money hose decreased it's flow a little bit, | the insanity of those valuations is hurting. | KptMarchewa wrote: | Nothing wrong with valuing that business at ~100 billion too. | vmception wrote: | Nothing, theyre just Attempting to price the shares correctly | now. | | Its $6bn in profit still at a $96bn valuation. Down from | $150bn. Quite high if only looking at profit. But I | definitely like the revenues under the idea they can reduce | overhead | jsemrau wrote: | I suppose the assumption of many investors is that | competition is increasing and with that profitability will | decline as well. Still the markets are crazy right now. | vmception wrote: | the moment earnings dropped, yes. by now its just people | getting stopped out, cutting losses, shorts and put | buyers piling on. there is that idea of a death spiral | where Netflix has to spend even more on content and | licensing again while raising prices for users and | pissing users off more, but that model was resilient for | cable - although cable does not command such revenue | multiples from traders. | | I can see the business being fine, definitely watching | for lower prices. netflix has always been a fun casino, | super leveraged rocket. | jsemrau wrote: | I think Netflix has taken the right strategy by | diversifying into more international content (Better Than | Us, Squid Games, Alice) Expand to casual games and | interactive content. | | As a consumer, the company will still provide real | economic value | jsemrau wrote: | Facebook also still makes insane profits each year. And the | stocks drop like hell. There is a lot of uncertainty in the | market with many smaller growth stock of the Russel 2000 | being completely oversold. | https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-small-cap- | stocks... | sidewndr46 wrote: | Most US publicly traded companies are valued off future | growth, not off profitability. We have no shortage of | profitable companies in the US, so investment gravitates | towards those that have the next best thing. | wirefall wrote: | Infinite growth is now the norm. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > What has gone wrong with our world that making a 6 billion | dollar a year profit is considered a problem? | | It is not considered a problem by anyone other than those who | were invested in Netflix equity and expected it to be at a | higher price. | onion2k wrote: | _What has gone wrong with our world that making a 6 billion | dollar a year profit is considered a problem?_ | | Because it _is_ a problem. | | Firstly, it's a problem because stock prices are a measure of | predicted future value. The profit today is mostly | irrelevant. In order to make a profit on shares the business | has to be in a position to do better in the future. If it | doesn't then people won't believe it'll do better even | farther in to the future, so they won't bid more for the | shares than they're worth today. That means investors can't | make a profit. If you bought Netflix shares in the past | you'll lose money. That's a problem. | | Secondly, and in my opinion more importantly, Netflix (and | every other tech unicorn) use their shares as a hiring | incentive. If the shares are going the wrong way then good | hires will refuse offers and go elsewhere. A big chunk of | renumeration in tech is predicated on people getting stock | instead of cash because that's worth more to the individual | and cheaper for the business. If that fails then the business | has to start dipping in to that $6bn profit to replace people | who leave, or to acquire businesses, or just to maintain the | status quo. | | It isn't hard to imagine a scenario where a $6bn profit turns | into a loss within a decade or less. The driving force behind | people saying Netflix has a problem is that they're | predicting that the future of the company isn't good. | | I mean, they might be wrong and Netflix might be fine, and | ultimately even if things go badly Netflix is never going to | "fail" because it'll get bought long before that happens, but | if you hold Netflix stock it's entirely reasonable to be | worried despite the healthy profit they make. | cercatrova wrote: | Netflix does not pay in shares, they pay in all cash as | their job compensation. | efficax wrote: | Last I knew, they offered you the choice of all cash or | using whatever % of your salary to buy options, including | 100% options. | myvoiceismypass wrote: | As of a few years ago, they paid all cash, gave you an | additional 5% of your salary in options, and you could | purchase more options if you want. I don't believe they | allow 100% allocation any more (but they once did, feel | like that ended around 2015 or so) | cercatrova wrote: | Interesting, must be somewhat recent of a change. I | wonder how those people who took the 100% options deal | are feeling right now. | ncallaway wrote: | > That means investors can't make a profit. | | That's not quite true. It means investors can't plan to | make a profit by selling future shares based on the price | growth beating inflation. | | But...investors can still make a profit from dividends. | There are plenty of large companies that are much less | growth focused, and much more dividend focused. | loudmax wrote: | What's supposed to happen is that profitable companies | start paying dividends to their shareholders. If you're | getting dividends, then you don't mind if the value of your | shares is staying flat or even dropping a little. The | original purpose of owning shares in a company wasn't only | that the value of the shares themselves would increase, but | that they'd pay dividends so shareholders can make a profit | over the life of a company. | | As far as I know, Netflix shares, much like shares in many | other tech companies, do not pay any dividend. Perhaps it's | time they begin. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > The original purpose of owning shares in a company | wasn't only that the value of the shares themselves would | increase, but that they'd pay dividends so shareholders | can make a profit over the life of a company. | | I do not want dividends if I think the business can | invest the money with a higher probability of better ROI | than I can. If shareholders want dividends, they can vote | for them. | mcphage wrote: | > I do not want dividends if I think the business can | invest the money with a higher probability of better ROI | than I can. | | A better ROI to whom--itself, or to you? Do you own | Netflix stock to make money for yourself, or for Netflix | to make money for itself? | lotsofpulp wrote: | To me, of course. But Netflix earning more money for | itself is the same as Netflix stock price increasing is | the same as the Netflix's owner's ROI. | mcphage wrote: | Clearly not the same, since a dividend would increase | your ROI, but is not Netflix earning more money for | itself. | lotsofpulp wrote: | For a liquid asset, ROI should be the same (excluding | taxes) either with or without dividend: | | https://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/ex_divide | nd.... | | With a dividend, you have to pay taxes now. Without the | dividend, the stock price remains higher so you sit on | higher unrealized gains. But assuming you can sell it | anytime (it is liquid), the ROI is still there without | the dividend. | Ekaros wrote: | If they were able to do, shouldn't they instead take debt | specially when it is cheap now. Invest that and give you | the dividends on both? | lotsofpulp wrote: | Borrowing is not free. Other owners of the company may | not have the same cash flow objectives. If you have | enough votes on the board to make that the objective, | then it is possible, but longer term stakeholders will | probably object to being saddled with debt so some can | cash out now. | anecd0te wrote: | Netflix (like many businesses) use stock buybacks instead | of dividends. | [deleted] | vmception wrote: | wow they make that much revenue? probably would buy this dip | then. $30bn ARR trading at a $96bn marketcap/valuation and | they're profitable!? uhhh say less! | lbrito wrote: | One thing that's missing is a single-ticket subscription that | encompasses many streaming services. SV types are smart and can | probably squeeze a profit while still keeping attractive pricing. | | Fragmentation is becoming annoying and unsustainable. I see some | streamers as better content producers than tech companies, so | they will probably shift towards that over time. Also all these | services are upkeeping parallel streaming tech. All this will be | consolidated sooner or later. | rybosworld wrote: | The original content is 99% garbage. Every streaming service has | this problem, though. | | The series that are really well made are few and far between. | E.g. - Narcos - Ozark - House of Cards - Stranger Things | | For every good show, I see another few dozen that I can't bear to | sit through. Stuffing the catalogue with filler is reminiscent of | cable. | jdlshore wrote: | The problem with this analysis is that it assume everyone has | the same tastes, and stuff you don't personally like is | "garbage." The reality is that people have a lot of different | tastes. I don't think you should judge Netflix by what you | don't like; only by whether it has enough of the things that | you _do_ like. | | For example, I've been enjoying "Handsome Siblings," a Chinese | wuxia show that's pretty shallow. It's not going to win any | awards for writing or acting, but it's beautifully produced and | good mindless fun. | | To some people, it's filler junk (worse-- _subtitled_ junk). To | me, it 's perfect for passing the time on a long plane ride. | zeroonetwothree wrote: | Yes, I didn't like any of the shows the person you are | replying to listed. Although Netflix still doesn't have any | shows I like, I've only been enjoying Apple+/Hulu, hell even | Amazon. | pHollda wrote: | Taste is not subjective. The critics (cc Metacritic, >>> | Rotten Tomatoes) are usually right about TV/film. | | Decent Netflix TV: Maid, Unbelievable, Ozark, Narcos, | Bloodline, Mindhunter, Black Mirror, Sweet Tooth. | | They average like one decent TV show every 18 months. It's an | absolute disaster. | softwaredoug wrote: | Netflix feels like a case of trying to "A/B testing as | substitution for a strategy" | | Being overly focused on engagement optimizes what's easy to | measure. It doesn't always optimize what's important. In the case | of Netflix what's important is brand strength and month over | month subscriber retention. Engagement optimization leads to | click-baity crappy reality TV instead of shows that actually | drive retention | | Meanwhile other services (notably Apple TV+) simply focuses on | quality over quantity and starting to do rather well. | synergy20 wrote: | vudu is a nice try, just too expensive, a few movies adding up is | already more than netflix+disney+others | | at least vudu should have something like the more you buy the | cheaper you will be charged | ryanmcbride wrote: | The reason I cancelled was a combination of not being | particularly interested in most of the content (I liked | Bridgerton though) and the fact that while they were boasting | record profits, they hiked their price up. I remember back when | their streaming service was new it seemed like they had every | movie under the sun (or at least a lot more than they do now) but | since every studio has decided to have their own streaming | service, it's mostly Netfilx's own movies/shows. Some are good | but they miss way more than they hit. | | On top of that, raising the price in the same month that they | announce record profits left a really bad taste in my mouth. I | know they're a business, and businesses love to chase infinite | growth, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or give them my | money. | | The best streaming service for my particular usecase, which is | primarily watching wide release movies, has been hbo | max/go/whateverthey'recallingitthisweek. They get most of the | wide release movies I'm interested in, and for the older weirder | niche stuff that they don't get, I just buy the dvd/blu-ray and | throw it on plex. | ehsankia wrote: | Honestly I think a bit mistake Netflix makes which others don't | as much is reminding people they exist so damn frequently. The | #1 rule of subscription services is to let people forget they | are subscribed. | | I'm also surprised Netflix doesn't have a yearly bundle... | that's how Prime gets me, by the time I get charged for a year, | it's already too late. Less frequent bills means less chance | for someone to reconsider their subscription. | | But yes, the constant email they send me about things changing | and the price increasing, every email is a chance for someone | to realize they don't use Netflix and would rather unsubscribe. | [deleted] | cercatrova wrote: | It's easier just to pirate than keep up with all these streaming | services. | | - You get the benefit of high quality (true 4k, not stream | compressed "4k") and no buffering. | | - Plex, Radarr, Sonarr automatically downloads and categorizes | your content for you, you can just sit back and enjoy your | content. - Edit: Plex et al are not the *only* | ways to download content, not sure why some replies are thinking | so. I too can type in a show into a piracy site, click the magnet | icon, and start immediately watching it. I personally don't even | use Plex, Radarr or Sonarr myself, it was just a suggestion. In | contrast, I can't just type any show into Netflix and watch it, | since it might not even be on Netflix! Then I'd need to get on | justwatch.com just to figure out which streaming service is | playing the show. This is harder than piracy in my view. | | - You can use whatever media player you want without having to go | through a browser and its DRM. I use mpv and filters like Anime4k | to automatically upscale my content, something that I cannot do | via a browser or otherwise without the physical file on my hard | drive. | | - You're not geo-locked to content, just because you're not in | the target country doesn't mean you wouldn't want to watch it. | | - Oh, and you can share with as many of your friends as you want | without a restrictive password sharing penalty like Netflix seems | to want to start enforcing. | | Now, what _would_ be a good model to stop such piracy? Something | like Steam or Spotify but for movies and shows: | | Perhaps a paid Plex server where I get all content from every | distributor for a flat fee, and the service provider can then pay | out to each distributor their portion of my subscription based on | number of views. I retain access to the physical files without | DRM so that I can do with them what I want, such as applying mpv | filters. | | Hell, it's probably in the best interest of all distributors to | band together because clearly everyone having their own | subscription service is a race to the bottom. See Netflix here | struggling to make original content because major distributors | like Disney and Paramount have already left. See CNN+ that shut | down one month after starting. Due to the tragedy of the commons, | where each distributor thinks they can make more money via | starting their own service, this hypothetical new service would | have to be some sort of joint venture between them all so that no | one is incentivized to start their own. | bradly wrote: | Not being able to set or see an actual resolution when using | Netflix on my TV is so frustrating. | DoingIsLearning wrote: | Even without a widget I can definitely see that with Netflix | I am getting 720p on a 4k TV, even more frequently when | watching childrens shows. I have a 200Mbps internet link, | Disney+ plays 4k just fine. | FpUser wrote: | Resolution on its own does not mean much. To me all that | matters if it is visually ok. | bradly wrote: | It is not. It's very clearly not HD and we gigabit | internet. Other services do fine. Especially rented HD | movies that are streamed. So instead of using my TV for | Netflix, I watch on my laptop with a browser plugin to set | a proper resolution. | nradov wrote: | Right but the visual quality depends more on the actual | bit rate than on the nominal resolution. | colechristensen wrote: | But bitrate doesn't matter if they've selected 720p for | you. | lostlogin wrote: | I think I'm missing your point. | | What I've noticed: a Netflix 1080p is very much worse | looking than the 1080p I get off Plex. | colechristensen wrote: | Unbounded bitrate on 720p video will always look rather | degraded on a 4k screen. | mindslight wrote: | As is commonly forgotten, 720p _is_ "HD". | digisign wrote: | Internet provider may be throttling you on purpose. Do | they sell TV as well? | TheDudeMan wrote: | Just wait a while. Your eyes will get like mine as you | get older. ;) | FpUser wrote: | I do not have dedicated TV. Just computers with big 4K | monitors. I gave up on TV and replaced it with the | computer some 17 years ago I think | bradly wrote: | We just have less streaming services and rent or buy the | content we want to watch. | Mindwipe wrote: | You can on most TV sets and STBs. UI is a bit hidden, but you | can. | thematrixturtle wrote: | All this. Plus, if you live in a country that's not the US, | half the streaming services aren't available, and on the ones | that are, half the content is missing because it's 2022 and | geographic region licensing is still a thing. | jksmith wrote: | Maybe, but I'd pay for better content and UX. Many movies above | that royalty threshold just aren't available. Also Netflix must | die because they canceled Cowboy Bebop. | | About time anyway. Always next version of the business they put | out of business. That's the way it works, especially with the | deflation threat of technology. If you're a tech business and | you can't maintain a margin so you have to raise rates, then | something is up, broke, stockholder greed, personal greed, etc. | mpalczewski wrote: | > It's easier just to pirate than keep up with all these | streaming services. | | It really isn't and it's only cheaper if you don't put much | value on your time. | | Radarr and Sonarr don't do anything automatically. Setting them | up takes more time than they are worth. I tried installing | them. Most would describe me as technically savvy, but I just | gave up. | | example issues. Here's the quick start guide. | https://wiki.servarr.com/radarr/quick-start-guide 1. Get | stopped immediately at the indexer. No sane defaults there at | all. No guidance either. | | Plex doesn't do 4k streaming to Apple TV, doesn't do 4k to | chromecast. | | The movies you pirate frequently have technical problems, | usually the sound is off. You are lucky to have subtitles that | work(synced correctly). | racl101 wrote: | > It really isn't and it's only cheaper if you don't put much | value on your time. | | Very true. | | In the hours it takes to download and curate these movies and | shows I've made more than enough to cover a Netflix, Disney+, | Prime and HBO subscriptions for that month or pay for a few | VOD titles for that month. | | My time is way more fucking valuable than the time required | to do this well. | | And if I do without content or entertainment even better. Not | everything is worth watch every month. | simongr3dal wrote: | I don't really get why Netflix is so sour about password | sharing, it's literally part of the subscription pricing, they | tell you how many concurrent streams you're allowed to have. | postalrat wrote: | Kinda crazy that using the number of streams you are paying | for is now considered getting netflix for free. | malermeister wrote: | _Obviously_ that 's just for one person watching different | things on their TV, computer and phone simultaneously. /s | abnry wrote: | Yes, this very much bothers me. You pay for streaming. How | many streams do you want? Well, pay Netflix for that number. | However you like to use those streams is up to you. | michaelt wrote: | In the 1990s some homes would have several screens of cable | TV, so several people in the same home could watch different | things at the same time. Parents with teenage children, for | example. Because of the physical cables it only worked in one | home - when the kids moved out, they had to pay for their own | cable or go without. | | Netflix presumably hopes to achieve the same thing: Letting | kids share their parents' accounts before they leave home, | but not after. | colechristensen wrote: | At this point 80% of the reason I still have a Netflix | subscription is to share my password with my parents. | colinmhayes wrote: | Same, rarely watch myself, but they got pissed when I | cancelled it. | hardwaregeek wrote: | I don't know how to phrase this nicely, but this is precisely | the type of Hacker News nerd-blindness that I find amazing. | It's "easier"? Is it? For young children who want to watch | their kids shows and don't know what 4k means? For grandparents | who want to see some k-dramas and have no clue about DRM or | geo-locked? Sure, Netflix has issues and it's made some bad | decisions, but let's not delude ourselves here. The group of | people who are comfortable pirating media and find it "easier" | than Netflix is at least an order of magnitude smaller than | Netflix's user base. | | I'm sorry, I just find it really absurd when people claim | something is easier when it's just not. Perhaps you find it to | be a better trade off, but it is not easier. | sgarland wrote: | Agreed. While the *arrs are "easy" to set up once you have | good knowledge of Kubernetes or at least Docker Compose, | that's not exactly common. If you're using the native Windows | clients, there's a pretty good chance you don't have a NAS | set up (or at least not well), which means there's a decent | chance you'll eventually have a hardware failure, and then be | surprised when your media is suddenly gone. | | ZFS pools with full backups, redundant hardware, and highly | available servers is not normal. | brewdad wrote: | Even just having a spare PC to run your media server is not | normal. Never mind all of the technical knowledge needed to | keep it all running smoothly. | michaelmrose wrote: | You can run a media service for example jellyfin on the | same PC as the client. | | Installers are a thing on windows, on Ubuntu you can | install software with apt. It wasn't packaged for my distro | so I downloaded an archive unzipped and dropped it in /opt | | Not sure why anyone would absolutely need to understand | Kuberetes or even docker. | | Plugging a PC up to a display has been a better TV for a | while now. | [deleted] | unethical_ban wrote: | I can agree it isn't easier for those who don't know it. It's | like saying the CLI is easier than a GUI - sure, for you. | | The things this person lists are things I agree with, | however. I actually have Amazon Prime Video but still enjoyed | watching my friend's pirated copies on Plex, because there is | no way to force-disable shitty compression levels, even if I | have gigabit Internet. | | Also, my friend can make sure their video library never | changes or goes away, and that certain rarer content is | archived forever, not subject to the changes of George Lucas | or Disney editing out "problematic" content. | samstave wrote: | This is why we need an Airport Hub model for media | consumption hubs, like Plex. (Which is what Cable TV started | out to be: We provide the infrastructure to get the signal | into the home. You, the media-company, pays to land your | content at our hub so that our subscribers to our | infrastructure can see your content. | | There are lists of how much it would cost to have all the | streaming services, and for a LONG time, it was illegal for | cable companies to prevent you from selecting the channels | you would like a-la-carte... but it did NOT prevent them from | charging too much for each channel to make that an | unworkable... | | " _You want JUST HBO? Sure, no problem, if you don 't buy it | in the bundle, the individual channel cost is $29 per | month!_" | | --- | | That is _THE_ failure of "regulation" ; _THE GOVERNMENT WILL | MANDATE THROUGH LOBBIED REGULATION THAT ONE MUST HAVE THIS | [SERVICE] - HOWEVER, WE WILL NOT REGULATE HOW MUCH YU CAN BE | CHARGED FOR THE SERVICE, BUT WE WILL FINE AND PUNISH YOU IF | YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS SERVICE._ | teawrecks wrote: | You mean the kids who don't buy all those streaming services? | Or the grandparents who don't buy all those streaming | services? We agree, not having to deal with all these | streaming services is easier than having to deal with all | these streaming services. | | But if we're talking about the people who are buying all the | streaming services, it's currently easier to pirate. I get | that you haven't taken two seconds to do any amount of | research on the matter and that complete lack of any | experience whatsoever gives you a sense of expertise to call | other people blind and absurd, but consider that maybe you | just don't know what you're talking about? | Cipater wrote: | Hang on, are you really saying that it's easier for kids | and grandparents to set up Plex, Radarr and Sonarr than it | is to sign up and use Netflix? | michaelmrose wrote: | Well now only a fraction of content is on Netflix so if | one compares the time cost of spending 2 hours doing so | once this decade vs spending $200 a month for everything | from live TV to Disney. | | The easy option will cost you 24000 over 10 years. If you | earn 20 bucks an hour or less like near half of America | this represents an additional 1200 labor hours or a full | time job for 30 weeks. | Cipater wrote: | I agree with your comment but you're arguing a different | point entirely. | | You even call Netflix the easy option which is all I'm | saying. | rhino369 wrote: | It's not easier. I've got a BS in EE and am old enough to | have downloaded episodes of the TV show 24 over 56k using | early BitTorrent. I've successfully set up plex (which | requires an in house server/spare pc), sonarr, radarr, | usenet, etc. I'm probably the 99% percentile in ability to | pirate. And its not easier than netflix. | | 90% of people I know probably couldn't set this up. And the | other 10% would spend more time dicking around with the set | up than they would using netflix or the other services. | | GabeN is not correct. Piracy is a money problem. Free is very | enticing. | kyriakos wrote: | I would gladly pay for a service I am currently getting | through piracy if there was a legal way to have it though. | Availability of all content, no geoblocking (I live in a | country where Disney+ and HBO Max is not available but I do | pay for Prime and Netflix). For me if there was a way to | have what I'm getting in a legal way I'd go for it but it | is not an option. What I'm getting at is that its not a | matter of money/pricing its also a matter of convenience, | availability and not having to track 4+ subscriptions and | apps when you can watch it all under a single platform. | johnnyanmac wrote: | >Availability of all content, no geoblocking | | that's where the "service problem" sentiment falls apart. | All companies want to be this monopoly for you with no | red tape over multiple governments. But of course, | companies get the best cuts (100%) from hosting it | themselves and countries (and media licensed) will never | agree on what's okay. | | In this case, piracy is a way around a world that hasn't | quite caught up with how the internet works yet. I wonder | in a few decades if governments worldwide create enough | enforcement on this for it to be just as inconvinent as | trying to steal a CD. | crazysim wrote: | I think some of those 90% people might pay for major | pirated Plex server operations. | ransom1538 wrote: | I was at a friends house, he was starting GameOfThrones. I | was like "you going to cancel hbo after??" He explained he | was pirating. But! He is non technical (a nurse by trade). | I was very confused asked to see his setup. He walked over | to small black box under his tv. I was fascinated. It was a | raseberry pi enclosure with hdmi out, it was prepackaged - | networking p2p software for looking up stolen items, a UI | better than netflix. All he did was take it out of the box, | plug in the HDMI, and start watching UNLIMITED content on | any streaming service I have heard of. | madduci wrote: | Kodi with the right preloaded plugins can do wonders and | make it accessible to non-technical users | danielovichdk wrote: | Ask your friend where he bought such a wonderful device | bin_bash wrote: | I didn't understand the GabeN reference but looked it up: | | > "Piracy is a service problem." Valve's Gabe Newell said | that years ago, touting the success of Steam, his online | video game distribution service. | the_other wrote: | Am I the only person that hates Steam? | | The UX is crap; the info architecture is obscure; it | doesn't work well on macOS (or at all if I use the wrong | file system); it uses confusing labels for the stash of | stuff I've already bought. I don't use it often enough to | know if my usr/pwd is still valid (it is, fortunately). | It had some slightly odd 2FA type thing the last time I | logged in. It just gives me the impression that it wants | to hide games from me that I've already bought and to | make new ones hard to find. I'd rather have discs in | boxes taking up space (tbf I also collect vinyl so maybe | I'm just anachronistic?) | | The only good thing going for it is that it doesn't ever | email me junk. | cupofpython wrote: | Our use-cases must be vastly different. steam is actually | one of the few applications my friends and i talk about | as having good design. | | I've been using steam for over a decade and have always | enjoyed that it works the way i expect a computer | application to work. i can right-click on things to get | to their properties and other options, i can point it to | games i have installed that i didnt buy through steam and | they appear next to my steam games in my library | seamlessly | | the store UI is.. not the most intuitive thing for me, | but it seems consistent. it is very rare that i am | browsing steam store to begin with, though. I am usually | searching for a specific game directly, which i never | have trouble finding if it's in their collection. I also | like that i can add any games im interested in to a wish | list and they notify me when it's on sale | | i used to edit my settings in a config file in | counterstrike, which required "tampering" with local | files but in a way that ultimately resulted in compliant | files. Finding that file was an obscure path to navigate, | ill give you that - but again the organization is still | consistent. all files for one game can be found in one | folder with the games name on it. you can manually delete | that folder and effectively uninstall the game. you can | even do a custom reinstall by selectively deleting files | from that folder and ask steam to replace the missing | items and it will. For example, to reinstall a game | without losing your save files. | | Not trying to invalidate your experience, but your | comment caught me by surprise because your dislike seems | to be well rationed and thought out - ie genuine - so i | just found it interesting | zhynn wrote: | I love steam. And the revenues from steam allow valve to | experiment and explore (and support my favorite esport | Dota2). The Valve Index and Steam Deck would not exist | were it not for revenue from Steam. Not to mention | Proton. As long as they keep doing interesting things, | and allow me to play the games I buy offline (which they | do), I will continue to be a Steam fan. | veqz wrote: | I was terribly skeptical to Steam when it launched, as I | am to all online/hosted services. What if they just | remove a game I'm using? Does all my games stop working | if they turn off their servers? Am I really going to have | to be online whenever I want to play? | | But I gave in after several years, and now I'm a quite | happy Steam user on Linux. It works as advertised, and | the only issue I have is that I haven't found a way to | filter games for <<Linux support>> and a genre at the | same time. I've used EXT4 and BTRFS as file systems while | using Steam, and never had any issues with that either. | | I'm inclined to agree with Gabe. I've never spent as much | money on games as after I got Steam. It makes it really | easy to get a new game. Without Steam, I'd probably just | go without. I have lots of things to spend my time on, | and sometimes I'm even a little bit bummed that wasting | time on games is an option on Linux these days... | the_af wrote: | As a Linux user, this was my experience as well, going | from hate/skepticism to full embrace. | | Though I also buy from Humble Bundle and GOG. I prefer | GOG whenever possible, if it's DRM free. Sometimes it's | the most expensive option though. | supramouse wrote: | It's pretty bad/awkward on macos, I've found that the | client works miles better on windows and linux | | the other problems are personal preferences that aren't | universal | johnnyanmac wrote: | >the other problems are personal preferences that aren't | universal | | few things in life are. But we're on the internet, so we | inevitably here a lot fo "personal preferences", often | exagerrated to the point where it sounds like it's the | worst thing in the world. | robonerd wrote: | You aren't the only one. Steam is DRM with good PR. Much | of the goodwill gamers have for Steam is based on | misconceptions, rumors, or delusions, particularly: _" If | Valve ever goes out of business, they said they'll lift | all the DRM for the games I've bought"_ I've heard that | from so many gamers it isn't even funny, it's a | widespread misconception and it's obvious horse shit. | _Maybe_ Valve has or once had that intention with their | own in-house games, but they wouldn 't even have the | legal right to do something like that for 99.99% of the | Steam catalogue. | | Even for the in-house games, you have to be naive to | trust any sort of promise from a commercial software | product that isn't in a contract. Notch supposedly once | promised that Minecraft would eventually become open | source; well that plan evaporated when Microsoft waved a | few billion dollars in front of him. Maybe he meant it at | the time he said it, but that doesn't count for anything. | andrewzah wrote: | The question here is: so what? | | Valve makes a lot of money from the steam store. They're | not going anywhere. There are competitors like gog games | that sell them without DRM. You download the games | anyways so I'm sure a solution will be figured out if | Valve starts to have issues. | | Steam provides a pretty seamless experience for gaming, | and it provides useful services to developers as well. | Then you have things like the steam workshop and | marketplace. | | And for minecraft being open source: who cares? Gamers | want games that are good and fun to play. There are very | few open source games that are actually fun to play. | johnnyanmac wrote: | >The question here is: so what? | | Well, the huge dicourse in consoles atm is digital and | ownership. There were several scares over the years (some | that went through, some that backpedeled) on storefronts | closing down and no longer being able to buy older games | as a result, in a market where retro gaming is being | flooded by scalpers selling stuff at 20x markups. Console | players are feeling uneasy with the advent of there being | "digital only" variants sneaking back in, and cloud | gaming is getting bigger each year. | | Maybe this is just a cacophony of old fans not getting | with the times, but it seems like a signifigant enough | sentiment that "so what" seems overly dismissive. | | >And for minecraft being open source: who cares? | | older minecraft players apparently. Granted, it hasn't | really stopped their creativity and servers, so in | practice it doesn't change much. But I wouldn't be | surprised in some microfose move years down the line | angering that playerbase. | | Again, an oddly dismissive take for something that has | historically happened. It's easy to say "I don't care | it's convinent" until it isn't. | cupofpython wrote: | > very few open source games that are actually fun to | play | | you found one?? please share | andrewzah wrote: | Cube 2: Sauerbraten is fun and it uses very little | resources. The game and engine are open source. | | Other than that I can't really think of anything other | than good clones like OpenTTD or crappy clones like | minetest. | | Maybe Dwarf Fortress in the future if tarn or his brother | open source it. | jcranmer wrote: | OpenTTD? | robonerd wrote: | OpenRCT2, OpenMW, DaggerfallUnity | | Granted, you have to buy the game to make use of these | open source engines legally. But these open source | engines free you from the limitations of DRM, | Windows/Wine and run better than the original engines | (support modern resolutions, innumerable bug fixes, etc.) | cupofpython wrote: | I agree that promises from these companies mean nothing.. | but how much of a problem is this in todays gaming market | though really? | | many new games are free and rely on in-game transactions | tied to an account outside of steam | | There are no restrictions on the games I bought through | steam that actually get in the way of me playing them - | and there are a lot of conveniences offered like having | access to my entire library on any machine with steam | installed, or playing the games installed on my machine | pretty much indefinitely offline. And being able to | verify my game files and have them automatically fixed / | updated | | The games i bought a long time ago and still play have | more than earned the money i spent on them anyway. if | steam dies and i need to buy them again, i will and i | will be happy to. if i cant find them anywhere because | the games themselves died, ill make an image of my PC | before upgrading it or uninstalling them and play them | offline in a VM | | there might be an itch here or there i cant scratch for | whatever reason, but i can always buy a new game inspired | by the same genre which is usually more fun than trying | to recreate a nostalgic feeling anyway | Pr0ject217 wrote: | I'm curious how old you are. I remember the days of when | you had to travel to a brick-and-mortar store to purchase | a physical copy of a game (if it was in stock). Then, you | travel home, install it, and play it, saving your local | saves on your computer, backing them up manually on an | external drive so that you don't lose your progress in | the event of a system failure. Oh, and writing your CD | Keys in a notebook, and carrying that with you (along | with your physical games) wherever you move. I don't | remember how patches were managed, but I don't recall | there ever being a 'day-one' patch of fixes, or being one | message away from the developers. | | Steam provides a lot of value. | thewebcount wrote: | No, you are not the only one. Fellow macOS Steam user | here. Whenever a game I'm interested in comes out, I | first go to the AppStore to see if it's available there, | then to the developer's web site, and only as a last | resort to Steam. The UX is some of the worst I have to | use in a given week. It constantly shows me games that | don't run on any system I've ever used (Windows | exclusives, but I've never used a Windows machine since I | signed up for Steam, for example). It's just awful all | around. | johnnyanmac wrote: | I don't hate it, but I'll admit that the Valve worship is | some of the most cultish I've seen in video games. To the | point where I feel gamers work against their best | interests whenever they see a "threat" to their beloved | library not having every game in history under one | launcher (nevermind that Steam users can add non-steam | games to their virtual library). You'd think Youtube and | even Spotify lately would show the dangers of lumping all | your eggs in one basket. | | But, I will also admit that I'm a bit biased against | steam due to using PC's for a lot of Visual Novels. And | their VN submissions have always been a lottery of some | sorts, to the confusion of readers and developers alike. | Nothing worse than having an existing product on the | store and then suddenly having a sequel to the product | rejected, while the first product still sits on shelves. | andrewzah wrote: | It's a pretty famous quote and he's correct. Steam has | DRM aspects but is pretty seamless. It is entirely way | more work to look for cracked games and download those | than to just buy it on steam. | sonicggg wrote: | Not a money problem. I have a Netflix subscription, and yet | end up going to pirate websites more and more often these | days. I'll probably just cancel my Netflix subscription. | | It's so frustrating to see that 90%of the shows I want to | see are unavailable on Netflix. Video streaming is just so | fragmented right now. And they try to compensate with a | bunch of low quality Netflix original shows. | | Why can't they just replicate what has been done in audio | streaming? Spotify is what Netflix should have been. It's | been years I no longer need to pirate music. | brimble wrote: | For me, it's that I want a significant portion of a piracy | set-up for things that I can't get at all (4k _actual_ | original Star Wars trilogy, certain shows with the original | soundtrack rather than a worse replacement, some obscure | pieces of media) or for things I consider likely to | disappear any time (YouTube videos) so if I 'm going to | have it anyway, I may as well also use it to avoid the | "where the hell can I watch this?" shuffle. I do also pay | for several streaming services. | johnnyanmac wrote: | I think there is some merit in piracy being a service | problem. There are certainly a number of situations where I | just seek out a less than legal solution because there is | no legal way for me to buy some media. Be it language | barriers, region locking, license expiation, | censored/rejected media, etc. | | However, people professing this quote everywhere should | note that it's very hard to compete with "free infinite | media" for those with the knowledge to pirate. So don't be | surprised if instead of catering to that crowd that they | instead focus on people who can't or don't want to pirate. | It's a double edged sword. If I do pirate, I don't pretend | I do it in some effort to make the product better. I do it | accepting the risk that they may never choose to cater to | me. | xboxnolifes wrote: | > GabeN is not correct. Piracy is a money problem. Free is | very enticing. | | A service problem and a money problem are almost the same | thing. Time is money, and I value my free-time very high. | People will pay to not have to spend time to find the free. | michaelmrose wrote: | Check out jellyfin it runs fine as a service on the users | PC. You create different directories for TV shows and | movies and drop files in and they show up shortly after. | | Plug the PC up to display and presto. | brewdad wrote: | I got a $25 Fire TV Stick and plugged it into the back of | my TV. I push 1 button and everything powers on and | Netflix, Hulu, or Disney+ launch automatically. Any other | service is a couple button presses away. All in 4k. (Well | Hulu is upscaled) | | I never have to leave my sofa. I don't have to dick | around with plugging and unplugging my PC. No keyboards | to manage. No OS or software to keep updated. | | Your solution is easier than some other options but I'll | stick with mine. | michaelmrose wrote: | I too wish I could have a laggy experience with a bad | interface requiring me to pull out my phone and search | for which of the several services I pay for have a | particular piece of content on my phone then slowly | navigate to that service then try to enter the search | term character by character by moving a little cursor to | each individual character with my remote. | | Then have a firmware update ad some advertising to the | experience. | | Sure beats my experience of pulling out my 12 oz keyboard | plus touchpad bluetooth keyboard connected to a real PC. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | The Roku stick is even better because it isn't inherently | locked down by Amazon's ecosystem. Far more services that | are effortless to install. | Krasnol wrote: | I didn't set up anything fancy like that. | | I have a shared folder on my home network where I download | stuff from 1-click hosters with jdownloader. I get the | links all on one platform. | | I got that money. I paid for Netflix once but now I can't | remember the last show I watched made by them. Instead I'd | have to pay for at least 3 other platforms to watch those | few shows I watch throughout the year. Sometimes I'd even | have to use a VPN to get it in the original language. | | It only is a service problem for me. | | (there is a bit revenge for their inability to provide a | single platform in there too) | ineedasername wrote: | _> GabeN is not correct. Piracy is a money problem._ | | GabeN is partially correct: It's a money & service problem. | It's money for some, service for others, sometimes a bit of | both. During college I had no money, so the issue for me | was money. Once I got a job after college it was service: I | didn't want to drive to music store & hope they had the CD | in stock that I was looking for, not when I could | definitely get it in 5 minutes online. Similar issue for | videogames: I didn't want to spend $30-$60 for a game I | couldn't return, when my computer might choke on it & not | run or if half an hour in I realized it was crap. On top of | which I might have to drive around to half a dozen stores | to find a copy. That was a mixture of service & money. | | These days it's faster for me to pay $1 for a song than | pirate it, and I can instantly buy, download, and return a | game in an hour if it either doesn't run or I hate it | immediately. | | Free is enticing, but so is convenience & instant | gratification. | burntoutfire wrote: | I almost exclusively pirate movies and tv series from | pirate bay. I would have no problem paying $20 a month for | that service as-is (TPB + torrent network), as it's better | than the currently available alternatives. | Krasnol wrote: | Sure it is a magnitude smaller but it was even smaller a few | years ago and streaming pages where you don't have to | download a movie first are quite common and popular within | the non-technical audience and they become even more popular. | | I'm sure the industry will come up with new ways to intrude | on the internet again to stop this before they get together | to make another platform which would allow the audience to | download everything in one place. | Xelbair wrote: | yes it is. | | I come from country where intellectual property was treated | as a western joke. | | Children younger than 10 learned how to pirate - by | themselves, without knowing even English. A lot of people | still can do that, and it's quite easy to find out how. | seaman1921 wrote: | YES it IS easy. Any kid or grandparent could do it - don't | underestimate them. This isn't their nerd-blindness, this is | your normie-ignorance. | hypertele-Xii wrote: | Or you could just open Tor browser, search the pirate bay and | download stuff with a bittorrent client. | | _That 's_ easy. | boringg wrote: | Yeah but then your tagged by your host country for using | Tor. | driverdan wrote: | What does that mean? Tagged by your host country? | hunter2_ wrote: | I've yet to explore Tor. Are you saying there's a reason | I shouldn't? I mostly just want to see how my own sites | perform, and haven't gotten around to it yet. | BeetleB wrote: | I can't tell if this is sarcasm. | | Most of my friends have no idea what Tor is. Many don't | know the Pirate Bay, and most of those who know bittorrent | haven't configured it to get past their firewall. | | But you know what they do know? Turning the TV on, going to | Roku, searching for a movie/show, and watching it in | whatever app Roku suggests. | fortran77 wrote: | Exactly. I'm a 59 year old man who knows how to pirate, but | watches his content from streaming providers because it's | simpler and safer, and I don't like to steal. I don't think | piracy is what's killing them. It's that there are too many | streaming providers and people don't hesitate to drop | subscriptions. I tend to subscribe when there's a deal, watch | everything I want to see, then drop it and switch to another | one for 6 months. And I'll bet I'm not alone. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | This. | | I'm a 60-year-old (Do I win a kewpie doll?), and have the | tech chops to pirate, but I don't want to. | | It's important for me to live a life of Personal Integrity. | That stance gets a lot of chuckles with this crowd, but | it's of critical importance, in my life. | | I'm fortunate, in being able to afford streaming services, | but find the profusion and variety to be a mess. | | I like AppleTV Channels, and the way that the AppleTV Watch | Now app aggregates the apps. Amazon has something similar, | that my wife uses. | | Unfortunately, it looks like these knuckleheads can't agree | on common licensing models. I don't want the "You can have | any color you want, as long as it's black." approach of | cable bundlers, but I also don't like the myriad ways of | subscribing, or, quite frankly, the ever-changing prices. | | They need to get their shit together. | ghaff wrote: | I even have Plex set up with (mostly) ripped DVD content | but I still subscribe to a few streaming services and | buy/rent a la carte now and then. The fragmentation is | annoying but subscribing/unsubscribing is pretty low | friction. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see more | discounting for longer subscription terms. | | Of course, what was (past tense) also annoying was paying | $100/month for a cable bundle that I rarely watched. | | It's also the case that I have access to a ton of video and | don't consider much to be "must see." | | And to the topic at hand, I may very well cancel Netflix | one of these days. There's some stuff I haven't watched yet | but after I get through that I may well drop it. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | > The group of people who are comfortable pirating media and | find it "easier" than Netflix is at least an order of | magnitude smaller than Netflix's user base. | | This view is very US-centric. | | In most of the "rest of the world", netflix either doesn't | exist or has a very very limited show list (even here, in a | relatively developed EU country), and piracy literally is the | only way to get a lot of the very popular shows. | | And if you already pirate 3 of the 5 shows that you watch, | why would you pay for the other 2, that are available on | netflix, if you can just pirate those too? | johnnyanmac wrote: | Netflix is US-centric, so that's no surprise: | https://www.comparitech.com/tv-streaming/netflix- | subscribers... | | I don't mean to be rude, but in the grand scheme of things | the other countries don't quite matter as much, financially | speaking. And those smaller parts of the world pirating | isn't a big loss. Similar to the video game industry in | Japan; some games may get an overseas following, but if the | domestic market is slacking, that studio may not get the | chance to make a sequel for those overseas fans. | | So back to the US-centric sentiment: American audiences | don't have the excuse 99% of the time of "this content is | region blocked in my country", so the sentiment here shifts | to "I don't want to manage 4 streaming services". | tomerv wrote: | Indeed, pirating is very much an all-or-nothing solution. | Torrenting your first movie might be difficult, but the | second time it's easy as pie. | | In many ways, pirating is like any subscription service: | signing on is a difficult decision (whether financially or | technically), but once you're there and all caught up with | the UI, using it again is the default move for watching | your next show/movie. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | Pirating has got a lot easier in recent years... | | In my country (slovenia) there is a very good local | torrent tracker + a lot of people use the few larger | general torrent sites, and even "grandpas" can use them, | if their "computer-savy" kid installs them a torrent | client, and shows them where to search. | | In you go further down the balkans, you can find full | movies even on youtube, especially local ones (because | youtube doesn't remove them). Not that long ago, you | could also buy or rent pirated cds/dvds literally from | street vendors and "movie clubs" (think blockbuster, but | smaller, more local and pirated). | notadev wrote: | It's pretty easy for my family to use Plex just like any | other streaming service. The not easy part was my | responsibility. | dinobones wrote: | It is extremely tired as well. Any time there is a post about | Netflix, or some streaming service, I always predict there | will be someone in the comments section talking about their | "sweet, open source Unix based media server" and how much | better it is. | Krasnol wrote: | It would make it quite suspicious and weird if the most | obvious solution to the problems which are often the | content of those posts, wouldn't have been posted by | somebody in the comments. | Nav_Panel wrote: | I have a friend who pays $15 a month for a dedicated seedbox, | with 1-click install of a browser-based torrent app + plex. | He set up plex to use the remote torrent folder, then | anything he downloads gets immediately listed on plex, | streamable anywhere, supports chromecast, etc. Pretty cool | and a _little_ harder than using a proper paid streaming | site, but not a different order of magnitude. Hardest part is | finding the seedbox company and also tracking down the right | torrent for the show (the choices can be overwhelming). | breakfastduck wrote: | Using a pirate streaming service such as stremio is literally | no more difficult than netflix. | | I think you underestimate how many people pirated things | before netflix existed. | jasonlotito wrote: | > Using a pirate streaming service such as stremio is | literally no more difficult than Netflix. | | Nope. Just tried it. Literally not. It gives me the option | to play movies, but nope. Can only play trailers. | | There are addons, but they seem to use Torrent. I have no | interest in streaming up to other people and redistributing | the data. Is that set up automatically, or does it reuse my | internet connection without informing me? | | Also, with Netflix, I don't have to worry about copyright | issues. Does streamio make that as easy? | | None of this sounds literally as easy. | | And again, literally cannot play a movie I can easily play | on Netflix. | jeffbee wrote: | Wow, there's a "stremio" button on my TV's remote control? | I can't find it. I have a feeling that the definitions of | "difficult" and "literally" are unknown to you. | BeetleB wrote: | Yes - people don't get that most folks want to watch on | the TV without involving any browser. | yoz-y wrote: | When it was still called popcorn time I used it. It was | easy to use, but it was far from being as reliable as any | other commercial streaming service. Buffering was very | common and subtitles were missing or would de-sync a lot. | johnnyanmac wrote: | people forgive a lot of hiccups and quality issues when | the service is "free". I see the same sentiment in the | emulation scene where people will in one breath call a | game "playable" despite weird graphical hitches, | slowdowns, and crashes. And in the next breath berate | some remaster because it dips under 60 FPS in a few | moments of gameplay. | lijogdfljk wrote: | I think it's true in the same way that Media companies | feigned that everyone was pirating. | | If it's just as fringe as you say, and i agree, then we | shouldn't entertain the idea that media is (or was, in early | 2000s before Netflix) losing that much money to pirating. As | i'm sure now that people start migrating to less legal | avenues for digital media we'll start seeing a resurgence of | cries over lost profits due to piracy. | renewiltord wrote: | As an amusing anecdote, my parents live thousands of miles | from me. The last time I saw them I set up a Raspberry Pi | with XBMC (yeah, that long ago) and a flirc IR receiver for a | remote, hooked it up with local network, and an external hard | drive that has a battery-backed power source. I then `dd`'d | over the image onto 5 SD cards and left it with them. | | Since they're in a low power-security environment, there's a | lot of unexpected on-off cycles. Anyway, the whole thing | still worked for them until recently and as things started | failing (as they inevitably do with this max jank thing I've | made them) they just figured out how to work with it. | | At first, they ran out of content, so they learned how to go | get it on ThePirateBay and find the right mirror. | | Then OpenSubtitles (which was integrated with XBMC) stopped | working on it for some reason, so they would go manually get | srt files and stick them on the USB drive (visible over Samba | from the network). | | Then as the local external drive started failing, they used | the home desktop's samba mounted drive (that I'd set up | earlier). | | Hilariously, the gradual collapse of the system seems to have | worked as a natural training regimen, and now they're fully | equipped with knowledge. So now they've got one of our old | desktops in the living room hooked up to the TV, a small | bluetooth keyboard lying on the coffee table, and watch | pirate video on the TV. | | The whole thing is positively comical because I pay for all | the services so this isn't necessary at all. But availability | is not complete and I'm sure it tickles them to be able to do | this stuff themselves. | | Anyway, thought it was a funny story. They're in their late | 60s but they're doctors and last I knew, not particularly | tech-savvy, so I am both proud and highly entertained. | noelsusman wrote: | It's amazing isn't it? Like people really think streaming | services should care about mpv filters as a real use case for | their customers. Incredible stuff. | kemiller wrote: | It's not that everyone can or wants to run their own Plex | setup, it's that the Plex model, once set up, is much more | consumer-friendly: Get the shows you want, don't care about | the distributor. It's probably naive to think that would work | for a bunch of reasons (Who exactly runs this? Are they a | for-profit monopoly now? Who will fund the content if there's | no monopoly rent?) but I don't think it's crazy to imagine a | service that works more like it. We went to all the effort of | unbundling cable and now we just have a different set of | bundles. It's a little better, but they've fallen back on old | habits. | tomc1985 wrote: | The thing that all these everyman-boosters that have invaded | and gentrified tech seem to forget is that people are capable | of learning, and with the right motivation, they will. | | Can piracy be the bridge to tech literacy? Sure. | ohyoutravel wrote: | The comment was: | | "It's easier just to pirate than keep up with all these | streaming services." | | Which seems false on its face. Every TV has access to all | these streaming services built in. Or Roku devices, which | take moments to set up. This is unrelated to whether people | are capable of learning, but I am even bearish on that when | it comes to the average person in the current piracy | environment. | tomc1985 wrote: | Sucks for them, I guess. Because with the right know-how | and some setup it is pretty damn easy. | mindslight wrote: | > _Every TV has access to all these streaming services | built in. Or Roku devices, which take moments to set up_ | | You mean those same TVs and devices that plaster your | screen with ads, arbitrarily modify the UI, suddenly make | certain shows unavailable, spy on what you're watching, | require unwieldy DRM, take minutes to turn on, interrupt | your relaxation time to run "updates", randomly brick | themselves, become obsolete in a short several years, and | generally dictate your experience based on short-sighted | corporate whims? Visiting someone else's house and seeing | the garbage behavior they put up with from their "smart | TV" is as mindblowing as seeing someone using a web | browser without adblock! | | "Piracy is easier" refers to the experience _after_ you | 've gone through the work of setting up your own | entertainment system. Setting it up certainly does | require an investment of time and self-actualization, | which for sure is more effort than searching "netflix" | and following their "conversion" path. But after that, | things just generally work without all of the corporate | hassles. I don't foresee everyone choosing to make | running a libre media setup one of their hobbies, but | most people will know someone who has... | johnnyanmac wrote: | >"Piracy is easier" refers to the experience after you've | gone through the work of setting up your own | entertainment system. | | and the thread here as a whole is rebuking the argument | that Netflix is losing money because people are pirating. | Most people don't or can't go through this work, so that | likely isn't the reason why Netflix is seeing drops. | mindslight wrote: | I agree that piracy likely isn't responsible for the | larger immediate trend. But from the perspective of | someone with a libre media setup, all these | streaming/DRM/lockdown tribulations are like watching a | storm from inside a warm house with a hot cup of cocoa. | Especially on a technical forum where people should know | better than to succumb to corporate ploys, its worth | reminding everyone of that. And my comment did imply the | end game for "most people" - technical friends/family | running seedboxes and sharing them up. | | Current market wise, I wouldn't be surprised if the | Netflix situation is people canceling their membership to | spend that money on a different streaming service, and | then swapping between friends to get the union of shows | for a similar $/month. This would explain both pushes of | membership going down, plus them wanting to crack down on | sharing. | racl101 wrote: | Maybe it's because I haven't done it in earnest since the days | of Limewire but pirating sounds like such a fucking hassle | these days. So I just don't do it not out of a strong sense of | morality but because I'm lazy. | | I'd rather do without. | mcot2 wrote: | Not really. Streaming services like NetFlix are much easier. | With Apple TV there is a universial search between all of the | various services. | | Running a large media server can actually be pretty costly on | power bills these days. | ipaddr wrote: | Running your Apple laptop is pretty costly? It's much less | than streaming costs | lostlogin wrote: | > Running a large media server can actually be pretty costly | on power bills these days. | | Only if using server hardware, and that isn't a good way to | do it. A recent generation igpu and a low power computer is | the way to go. You'll get 10+ streams out an Intel Nuc, or | similar sff pc. The expensive bit is the storage array. | bb123 wrote: | There are also tons of benefits to just walking out of the | grocery store without paying. No queues, no small talk with the | checkout person and you save cash too. | ipaddr wrote: | A better way to look at it is if you went to the store and | took pictures of the food and shared those pics with friends. | | You want me to buy the apple before taking a picture? | Stunting wrote: | A picture wouldn't feed anyone, so this example is heavily | flawed. | lostlogin wrote: | The apples haven't got any better lately, and they now have | a DRM coating which prevents your photos working. The | coating is a continual irritation to apple eaters. There is | also a terms of service for apple eaters to sign. | bb123 wrote: | False equivalence. 0 marginal cost of replication doesn't | mean that the item is valueless. The creators have a right | to be paid for their work. Just as you'd be working your | rights to charge people to look at your apple picture. | woah wrote: | Piracy. It's a crime. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU | wtetzner wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg | CabSauce wrote: | Sure. It's also stealing. And doesn't provide any money for | future shows that you might enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I've | done it for some things that I wanted to watch, but wasn't | willing to pay for. But let's not pretend that everyone | torrenting is a reasonable solution. | Shacklz wrote: | > And doesn't provide any money for future shows that you | might enjoy. | | Which means that dinosaur-industry would _finally_ have to | arrive in the 21st century. People are very much willing to | pay for things they enjoy - see Twitch Subscribers and | Patreons for examples. Paying for shitty catalogues where the | parts that you actually enjoy are distributed across multiple | services just isn 't cutting it. | | Good riddance to all those copyright-attorneys and other | parasites leeching off of the entertainment industry. | CabSauce wrote: | I don't disagree. However, you can buy/rent movies and | shows on an individual basis from amazon/google/apple now. | The prices are just higher. There seems to be some benefit | to bundling shows together into a service. You can also | just jump around from service to service, which is what I | do. | dolni wrote: | I don't "rent" anything online because the price is | insane. | | Let's talk $1 to watch something once. That's reasonable | and a price I'd pay. $4-5 to watch something in my own | home is not. | jonathankoren wrote: | Ahh, but "buying" streamed content is a fool's purchase. | If the streamer loses the rights to film you "purchased", | _you_ lose your purchase. This happened a few years ago | with Disney content on Amazon. | | Better to buy a physical media. | derekdahmer wrote: | I don't want to assume anything about your financial | situation but I just don't believe most people would find | 2 hours of entertainment for $4 unreasonable. Like that's | just silly cheap. | | We live in a world where 90% of the entire catalog of | movies ever filmed are available to be instantly | delivered to your home in 1080p for less than the cost of | a Big Mac. In the 90s it cost about the same not even | taking into account inflation or gas to drive to | blockbuster and rent a VHS. We are living in the future! | dolni wrote: | It's cheap in terms of absolute dollar value, yes. But | it's also an EXCEPTIONALLY shallow form of entertainment | that I can easily approximate for free by just streaming | some different movie off Netflix. | | I'd much rather go to the movie theater and pay the even | higher price for admission, because that's an actual | experience. You can't replicate "going to the movies" at | your house very well. | john_minsk wrote: | Sorry, but no. That's what I find difficult to understand | - let's say I want to watch a movie and ready to pay 5$ | for it - why would I watch it in Hd or even 1080p if I | have 4k TV? I understand that Google has only HD option | for me, but why would I want it if I pay? In my mind if I | pay - I should get every technical option possible to | watch it, otherwise raw files are just few clicks away | and I already paid for my broadband. | | As simple as that. | | The problem, for me at least, appears where some legal | rights damage technological usage. | | How many times my Netflix downloads will "expire"? Is | this milk or something? Why do they need to expire? | Sorry, but I refuse to understand... | brewdad wrote: | Those are just excuses to justify your piracy. If you | have a decent 4k TV and are sitting more than 5 feet away | from it, the 1080p stream will upscale to "retina" | quality and you won't be able to tell the difference. | petefromnorth wrote: | > We live in a world where 90% of the entire catalog of | movies ever filmed are available to be instantly | delivered to your home in 1080p for less than the cost of | a Big Mac | | Yet whenever I want to watch something, I have to look up | which service it's on, see if it's available in my | country, sign up for a subscription, possibly download an | app.... Or, go to the high seas and be watching it in 4k | resolution within 2 minutes. | lostlogin wrote: | That might seem silly cheap, but compare it to going to | the cinema. The dining has a huge site to pay for, | projection equipment and staff, cleaning and a million | other things. | | So if I watch it at home and remove all those costs from | the cinema, surely $1 is going to be closer to what the | film studio would have got if I went to the cinema? | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | I wonder if this is different based on number of people | in the household. On amazon, I think it's usually $3 | (fucking $2.99 penny tricks), which amounts to $1.50 each | for the two of us watching. In a family of four, it's | sub-dollar each. Which as a percent of the dinner you're | probably eating while you watch is very little. But | renting for yourself alone feels at least twice as | expensive! | noncoml wrote: | > Sure. It's also stealing | | How about "owning" a movie but not being able to resell it or | loan it to friends. What's that? | | Please don't use physical item terms for digital items. | | Stealing something from you implied you don't have to have it | after I take it. | | It's illegal and unethical, we agree on that. But it's not | stealing. | rsync wrote: | It's been a while but my practice used to be: | | pay full price for the online offering (conducting the | transaction in a browser) and then just download the content | from BitTorrent. | | I would happily defend that practice in front of a jury of my | peers. | ceejayoz wrote: | You'd probably lose. | | The thing they get you on with BitTorrent isn't the | download part, it's the seeding part, where you're | _distributing_ the copyrighted content to other | downloaders. | | You could turn off seeding, but that'll get you banned from | a lot of torrent sites, and it's not a technical | distinction I'd want to have to explain in court to lay | people. | rsync wrote: | Again - it has been a while - but I did, indeed, use | leech mode on the client ... so no seeding. | TechBro8615 wrote: | If I pay for Netflix, which offers _Friends_ in some | countries but not my own, and I want to watch _Friends_ , am | I stealing it by torrenting it? Who has less property now | than before I torrented the show? | CuriouslyC wrote: | It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement, and it's an | act of protest. I paid for Netflix for years when the | streaming catalog was good, but now the streaming video | market feels like an anti-consumer predatory cash grab. | jasonlfunk wrote: | It's a pretty self serving protest. Just don't watch it. | You make your point without abandoning the moral high | ground. | Stunting wrote: | It's stealing, specifically from myself and others in my | industry that you haven't heard of that. Making movies | would be impossible to be without your | | - Lesser Known actors - Assistant Directors - Stunt | Coordinators - 2nd Unit Directors - Stunt Performers | | and I'm sure there are others. Residuals factor into our | income, allow us to qualify for health insurance, empower | our unions, and provide a stable income to continue working | in an unstable career. | | All so we can make better entertainment for you! When you | pirate, you're stealing money from us. | dml2135 wrote: | But... you don't own the copyright to the movie. The | studio does. You were paid a wage for a job. | | You can accuse the pirates of limiting your potential for | future earnings, but that is not the same as stealing | from you. | Stunting wrote: | my contract is directly related to the post box office | profits of the movie. | wtetzner wrote: | Not to argue either way about piracy, but it sounds like | you might want to work on getting a better contract. | Stunting wrote: | ha. You are not wrong. The winds are shifting and I'm | optimistic that i will be able to individually garner a | better contract over time even if my union fails to help | with it. | dml2135 wrote: | Fair enough, but still, depriving you of potential | earnings is not the same as stealing. | | If I can't buy something for a price that's worth it to | me, I will just watch something else. It doesn't mean I'm | going to pay more for it. | | You get the same amount of money either way. | Stunting wrote: | Right, so that isn't stealing. It is in fact what I | advocate strongly. If more people did that, more content | they would enjoy would be provided at a reasonable cost. | | But extracting the value of watching something without | paying the fee for that service...that's stealing. | brewdad wrote: | If you choose not to pay for their movie and watch | something else, you are correct that you didn't steal | from them. You did steal from someone else just like them | though. If you pirate their movie, then yes you did in | fact steal income from them. The act of choosing to | pirate that particular movie changes it from a matter of | _potential_ income to a loss of _actual_ income. | delusional wrote: | Well when you spend your money you are literally stealing | it out of the hands of my and my friends in banking. | brewdad wrote: | 100% the opposite. Bankers make their money from the | flows of cash streams. Putting my cash under a mattress | or setting it on fire steals it out of the hands of your | banking friends. | delusional wrote: | This may be a regional difference, but we make most of | our money on fees. Cashflow isn't actually worth that | much in the current economy. | | Not that it matters though, I was trying to make use of | the "common knowledge" that banks make money from your | deposits, and that therefore you spending your money | instead of depositing it in a negative return account is | costing us potential revenue. I know that's not how banks | make money, but it's the culturally accepted explanation | for how banks make money. | Stunting wrote: | In this example, the banking provides the service of a | safe place to keep my money until I spend it. That's what | I pay for, in the form account fees and the banks ability | to leverage my saved money for their financial gain. | robonerd wrote: | How much of _your_ money has been taken from you? Not | hypothetical money you think you might have been entitled | to, but money that was _actually yours_. How much was | taken from you? | Stunting wrote: | around anywhere from 2 - 25 cents per viewing per | consumer. Over the course of my career that can break | down to easily 7 figures if I was to work on say the | original Star Wars. | CuriouslyC wrote: | If I didn't pirate it, I wouldn't watch it, so you're not | losing anything in my case. Additionally, if your work is | actual art rather than mediocre filler content I probably | bought your merch, which I definitely wouldn't do if I | was getting raped by a streaming service, so if anything | odds are you're coming out ahead. Beyond that, if I'm | pirating, people start conversations about TV shows I | don't feel compelled to hijack them by talking about how | all streaming platforms are bullshit, which I totally | would do if I wasn't pirating. | robonerd wrote: | _Not_ hypothetical money you think you might have been | entitled to. The truth is, not a single cent was stolen | from you. | Stunting wrote: | did you extract the value of the entertainment without | providing the fee? That's stealing money from me. | | If you weren't gonna watch it, don't watch. The argument | being made is you in fact, do want to watch it, you just | don't wanna pay for it. That's stealing. | robonerd wrote: | If it's any consolation to you, I've almost certainly | never seen a movie with you in it. | Stunting wrote: | Did you steal any content that was behind a paywall? If | you did, you have taken money out of my industry and made | it more difficult for it to be a viable career path in | the future. | robonerd wrote: | Your industry pretty much stopped making movies I care | about, so I don't care if your industry curls up in a | ball and dies. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Some people like to get paid for their work and a | subscription entitles you to nothing but what the service | wishes to provide. | noelsusman wrote: | Then vote with your wallet and don't watch the content. You | don't get to steal it just because you disagree with their | distribution methods. | dml2135 wrote: | There are many lifetimes of content out there already. What | if I'm fine with there being no money for future shows? | | I really fail to see how a world without high-budget Marvel | films will be so bad. I'd be fine watching old movies and | art-house productions for the rest of my life. | glerk wrote: | It's been more than a decade since I had the opportunity to | plug this educative video in an internet conversation: | https://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4 | CabSauce wrote: | Call it digital trespassing then. Semantics. | Stunting wrote: | It's stealing. You're stealing from the residual base of | workers who require residuals to continue this career. | glerk wrote: | Is it my responsibility to help these people continue | their careers? I have worked on tools that help | businesses fill out legal forms without the need of a | lawyer. By the same logic, am I "stealing" from the | lawyers who need this friction to continue their careers? | The reality of technological progress is that some | economic activities become unsustainable and some workers | will be forced out of their careers. | pineconewarrior wrote: | I'm okay with that. The business is unfair to those in | it, particularly at the lower end, and also unfair to its | consumers. It is not the job of consumers to fix or | perpetuate that system. | Stunting wrote: | No, it's the union job to do that for sure. | | I'm only here to pop the balloon on the consumer's | perception that "it's not theft." there's a face and a | name that goes along with that theft. Thousands of them. | petefromnorth wrote: | It's not theft, it's piracy. | robonerd wrote: | Torrent client in one hand, blunderbuss in the other, I | just hope the Royal Navy doesn't hang me. | pineconewarrior wrote: | That's definitely good; there are hidden immoralities in | every transaction and it is in the interest of all of us | to be more aware of them. | gunfighthacksaw wrote: | If there is anyone I wouldn't feel bad stealing from, the US | entertainment industry would not be far behind. | | Remember that whole Cuties debacle where Netflix sexed up a | French coming-of-age about _children_ ? | e40 wrote: | There were a few years were I literally stopped all | torrenting. Netflix and Amazon had everything I wanted. Sure, | there were a few things that didn't exist, but I was too lazy | to go after that minor amount of content. I was fully legal | and paying for everything. I was fine with it. | | Then, the great splintering happened. I currently pay for 5 | services, but that doesn't cover even 1/2 of what I want to | watch. | | All the content owners said to themselves "we can be Netflix | or Amazon Prime, too" and they pulled their content into | their own services. | | But the biggest problem: the user experience absolutely sucks | now. It's so hard to find stuff and remember where things | are, there's no universal search. I have to use justwatch.com | on my phone when I want to sit down to watch something new, | which might mean a trip to the computer to download it if one | of the many services I already pay for don't have it. | dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote: | >> the user experience absolutely sucks now | | Understandable, I just cut back on all the TV engorging and | rotate the streaming services every quarter. IMO it's a net | win. Save money on the streaming services and life is | better for having not watched so much television. Not going | to the grave wishing I binged Season 2 of some random show | one more time. | sharkster711 wrote: | I have a TCL TV (with Roku) and searching for a show using | the voice remote generally gets me the result and also | which app is streaming it. I use it all the time these | days. | aaronax wrote: | Why don't you just not partake in the content? You really | don't need to spend all that time watching shows. If you | don't like the terms under which it is offered, just find | something else to do. | delusional wrote: | Who cares. What difference does it make to you if he | pirates it or doesn't watch it? | Kye wrote: | JustWatch is good for this, but it mostly reveals how | sparse most of their catalogs are. It confirmed for me, at | long last, that the reason I couldn't find anything to | watch is because there wasn't anything to watch. Paramount+ | at least has all the Star Treks after pulling it from every | other service, but it seems like all they have other than | that is 30 seasons of 5 cop shows. | rajup wrote: | Google search does a pretty decent job of surfacing where | something is streaming | sharperguy wrote: | Most results would just be buried somewhere in the middle | of a four page article filled with ads and popups about | cookies and newsletters and the like. | rajup wrote: | I'm not sure where you're located but for me, I | prominently get a panel with the streaming options. | Something like this https://searchengineland.com/google- | search-tests-new-interfa... | Damogran6 wrote: | In my case, it's where they wrapped up the long-tail | movies. Want to watch Airplane!....$3 rental. Spaceballs? | $3 rental Cannonball Run? $3 | | I am not going to pay to rent stuff I used to be able to | encounter for free by surfing channels...well, on top of my | dish/cable bill | CabSauce wrote: | And the cost of ads? Seems like a deal to me. | spookybones wrote: | Amazon and Youtube (and maybe other streaming services) | also offer some of the movies for free with advertising. | So the model hasn't changed much from going to rent a | movie at the store for a few bucks or watching it on | cable tv, except you're not paying for cable now. | noncoml wrote: | I am fine with renting and paying. But the arbitrarily | stupid rule "you have 48 hours to finish once you | started" is what stops me from "renting" any lure. | brewdad wrote: | How often are you renting a 2 hour movie without having a | 2+ hour window of free time to watch it? | noncoml wrote: | More often than you think. Usually we watch movies in the | evenings and one of us ends up falling asleep after a | long day. | jl6 wrote: | Does "encounter for free" also include instant access? I | seem to recall that movies like Spaceballs would be shown | for free, but probably next week. | | The $3 is for fast-forwarding Mr Video to next week. | derekdahmer wrote: | Maybe I'm crazy but $3 to have a HD movie instant play | without ads on any device I want seems like an insane | deal to me. | brewdad wrote: | Back in the 90s you would have had to pay $3-5 per movie | at Blockbuster. Drive to the store, hope the movie you | want was in stock, drive home, watch movie, remember to | rewind the movie when it's done, drive back to the store | to return it before the due date. | | Now, for less money, I don't even have to get off the | couch. What a world! | axus wrote: | It's really about the repeat plays. The game service | Steam is successful because you "own" something after | spending, without paying a recurring fee. | ghaff wrote: | Movies are different than games (and music) however. | While I have rewatched movies--multiple times in a | (relatively small) number of cases, movies are mostly one | and done for me--and I imagine most adults. | | That said, I don't know why the 48 hour limit on rentals | got normalized. I've fallen asleep, gotten distracted, | etc. while watching a movie and I don't like now being | forced to watch it soon. | brewdad wrote: | It was normalized back when the first video rental stores | opened decades ago. It remains today because there needs | to be some way to differentiate between a rental and a | purchase, otherwise everything would become a purchase at | a significantly higher price point. | | Maybe the limit could be 72 or 96 hours instead. Or you | could rent it with no time limit but maybe can't ever | rewind then you can make it last as long as you need but | when it's done, it's done. | jerf wrote: | Also: Airplane! and Airplane 2 DVD: $6. | https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XGD93BP Spaceballs $7, less | if you're ok with used: | https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004TJ1H32 Cannonball run, $10, | though less if used and there are some $10 "Cannonball | Run + another movie" sets on Amazon as well. | | While I tend to agree that piracy and/or ripping isn't | something everyone can do, I've filled out my Plex | collection legally lately with DVD acquisitions at | bargain-bin prices. Used doesn't matter if you only have | to be able to read the disc once to rip it, and I'm yet | to get something used off Amazon that couldn't be read | once. (I haven't even had to clean it or anything, it's | all just worked.) | | So, my Plex install in terms of raw content isn't up to | Netflix's size. However, I rather suspect there are some | people reading this who have more hours of video on their | Plex than Netflix even has available. And while mine | isn't that large, it is _much_ better tuned for me and my | family 's interests at this point. And I don't have to | worry about getting halfway through a series, only for | some licensor to notice it has become popular enough to | pull it and run it on their own service. Netflix has the | problem now that anything that becomes popular on their | service will get yanked. I do not know how they overcome | that. They hoped to do it with enough original content, | but to my eye, that has failed, and there is now no | longer enough time to fix that. While I understand the | complaints that they treated it too much like "content", | to be honest, I've never thought this would work out, | from the moment they announced it. A single company just | can't produce a sufficiently diverse set of "content" to | be the everything-to-everybody they would have needed to | be to justify a Netflix valuation. | pininja wrote: | Do you also make backups of HD movies using this process, | by any chance? Like you, I have no issue purchasing | something. But I don't like "purchasing" something stored | in a walled garden online-only service that can be taken | away. | hamstergene wrote: | Piracy is a protest. 95% of those shows are worthless fillers | that would have never been watched by the viewers if the full | selection was available. Most of those future "originals" | shouldn't be happening in the first place. | | The reason music streaming defeated piracy is because a | single subscription gives access to most of the music in the | world, including from other countries and languages as long | as you can type the search query (Indian, Japanese, Turkish, | Russian etc.) | | The reason video piracy is resurging is that every streaming | service provides 2-3 good shows and hundreds of fillers, and | to have a real selection of what is currently good one would | have to pay $200-300 per month for dozens of apps. On top of | that, pulling the show from one app and reappearing it on | another loses watch history, which is no way in the interest | of the customer. Sell what the users really want to buy, and | they will pay. | breakfastduck wrote: | It is THE solution because its the only thing that will force | them to change their model. | | See music streaming, the origin of video streaming, origin of | steam etc | halfnormalform wrote: | You stole? Like you broke in and took their only digital copy | so they couldn't make more? That's monstrous! | Joeri wrote: | Steal _verb_ | | 1: to take the property of another wrongfully and | especially as a habitual or regular practice | | Yes, piracy is stealing according to the dictionary, | especially if done habitually. That the owner is left with | a copy of the work is immaterial to the act of theft. | ipaddr wrote: | You are stealing my content by viewing this. | robbedpeter wrote: | It's not taken. It's copied. Digital piracy is not theft. | It's unauthorized copying. | | It would be taking and theft if you deprived the owner of | their content while copying it for yourself. Like | stealing money with wire transfers. | | This isn't just semantics, it's important to not conflate | theft and piracy. They're almost completely different, | except in both cases the offender obtains something they | didn't originally possess. | | "You wouldn't steal a car" is mafiaa newspeak intended to | maintain control of rents. | Stunting wrote: | it's theft of the income of the workforce required to | make movies. Whole departments receive residuals based on | the post box office sales and that income is required to | ensure that it is a viable career. That enables talented | and safe people to continue making entertainment which in | turn provides a better product. | robbedpeter wrote: | No, it's not. If I pay for a movie, but I then download | it from The Pirate Bay, it's still piracy, but nobody | loses anything. | | I recently went over my media collection and did some | conservative guesstimation of my spending over the last | 20 years. I've paid over 6 figures to consume various | sorts of media. | | I have absolutely zero moral or ethical qualms with | downloading and/or pirating content I've already paid | for. I don't give a flying fuck if the copyright holder | doesn't like the means by which I get the content. The | studios and copyright lobby and mafiaa are not good faith | operators. | | Piracy is not theft. Sometimes it's ethical and | justified. | | I _WANT_ to pay. I want to give a streaming service money | to curate, deliver, and maintain a library of high | quality content. The industry doesn 't want that to be | possible, because it interferes with the bad-faith | rentseeking games played with royalties and residuals. | I'm done playing pretend, and will happily Pirate even | new content I haven't paid for. | | I will pay when there's the opportunity for good faith | commerce. I'll buy discs and files directly where | possible. | Stunting wrote: | In your example, getting a third party to provide a | digital copy of a good you already own is not theft. I | would argue it's a lousy way of doing things, opening you | up to many more problems, but it's not theft. | | Taking a good or service that you don't own is stealing. | That's piracy. That's theft. | bhaney wrote: | Oh, are we doing argument by dictionary now? Here's | another one then: | | Take _verb_ | | 1: remove (someone or something) from a particular place. | | Piracy doesn't remove something from a particular place, | so it is not _taking_ , so it is not _stealing_. You | know, "according to the dictionary" | | (My point here is to show that quoting dictionary | definitions to resolve technicalities is a worthless | argument. I don't actually care whether or not piracy is | classified as theft) | nescioquid wrote: | I sort of think piracy in this context is actually | distributing some media, e.g. a movie, without holding | the copyright or a license from the copyright holder to | do so. | | You will argue that this may deprive the copyright holder | of some rent if the media is for sale, but that sounds | qualitatively different than taking or stealing. | tzs wrote: | That's not how English works. "Stole", "steal", etc., have | meanings beyond just illegally depriving someone of | physical property. Here are several examples of correct | usage of "steal" or "stole" that have nothing to do with | illegally taking property. | | * Someone says they do not like cats and have no interest | in having one as a pet. A cute stray kitten shows up on | their doorstep, they take pity and feed it. They fall in | love with it and keep it. They might say that the kitten | "stole" their heart. | | * An actor playing a minor role in a play gives a | performance that outshines the performance of the stars. | Many would say that the actor "stole" the show. | | * An employee of a rival company poses as a janitor to gain | access to your lab and takes a photo of a whiteboard | containing the formula for a chemical that is a trade | secret in your manufacturing process. It would be common to | say that the rival company "stole" your secret formula. | | * When crackers gain access to a company's list of customer | email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers, it is | commonly said that the data was "stolen". | | * Alice is Bob's fiance. Mallory woos Alice without Bob's | knowledge. Alice elopes with Mallory. Most would find it | acceptable if Bob said that Mallory "stole" his fiance. | | * A team that has been behind since the start of the game | but wins on a last second improbable play is often said to | have "stolen" the game. | TechBro8615 wrote: | > the kitten "stole" their heart. | | > the actor "stole" the show | | > A team has... "stolen" the game | | These examples are all obviously metaphorical and | irrelevant, unless you want to talk about | _metaphorically_ stealing from people, which I don 't | understand to be the point of this thread. | | > Mallory "stole" his fiance | | Bob has been deprived of his fiance. | | > the rival company "stole" your secret formula | | > crackers gain access... the data was "stolen" | | These are the only two relevant examples, and they're | sufficiently debatable that it's unlikely you'd be able | to prosecute either for theft or larceny. In the case of | the crackers breaching an email list, many laws are | broken, but I doubt "theft," or anything like it, would | be one of them. In the case of the corporate espionage, | if this is theft, it's theft of intellectual property. | And that makes it the most direct comparison to content | piracy, but it doesn't advance the conversation because | it's the same debate. | robonerd wrote: | > _They might say that the kitten "stole" their heart._ | | A great moral crime, no doubt... | | The problem is once you expand the definition of 'steal' | _well_ beyond what is legally considered theft, the | immorality of "stealing" is no longer a given. People | who accusatorily use the word in reference to copyright | violation are leaning on the 'illegal acts of theft' | meaning of the term to add apparent moral weight to their | argument. But when challenged on that, they retreat into | these more diverse meanings of the word and pretend they | never meant it that specific way. It's a _Motte-and- | Bailey_ tactic. | tomp wrote: | All of these examples result in someone not having | something any more (being the star of a show, trade | secret, confidential data, fiance, winning of the game). | | Piracy is not stealing. | rhino369 wrote: | A better example is theft of services. If you sit down at | a barber's chair and then walk out without payment, we | all consider that stealing. But no property was actually | deprived--just wasted effort. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | It's always hilarious to see HN of all places get nitpicky | about this distinction. If some megacorporation stole your | code, we'd laugh them out of the room if they said this | shit. "We didn't steal your code, it's still right there on | github! We would have used it legally if you had licensed | it differently!" | wtetzner wrote: | I'm pretty sure you'd still call it copyright | infringement. | nevi-me wrote: | It doesn't matter how you rationalise it. Someone created | content with the intention of it being consumed for a fee. | You downloaded it, likely from someone who illegally | copied/reproduced it. | | Maybe I didn't "steal", but I contributed to criminal | activity. | | Sure, copyright laws can seem absurd, but if you disagree | with the laws, consider the ethics. | | How would you feel if you have a business, I steal from | you, and then go give random people your content? This | especially when it starts to drive into your revenues. | | "Only digital copy" is disingenuous. If the cost of | producing the digital copy is say $40mm (an amount article | says some Netflix movies can cost). | | They're making copies from a digital copy, and their | business is to sell access to them. If their model is | "we'll replicate this copy 500 million times, and charge | users $0.10 a view", every 10 copies viewed elsewhere is $1 | lost. | | Should a service raise the fee to say $0.12 to better cover | costs? | | Ultimately, theft is often subsidised by paying customers. | | I'm also guilty of this. I download torrents where: | | * I can't buy something because it's not available due to | region restrictions, and I can't buy it via VPN (looking at | Disney+) | | * I can't buy it anywhere altogether. | | Where I used to download maybe 50 torrents a year a decade | ago, I probably do it <5 times a year now. It's stealing, | or consuming stolen content. | | The pricing strategies of big corp is a separate | accessibility issue. | lostlogin wrote: | I agree with everything you say here, and torrent a bit | more than you and get things via newsnet a lot. I | maintain a large media server. | | The end result of my pirating is a media service that is | easier to use, is higher quality and requires less effort | than a streaming service (though initial costs and setup | time were high). | | I also pay for 3 streaming services that go unused, and | this covers about half or maybe 3/4 of what I watch. | | Streaming is in a dangerous place when piracy works | better, looks better and is more convenient. | pineconewarrior wrote: | It really doesn't matter how _you_ rationalize it either, | within the frame of capital everything is immoral | dml2135 wrote: | > How would you feel if you have a business, I steal from | you, and then go give random people your content? This | especially when it starts to drive into your revenues. | | I would consider that if I am selling a product that has | absolutely no scarcity, such as digital files, I have a | few approaches. | | - Introduce artificial scarcity with something like DRM | | - Create a business model focused on the service of | providing the product, rather than the product itself | | I would not try to accuse my potential consumers of a | crime in order to fix the flaws in my business model. | pineconewarrior wrote: | The other option, which obviously doesn't work for mega- | corporate media, is independent, direct support (patreon, | etc). Most of my favorite modern content is created in | this way, and is entirely free to download and distribute | - contribution is entirely optional. | | problem is that greedy media moguls want to get paid for | a piece of content forever, instead of just raising | enough money to cover the labor and advertising, give | stakeholders some profit, and move on, so they cannot | exist this way. | | That is their problem though :) | CabSauce wrote: | More like I snuck onto a ride without buying a ticket. Or | snuck into a theater without buying a ticket. Wouldn't you | call that stealing? | | Edit: Call it digital trespass then. I don't really care | what you call it. There are obviously fixed costs to | creating content. Just because there aren't incremental | costs incurred from piracy, doesn't mean there isn't harm. | Lost revenue is harm. | ThrowawayR2 wrote: | > " _Call it digital trespass then._ " | | The legal term you're looking for is probably "theft of | services", e.g. https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft- | of-services/). | | And, to the people trying to play semantic games with | "steal" and "theft", theft of services does have laws | defining it as a criminal offense, e.g. | https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125 . | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | Legally that wouldn't be theft. | newman8r wrote: | In those cases, your mere presence costs the operator | more (fuel cost/ wear and tear/limited number of seats) - | so sure, those cases could be considered stealing, but I | don't think they're in the same realm as downloading | entertainment. | tzs wrote: | I have some used oil I need to get rid of. I could drive | the 45 mile round trip to the county hazardous waste | disposal site and get rid of it properly. Or I could wait | until we get a good rain and pour it into the drainage | ditch in front of my house, where it will eventually end | up somewhere in Puget Sound. | | The amount of oil is small enough that it would have | absolutely no measurable effect whatsoever on Puget | Sound. | | Would you say that it is therefore OK for me to dump it | in the ditch? | orhmeh09 wrote: | If the environmental impact assessment (you should | already have conducted this) shows the impact of dumping | your 1 ml - 1,000 l is less than the impact of your | driving 45 miles, go for it! | newman8r wrote: | > Would you say that it is therefore OK for me to dump it | in the ditch? | | I'd say no - because it's decreasing the intrinsic value | of a shared resource (whether or not it can be measured). | Downloading a movie, on the other hand - doesn't decrease | the intrinsic value of the media being copied. | fuckcensorship wrote: | I don't think these are fair comparisons. | | A ride requires a vehicle, a driver, fuel, etc. You can't | freely copy a vehicle, a person's time, or the fuel | required to power the vehicle. | | A theater requires electricity, seating, space for | seating, an audio and video system, etc. These are also | things that you can't freely copy. | dlp211 wrote: | You are stealing the residuals of the actors, producers, | stuntmen, grips, and all the other folks that help make | content. | | Not everyone is a A-List celeb or director. | fuckcensorship wrote: | This logic is still flawed. If I stole a ride on a train, | am I stealing from the people who made the train? | vincnetas wrote: | Yes, it's not stealing. | Stunting wrote: | and then the carnival workers get fired, because there | isn't enough income to pay 3 people. One person has to | take tickets and run the rides, which is now more | dangerous for you. So they shut it down, and all the cool | rides leave town and you'll tell your kids how much | cooler carnivals use to be and you'll never understand | it's cause you stole income out of the workers pockets. | redhedgehog12 wrote: | Not sure if you're being sarcastic... If not, you're just | being facetious. Just because a thing is digital and | therefore copiable, doesn't mean there's no reason to ever | pay for it. | [deleted] | robonerd wrote: | > _And doesn 't provide any money for future shows that you | might enjoy._ | | The last movie I pirated was directed by a man who died | almost 30 years ago. Do you suppose if I subscribed to | Netflix (which doesn't even have any of his movies at all as | far I can tell), they'd hire a necromancer to get a few more | movies out of his corpse? | dragonwriter wrote: | > hire a necromancer to get a few more movies out of his | corpse? | | We don't hire necromancers anymore, they've been replaced | by training models on a corpus anchored by the creator's | existing work. | robonerd wrote: | You're probably right, and honestly the thought of this | happening just makes me feel sad. That premise is just | like the character Dixie Flatline in Neuromancer. Simply | tragic. | beckman466 wrote: | i prefer not to pay for my own exploitation and being | psychologically mindfucked by propaganda. i don't want to | give money to Hollywood millionaires and the expensive | product advertisements that classify as movies today | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | The purpose is to be a signal to the distributor: "fix your | payment model or we're not paying". I pirated for a long | time. When Netflix became a thing, I stopped pirating (since | it was easier). Now I pirate again. If a new company came | along with a good model, or the industry as a whole decided | this streaming debacle is stupid, I would definitely stop | pirating and give my money to someone. Until then, why would | I pay money for a worse service than what I can get for free? | CabSauce wrote: | Wouldn't the appropriate choice be to not pay for the | service AND not pirate? That seems like the best way to | send the message. Pirating gives the impression that you | want to view their content but not pay for it. So they | should invest in locking down their content, not improve | their experience. | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | Yes, I'm interested in their content. I'm not interested | in their byzantine ways of inventing 20 million new | streaming services that I need to subscribe to in order | to watch one single show I want. | | > So they should invest in locking down their content, | not improve their experience. | | Good luck with that. | ipaddr wrote: | Then they would replace the content but not the system. | If you like the content pirate it. They may add more drm | like music companies or they may reduce prices or they | may make streaming easier. | | Ignoring it sends a different message. | Stunting wrote: | purchase the shows you want to watch individually. | Hitton wrote: | How do I do that? For instance imagine I would like to | watch Book of Boba Fett (just an example, I saw it | mentioned somewhere today). I don't think that Disney | allows to purchase it individually, but I can only guess, | because in the sticks where I live (EU country), Disney+ | isn't even available. | | That reminds me, what do you think about geoblocking | these services? If one has a choice: buy the content, buy | VPN and break the copyright by watching it in unsupported | country or just break the copyright by pirating it | outright, what should one do? | Stunting wrote: | Boba fett is not provided individually. The cost value of | producing that show is driving people to a subscription | system. If you don't want to do that, don't sign up for | it. | | If you want to watch that show but you don't want to pay | for subscription, let DIsney know. If the market demanded | it by way of retracting their subscription dollars, they | would notice. | | But if you steal it because that's just how you want to | do things, you're a thief. | Hitton wrote: | It was your suggestion to purchase individual shows. | | >If the market demanded it by way of retracting their | subscription dollars, they would notice. | | One could say that pirating is the act of retracting the | subscription dollars, but I digress. I can't retract my | subscription dollars, because they won't even offer me | the subscription (which I mentioned in my comment). | | Could you as an knowledgeable insider actually answer the | part of my previous comment you conveniently skipped, | that part about what is person supposed to do if the | Disney doesn't even offer the service in their country? | And don't say "let Disney know", something actionable | please. | | >But if you steal it because that's just how you want to | do things, you're a thief. | | 1) it's not theft, it's digital "piracy" | | 2) And I didn't say I pirate their stuff, the show was | just an example. But I still feel discriminated on | account of country I am from by them refusing to sell me | their subscription service. And everyone knows that | racism is worse than stealing. | ncallaway wrote: | That sends the wrong message. | | If you're interested in the content, but dislike the | delivery mechanism, ignoring the content entirely sends | the signal: "I am not interested in the content you're | producing". The companies will attempt to address that | signal by changing the content, to try and find content | that attracts larger audiences. | | Piracy sends a different signal: "I am interested in the | content, but not the price or the delivery mechanism". | The companies will attempt to address that signal | differently. Maybe they lower the price. Maybe the ease | the friction on the delivery mechanism. Maybe the | _increase_ the friction on the delivery mechanism (by | adding DRM). But the signal from piracy sends a more | clear message to the content companies that ignoring the | content. | barkerja wrote: | What is a "good model" to you? | john_minsk wrote: | When I open IMDB database a drop down with links appears. | If publisher decided not to provide movie for purchase - | these are links to torrent files to download movie in HD, | FHD and 4k with preselected language and subtitles | settings. If publisher decided to provide movie for | purchase - links to buy it with comparable price to a | movie ticket. But you buy Movie not an | HD+English+SpanishSubs file version and you don't have | access to 4k video. You can also buy subscription to IMDB | which will include 100-200 hours worth of content per | month. You don't buy movies this way. You stream them and | they don't belong to you once your subscription ends. | Publishers get their money based on minutes of content | watched by users. | | It won't work? | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | Effort of buying legally < effort of downloading | illegally | | Netflix did it (once upon a time. no, not the movie). I | don't really care for reasons why this is hard for the | industry or really anything else. As long as it doesn't | economically make sense for me to give money to someone | (doesn't reduce my own effort/time expenditure or provide | something I can't have otherwise), I will not give money | to someone. Morals be damned. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | You can rent on many of the streaming services for like | $3, which blows a hole in the "it's just effort" | argument. | petefromnorth wrote: | You still have to find which service it's available on, | enter payment information, download an app... And even | then if you're not in the USA the selection is | distributed across more apps, and lots of content isn't | available easily even if you want to pay. | pineconewarrior wrote: | acquiring currency requires effort. Considerable effort, | for some. One can click on a torrent link way faster than | they can earn $3 | | Plus, this rental will not be available in all locales, | for every video, etc | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | That's Amazon AFAIK, I don't know of any others. It's a | step in the right direction but the price is still too | high (it's usually $4-$5 in my experience). I only get to | watch it once, not keep it, and I pay you double what I | used to pay Blockbuster? No thanks. | brewdad wrote: | Blockbuster new releases were $3 in 1990 dollars ($6.60 | today). This was in a mid-sized town in the midwest, not | Manhattan or LA. Blockbuster was also far less | convenient. | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | Fair, I forgot about inflation. | BonoboIO wrote: | Plex is nice! I run a Server for Family and Friends, it works | great, but I'm an IT GUY and it's a Hobby. | | For the most people it's too much struggle to run this, | especially when plex has the default settings of ,,transcode | everything to 2mbit if the server is not at home". | | I have multiple subscriptions, but most players suck (I look at | you Amazon Prime). Plex is a way better experience. | | Oh I use a Nvidia Shield as Client. It's awesome! | candlemas wrote: | But technically that's stealing. I still feel a pang of guilt | if I do it so I just use the free streaming services. | orangepurple wrote: | Theft, in plain english, is defined as the dishonest | appropriation of property belonging to another with the | intention to permanently deprive. Stealing is the act of | theft. | gruez wrote: | technically it's "copyright infringement", not "stealing" | Stunting wrote: | it's very much stealing from the residual based income of | the workforce required to make your entertainment. | andrew_ wrote: | As mention in a comment above, it is not the consumer's | responsibility to provide income to employees of a | company providing goods or services. Please stop with | this fallacy. | Stunting wrote: | Company's providing goods and services in a capitalistic | society are entirely dependent on consumers providing the | income for their workforce. | | How else do you really think this whole thing works. You | get to keep your money, but still get all the goods and | services provided. That's just silly. | andrew_ wrote: | You're conflating consumer responsibility with consumer | spending. It's the company's job to provide wages - the | company dictates and designs the means to acquire money | to provide wages. If the company provides a widget that | consumers don't want, is it the consumer's fault the | company cannot pay the wages of the employees? That's | just silly. | Stunting wrote: | I'm saying "taking a service that you did not pay to | receive" is stealing. | elenaferrantes wrote: | Stunting wrote: | You're stealing income, specifically from me and all of my | coworkers. Perhaps you think that you're only stealing from | Producers and A list actors, but there are entire departments | that receive residuals on a production. | | - On screen performers, stunt performers like myself and actors | who grind out a comfortable living. Those residuals also go to | qualifying for health insurance through earnings. You are | directly stealing from my ability to provide health insurance | to my family. | | - Assistant Directors, who are saints dealing with every | logistical problem imaginable. The best of them only work 1-2 | movies a year because the workload causes severe burnout. | | - The Union themselves! The more money that flows through the | union, the more powerful they are. The more safer movie sets | become and the better life is provided for the workforce that | makes your entertainment. | | - Yourself! You are reducing the value of producing quality TV | and Movies by stealing them. Every time one a show is pirated, | there is less incentive to spend more money on an entertainment | spectacle. | | Go check out my imdb and see how many of my credits you've | watched https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1968249/ | | For every show imagine that it's a nickel you stole from my | income. WOuldn't be surprised if you took a buck or two out of | mine. Now multiply that by all the on screen performers and ADs | and others I mentioned. Now multiply that all the people who | steal like you. | | You're directly responsible for sucking the quality of life | away from people who make your entertainment and reducing the | desire to make things you enjoy. You're going to end up with | shows that are AI generated CGI sponsored by Mt. Dew and Chevy | trucks. | | Stop stealing our shit. | rambambram wrote: | Impressive list of movies! And a very good point you make. | NB: Your website loads pretty slow for me (I'm in Europe), | and the video on the homepage is unavailable, it says. | Stunting wrote: | Thank you, It's long overdue to update. I appreciate the | bump | rambambram wrote: | We're on HN, so you probably know your way around | websites. But let me know if I can help you with an | 'internet friendly' website (quick loading, no third | party code, stats without tracking, clear layout, | beautiful styles, easy editing, and more). | mech422 wrote: | Yeah - I have to admit, I was impressed with your list of | credits... I live under a rock and haven't seen many of | them, but I really enjoyed 'The Accountant' and I'm a | sucker for anything Spiderman/Marvel | Stunting wrote: | The Acct was heavily provided by now Action Director Sam | Hargrave, and you should look through his credits. He's | most well known for Extraction on Netflix, but he's been | doing it for a while. If you liked Acct, you'll probably | like the other stuff he did before he was well known | outside of our circle. | mech422 wrote: | oh - Thanks! | Tao331 wrote: | I think your real anger should be directed at the studios | that aren't fairly structuring your benefits and | compensation, as well as the union that is not getting these | for you. | Stunting wrote: | My real and passionate anger is directed constructively at | those entities. Today I am providing a face and a name to | people who think "piracy isn't stealing" | rjbwork wrote: | I, and nobody I know, has pirated games or music since Steam | blew up about 12-15 years ago and Spotify/RDIO and similar | blew up about 10 years ago. | | There was about a decade when Netflix went full in on online | streaming and was offering a fantastic service for a | reasonable price with a far superior experience to piracy. | That is no longer the case, and the unbundling to now a | dozen+ of subscriptions is driving pretty much all my techie | friends back to movie/tv piracy. I personally don't really | watch much TV and might watch one or two movies a year, so | I'll just not watch anything. I've already cancelled my | Netflix subscription about a year ago, and I prefer playing | video games and reading books anyway. | | Until your industry can offer a product experience that is | superior to piracy, people are going to pirate. The games and | music industries have largely solved this problem. When will | yours? | Stunting wrote: | Sure you're talking about economical motivators, which I | hope and fight for our Union to adjust to. | | Until then tho..a person who steals from a moral high | ground is still a thief stealing from my income. | rjbwork wrote: | No, it's not economic at all. You've repeatedly failed to | grasp this in this entire comments section. It's about | convenience. It is actually more convenient to pirate the | handful of movies or TV shows people want to watch than | to maintain a dozen subscriptions or activate just the | one for the handful of shows or movies they want to watch | at any given time. | | Steam and Spotify have made it incredibly simple to just | get what you want without having to juggle or manage any | kind of bullshit. | wollsmoth wrote: | Steam charges by the game and often times you can find | whatever you want on iTunes or Amazon video if you're | willing to "buy" the movie/tv season. Why do you limit | yourself to content that comes to you from a | subscription? I'm guessing because it's kind of expensive | to buy a season of tv. | rjbwork wrote: | I don't, actually. I pay for a number of things that I | feel deliver value. I've bought movies and TV off of | amazon video/youtube. I pay for some podcasts. I buy | audiobooks off of Audible and eBooks from kindle (despite | these being even more expensive and more convenient to | pirate than movies/TV). I've commissioned some graphic | design stuff for personal use. Though I'm personally not | into sports, a friend of mine is super into the NFL and | buys their online package (though he still has to pirate | certain local games because...not enough people showed up | to the stadium that day???). | | As I've said in the thread, for me the alternative to | movies/TV isn't piracy, it's playing games or reading | books, which I do pay for because the experiences of | finding what I want, buying it, and consuming it is a | superior experience to piracy. If that ever changes | across the entire media landscape and games/books go the | way of movies/TV that may change. | wollsmoth wrote: | ah, sidenote! I watch NFL too. Generally local games are | blacked out so you need to watch them on the local | broadcast via antenna or a cable. I do find this annoying | but I have an antenna pretty much for that reason. | Stunting wrote: | It is very convenient to steal. You fail to grasp that | still constitutes theft. | rjbwork wrote: | Your obtuseness and just general attitude in this thread | really actually makes me want to start pirating again. | | Boutta go "steal" from you just to do it. | RDaneel0livaw wrote: | The only thing I pirate is movies / tv shows ... and it's | extremely simple: because it's not humanly possible to | purchase them digitally. | | Games: yes. Music: yes. Books: yes. Magazines: yes. What | happened to tv and film? Where are you all? | | Let's say I want to purchase The Fifth Element and throw | it on my plex server so I can watch it on vacation out of | the country? How can I do that? The answer is simple: you | cannot. So I pirate it. And enjoy watching it. If the | industry WOULD provide me with some way to purchase The | Fifth Element, get a high quality mkv or mp4 or whatever | download of it, I would do it in an instant. | [deleted] | Krasnol wrote: | Wow I thought 2022 nobody would still be so 90s in this | regard. | | Most of those who pirate, wouldn't pay and since the content | is not going away because somebody pirates it, it can't be | stealing. | | And Jesus...please...it's not like you're starving out there. | Start producing original stories. We don't even need all that | fancy and expensive CGI crap. Just start writing properly and | in a creative way. Pay THOSE people more IF they deliver | (though I'm not sure anymore if you really understand what's | missing here with all your sequels and remakes...). We're not | the audience you should cry to, go to those managers who | messed up that market so piracy is coming back again. | rjbwork wrote: | > Wow I thought 2022 nobody would still be so 90s in this | regard. | | "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when | his salary depends on his not understanding it." | | Although in this case, I have to imagine that first | understanding the problem would enable the industry to fix | itself and then make more money. | jorams wrote: | There's two (relevant) kinds of consumers here: Those who | want access and those who want ownership. | | Netflix was on a path to successfully serve the first kind, | the only remaining problems being region locking and an | incomplete catalog. Demand for piracy went down. Then the | industry got greedy, made one of those remaining problems | much, much worse, and now the demand for piracy is on the | rise again. | | The industry spends a lot of resources making life worse for | the second kind, in a misguided attempt to both satisfy them | and fully prevent the possibility of piracy. Instead they | fail at both. The result is an increased demand for piracy. | | > You're directly responsible for sucking the quality of life | away from people who make your entertainment and reducing the | desire to make things you enjoy. You're going to end up with | shows that are AI generated CGI sponsored by Mt. Dew and | Chevy trucks. | | So here's the problem: The only way I can spend money to | encourage the production of content I want is to buy a | terrible, abusive product I don't want. It only plays in | 720p, it's only available through a shitty app, it may | disappear from the platform it's on any time. | | All of it is just a wrapper for content. Please sell me the | content. Whatever file comes out at the end of the production | process, sell it to me. | | Instead I spend my money in other places. Streamers on Twitch | want it. YouTubers want it. People on Patreon want it. | Developers want it. Somehow they manage not to abuse the | people willing to give them money. | al_ak wrote: | It's literally not the job of consumers to provide for your | income. That may be a harsh lesson, but it's true. | Stunting wrote: | This literally how the financial system is set up. | Consumers provide money to a workforce that provides good | and services that society enjoys. In turn, that workforce | consumes goods and services providing income to a different | workforce. | | When you steal cool stuff, cool stuff stops getting made. | bin_bash wrote: | It's literally the job of consumers to pay for the things | they consume. | sgtnoodle wrote: | That's the expectation perhaps, but that's not what "job" | means. | Stunting wrote: | It's the definition. Not paying for redefines one to | being a thief. | sgtnoodle wrote: | That's a rather extreme definition of what a job is, in | my opinion. | delusional wrote: | Whatever chief executive that decided to create their own | streaming platform for a price that's too high is stealing | your money. They are the ones that made it more convenient to | pirate. | Stunting wrote: | Ah, now that is a point. I don't expect consumers to take | on my personal union politics. That is the duty of the | workforce and their union.. | | Which is more powerful if consumers don't steal money out | of their pocket. | | Pay for cool things and you'll get more cool things. | cwkoss wrote: | What if I pay for a movie ticket because I think it might | be cool, then the movie is awful and I don't want more | like it to be made? | | There is no option for refunds. Pirating first gives the | user more control over which films they economically | incentivize iteration on. | sgtnoodle wrote: | How you worded that sounds reminiscent of mafia | "protection". I assume that wasn't your intention, but | that's how it read for me. | | It seems to me like piracy of shows is tangential to | whatever the root of the issue is. Folk are becoming | disenchanted with streaming services. Whether they pirate | or just stop watching instead, the services have clearly | changed in ways that make them less valuable to | consumers. Unless somebody figures that out, it's not | going to improve. I doubt DRM is the answer, although a | combination of higher prices and consolidated content | might be. Folk would pay more for Netflix if it was still | a "monopoly" with all the popular shows. | | I think accusing folk of stealing money out of your | pocket for downloading a video is quite hyperbolic and | isn't winning you any arguments. You're trying to make it | a moral issue, but it isn't really a moral issue, and | nobody outside of the industry cares. You could claim | that it's disrespectful to you as a participating member | of society, and it probably is, but yelling at people to | respect you more doesn't work, and has the opposite | effect. | | I think your point, though, is that it's a tragedy of the | commons situation. The industry works as a whole because | people are willing to pay a premium in exchange for | entertainment. If people don't pay, then there's no | incentive to produce. If folk value new entertainment, | they need to support the industry that produces it. | Stunting wrote: | If thieves are offended at having their behavior | identified as stealing, they could stop stealing. | | The problem, as I see it, is entertainment is being seen | as a "good" and not a "service." Physical dvds and vhs | has conditioned us to think that it's a physical good, so | there is no harm in replicating the digital product. In | fact that emotional state derived from viewing the | entertainment is the service that is being paid for. | | Taking the value of receiving that entertainment without | providing the cash value of that service is stealing. | samstave wrote: | Make "cool things" overly priced, especially in a fucked | up inflationary market manipulated by corruption and | influence, where for the last several years everything | costs more which is tangible and required to survive, | (food, shelter, transport, employment) | | Then the ephemeral luxuries, such as entertainment, begin | to take a more relaxed position on our moral compass when | one compares paying for entertainment services, vs, using | funds for food. | Kye wrote: | I went looking for a la carte options for all the Star | Treks. They really want almost $50 per season for DS9, a | show that premiered almost 30 years ago. There's just no | reasonable way to justify that but greed. I can't believe | people like Stunting actually see much of that ~$50, and | I think they're here fighting over people not giving them | their scraps when there's no guarantee people are making | a choice between paying $50, paying $10 to Paramount, or | downloading a copy ("pirating" IP is a made up concept no | one uses outside the world of RIAA, MPAA, and similar). | sgtnoodle wrote: | I love 90's star trek. I haven't watched anything past | Enterprise and the Chris Pine movies because I don't have | a CBS account. I could easily afford it, but none of the | new content seems worth it to me, in terms of my time let | alone my money. I'm not a pirate, and yet I feel like | Stunting is upset with folk like me. | Kye wrote: | Lower Decks is worth a month of it. I always wondered | about the ships sent in after the Enterprise to deal with | whatever they left. Now I know. | cwkoss wrote: | The Orville isn't officially Star Trek, but I'd argue is | the best descendant of 90s Star Trek of the past decade. | Kye wrote: | I have a very hard time taking Seth MacFarlane seriously | as a non-voice actor. I keep hearing all the characters | he voices, and that clashes with the attempts to play | serious characters. | cwkoss wrote: | A significant proportion of 90s trek fans who have seen | the new series would agree its not worth it. | | I pirate-streamed the first season of discovery due to | its lack of availability on other platforms. Felt like a | 10 hour movie about a dystopian future with weak shallow | characters rather than an episodic serial about the great | people solving problems in a better society than we have | today. Tried a few episodes of Picard and just didn't get | into it. Neither were entertaining enough for my full | attention, ended up watching on second monitor while | playing a game. | | I would feel like a schmuck if I paid CBS to subsidize | this content: wasn't what I want more of in the world. | There is no "voting with your dollar" in modern content | delivery when you can't get a refund when a show ends up | being a waste of time. | Stunting wrote: | To you. The service I provide to society is | entertainment. Perhaps in the dystopian sand planet of | the future that won't hold much value but right now on | Today's earth, entertainment is a service that is valued | by society. | | In the future, I suspect we'll still have storytellers | for the same reason we do today. To Inspire, educate, and | entertain. I cannot envision society with zero | entertainment. | ProAm wrote: | > Stop stealing our shit. | | While I agree with your sentiment, you can also make a better | product. This is an easy fix with some of the smartest minds | in the industry. People showed Netflix early on they were | willing to PAY for ease of use. | Stunting wrote: | 100 percent agree. Voting with dollars is the fastest and | best way to make better products. | | The big studios know how many people are watching their | stuff via theft. They are going to keep producting low end | crap with studio friendly sponsorships, because piracy will | have taught them that is a better business model. | | Pay of the things you want to see and you'll see more of | them. | ben-schaaf wrote: | > Pay of the things you want to see and you'll see more | of them. | | Where can I pay for a streaming service with no geo- | blocking, no DRM quality limitations on Linux, offline | viewing and all the shows/movies I want to watch? Seems | the only way to vote with my wallet is to refuse to pay, | which morally isn't really different to piracy. | Stunting wrote: | Refusing to pay and refusing to consume is different | morally from stealing. | | I don't know where to find all those requirements. | Perhaps they exist. If they are that big of a dealbreaker | for you, don't consume the value provided by | entertainment services. | | When you decide that the exact moral high point is to | consume the goods and services while still maintaining | integrity about not providing the cash value asked of | those things, you are justifying being a thief. | JohnTHaller wrote: | You're responding to a stuntperson who, unfortunately, has | no control over the distribution of the product they worked | on. | ProAm wrote: | > You're responding to a stuntperson who, unfortunately, | has no control over the distribution of the product they | worked on. | | And he is yelling at us, which also have no control, he | should be yelling at the people he works for that do have | control. | Stunting wrote: | No one is yelling you ninny. I'm telling people that | steal services that they are in fact thieves, and | specifically calling you a ninny for your overreaction to | that. | ProAm wrote: | :) I know you're not yelling, more figure of speech. (did | not mean to offend) But this is on HN where we allow pay- | wall bypassing for all articles (which is also theft) so | you wont get sympathy there. Like I said I agree with | your sentiment, its just not the way to fix it. And I | dont think it's a difficult problem to solve, especially | from an extremely profitable and rich company. | Stunting wrote: | Yet. I do have minor creative input depending on the | production. When an audience shows they enjoy something I | am able to argue more fiercly to include a similar thing | into the next one. | | And someday I'll be makign my own productions. | gsk22 wrote: | Direct your anger at your employer for not offering a product | the market desires -- rather than at consumers who resort to | piracy because the legal route is expensive, inconvenient, or | nonexistent. | threwsacompany wrote: | And you are stealing people's attention spans. Which is more | criminal?! | Stunting wrote: | :D | isatty wrote: | Well then let us pay for shit in a convenient way. Like OP | said, if there's something like steam or Spotify then I'd | gladly pay for it. I still rent movies weekly on AppleTV | because it's a convenient experience. Geo gating, shitty | compression and making us choose between n apps is not the | way. | | Also, we're going to end up with shitty generated content | regardless of my $10. If you're making strong statements like | OP is stealing from _you_, then go advocate for change. | You're in the industry. | zeroxfe wrote: | > Well then let us pay for shit in a convenient way. | | While this may be a way explain why the masses pirate, it's | a poor justification for an individual to do it. If you | don't find the available payment mechanisms convenient | enough, then walk away and support a product that does have | mechanism convenient to you. (For the same reason that you | wouldn't steal from a store that only takes Amex.) | pie_flavor wrote: | Walking away vs pirating has _exactly_ the same outcomes | for the distributor. The only person affected in a | nonzero way from the transaction is me, positively. | Stealing from a store that only takes American Express | would result in the store _having less inventory_ ; what | I have gained, they have lost. The same is not true of | copyright infringement. The only time copyright | infringement converts into actual quantifiable loss for | the seller is if I turn around and sell pirated copies at | a lower price, which is why that's the degree of | infringement that turns it from civil to criminal. | Stunting wrote: | you are able to pay for individual film and tv shows right | now through Amazon and Apple, i'm sure others. | | I do advocate for change, within my own union. Today I am | educating consumers on who exactly they are stealing from | when they pirate shows. | Kye wrote: | Hard lesson learned from years of trying to "educate" | people on things that matter to me: you're going about it | all wrong. I've seen your posts all through this thread. | All you've done is beat people over the head with your | perspective and berate them for not agreeing with you. | | I don't think this is what you mean to do. I think you | really care about this! Lay down your sword and _listen_. | Hear what people are saying in response. Let their | responses inform and refine your advocacy. You can 't | stroll in broadcasting an ideological, self-interested | position and expect people to react well. | CodeMage wrote: | Every single show or movie I wanted to watch over the | last year has been an exclusive to some streaming service | or other. | | Amazon used to let me buy anything, and the Prime was | there to entice me so I don't have to pay for individual | catalog items, but that's not the case anymore. | | Now I have a choice between: | | 1. paying for a crapton of streaming services so I can | watch a handful of things I'd like | | 2. pirating | | 3. not watching most of the stuff I think I would like to | watch | | I'm not picking option 1 for what I hope are obvious | reasons. I really don't want to pick option 2 because I | empathize with people like you, who would be affected by | that. For the moment, I'm picking option 3. | | However, if you really want to "educate consumers", you | might be more successful if you change your tone so it | doesn't sound like aggressive victim-blaming. People like | you and people like me are being screwed by a third | group. | Stunting wrote: | I appreciate you not pirating. You are only being screwed | if you think you are entitled to the entertainment. You | are not. | | You have an option to pay for the service as offered, | steal it, or move on. | | Entertainment abounds in our society and is readily | available at little to no cost all around you via local | theater, open mic nights, libraries, etc. | | The connivence of having that entertainment pumped | directly on demand to your home is a luxury that has a | certain value to it. | | Currently that luxury is available via paying for the | service or stealing it. The theft is relatively low risk, | even by hilariously paying for a services that help hide | your theft. That's the number one reason these services | are being stolen. | CodeMage wrote: | Whether people are "entitled" to enrich their lives with | art/entertainment or not is an interesting question in | this context. | | We're living in a society where a huge number of people | has experienced a good solution to the demand for that | enrichment, and that good solution has been deliberately | sabotaged so that a small, rich group of people could | become even richer at the expense of everyone else. | | Just like you argue people are not entitled to art and | entertainment, so I would argue that those who | deliberately restrict access to it in completely | unnecessary ways are not entitled to the additional | profits they squeeze out that way. | | As for the comments about luxury of pumping the | entertainment to our homes instead of enjoying it at | little to no cost at the venues you mention, I'm reminded | of Arthur Dent being told that the plans to demolish his | house were on display all the time. Suffice it to say | that your vision of how the majority of people live is | very distorted. | Stunting wrote: | "I'd like to steal things because I morally disagree with | the rules to society that I am currently opting to live | in. I could choose to move, address the change at a | governmental level, or simply find my entertainment | elsewhere but no. It is everyone else who is the problem. | Therefore I take great offense to being labeled as a | thief." | CodeMage wrote: | The first sentence is spot on. The rest is the distortion | I was talking about. You demand empathy, but are | unwilling to be empathetic yourself. In the end, you're | the one opting out of discourse here, not the rest of us. | Stunting wrote: | I'm saying when you steal you're a thief. If that ruffles | your feathers, stop stealing. | CodeMage wrote: | It doesn't ruffle my feathers at all. I've done my share | of piracy when I lived in countries where that was the | only viable way to get my hands on the information, art, | or entertainment that was otherwise unavailable to the | vast majority of people living there. And no, I'm not | ashamed of it, and it doesn't offend me if you decide to | label me a thief or worse. | | What I was trying to do is have a conversation with you | about why people "steal" or whatever the correct word for | this thing is. Just like there are reasons people steal | in real life, there are reasons for this behavior, too. | You can try to understand it, or you can keep throwing | everyone in the same bin, slap a label on that bin, and | feel morally superior. | | One of those two will lead to improvement for everyone. | One of those two is easy. I'll leave it an exercise for | you to figure out which one is which. | Kye wrote: | If you're rich and disconnected enough to just drop | everything and move over entertainment choices, I'm not | sure you're in touch enough to have any kind of | perspective on the people you're trying to convince. | cwkoss wrote: | There is an inherent classism to "piracy is stealing" | arguments: by gating access to culture, it effectively | says "poor people shouldn't be able to participate in | culture, because they don't have enough money" | kmeisthax wrote: | Ugh. Never before have I seen a comment that I've agreed with | so much but also wanted to yell at at the same time. | | To put it really bluntly, pointing out how piracy is easier | than paying again is not literally stealing money out of your | pocket. The whole "lost sales" and "stolen income" thing | doesn't always hold water, because you can't measure all the | counterfactuals involved. A _lot_ of pirates are either just | data hoarders or collectors, and you aren 't really in price | competition with piracy as long as you are even slightly more | convenient than it. Yes, that actually used to be the case | for movies and TV shows, back when you could get access to | everything you could ever want to watch just by subscribing | to Netflix or maybe Hulu. Piracy was actually _going away_ , | right up until everyone pulled their content from Netflix to | try and grab a larger slice of a smaller pie. | | However, I don't want to actually trash your point _too hard_ | , because you did touch upon something worth talking about. I | have noticed in HN and in other engineer-oriented spaces a | certain contempt for the creative working class. I call it | "kill and eat everyone below the talent line". | | There's this weird meme that came about around the same time | that the RIAA was indiscriminately suing casual pirates. Back | then, _some_ artists - usually ones at the start of their | careers or doing it as a hobby - were distributing content | over the Internet for free. In fact, some of them were even | able to make money off of it through crowdfunding or | advertisements without directly demanding payment to read, | listen, or watch their work. So people made this assumption | that this business model would be both sustainable long-term | and scalable to large productions. Ergo, copyright is just an | artifice of history, we can just abolish it, and the "real | artists" will prosper while publishers and middlemen are out | of a job.[0] | | The problem is that "real artists" covers both the Toby Foxes | of the world just as well as the Temmie Changs. Abolishing | copyright beggars the songwriter in the name of the singer. | A-list actors would actually survive and thrive in a | crowdfunding-only market, because they have the name | recognition to do so. But all the other people who support | them would see their income shrink. And producers and | publishers would just turn into the absolute worst kind of | scummy for-sale pirates you could think of.[1] | | The thing about piracy is that we as tinkerers and hobbyists | assume it works exactly the same for everyone else as it does | for us. I.e. me and my 10,000 friends all trade files around | for free. Yes, a lot of pirates _are_ data hoarders and | collectors, but there 's an entire world of bootlegs and | knockoffs outside of the world of BitTorrent. For-profit | piracy is far more pernicious than just the person with a | Plex server, and it comes in a lot of forms you wouldn't even | expect. For example, when Facebook launched their video | service, there was an entire cottage industry of people | reuploading YouTube videos and monetizing them on Facebook. | This is the sort of thing that individual filesharers would | not even recognize as piracy, but is absolutely immoral and | wrong, and does pull nickels and dimes out of artists' | pockets. | | [0] The counterargument I'm making against copyright | abolitionism does not apply to other things like shortening | the length of copyright terms or adding more exceptions to | it. Those at least still allow the existence of a creative | working class. | | [1] Fun fact: lousy speedsubbing jobs aren't just for modern | anime pirates. Before we had international copyright, it was | common for publishers to just take books published in other | countries, translate themselves, and sell them before the | original author could. | Stunting wrote: | It is literally stealing money out of my pocket. Even if | they don't watch it themselves, they will provide it free | of charge or even for a personal fee I will never see to | someone else. | | The concept that Pirates wouldn't have paid for it anyway | is valid. Part of my problem with piracy is that so much | bullshit gets consumed that without stealing, those things | would be much less part of pop culture and we'd have a lot | better stuff to entertain us. | | However for definition sakes. Taking a service that you | wouldn't have consumed by paying and using it for free is | stealing. | gernb wrote: | I'm super sympathetic that someone is not paying for you for | the time you spent making the content (me, also a content | creator) But, just a suggestion, you need to find a better | way to put your message. As long as you call it theft / | stealing you're going to get lots of push back because | copying a movie is not the same as stealing/theft so instead | of making your point you'll mostly get arguments about | definitions. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 | christophilus wrote: | I don't pirate (out of principle), but I also basically don't | stream because I'm a Linux user and your streaming platforms | suck big fat ones. | | If you want people to "stop stealing our shit", you should | really address how crappy the distribution system is. | | - Can't get it in __ country | | - Can only watch it on __ closed-source devices | | - Can't watch it offline | | - A is only available on platform 1, B is only on platform 2, | and I don't want either crappy platform | | Anyway, as I said, I don't really watch movies much anymore, | and haven't seen any of the ones on your IMDB page, I mostly | play games or read books these days, but I'd probably watch | more if the distribution system was better. | servilio wrote: | Add: | | - Can't get it with subtitles/dub in _ language | Stunting wrote: | This is a valid complaint. I would tell you that on the | many streaming services available for free like youtube, | vimeo, etc. There is probably a small filmmaker who is | making the type of show you enjoy. Finding them, providing | value by first clicks and shares and eventually with income | as they grow will encourage more filmmakers to make things | you like. | [deleted] | ashayh wrote: | | You're going to end up with shows that are AI generated CGI | sponsored by Mt. Dew and Chevy trucks. | | As opposed to movies/shows already high on CGI with poor and | rehashed storylines, and whitewashed to cater to CCP | censorship? | Stunting wrote: | Yes. It will get worse. Support the type of content you | want and you'll see more. | digisign wrote: | When you work for the devil, don't be surprised to become | collateral damage. | | Thinking of all the stealing they've done from the public | domain it makes my blood boil. Charging top dollar for | artists work that have been dead for decades is a disgrace. | How about "stealing" from the public and renting it out in | perpetuity... Winnie the Pooh, anyone? | brewdad wrote: | Why are you consuming the goods provided by "Satan"? | Stunting wrote: | "I steal from you because I find your parent company | morally reprehensible, yet I would still like to enjoy the | services provided by that company." | | Hell of a position. | digisign wrote: | Most of the money goes to the top, and if you are going | to throw around inaccurate/loaded terms like stealing, | two can play at that game. 1%ers take a larger slice of | the pie than street thugs but we are misdirected and | situation quietly swept under the rug. | hypertele-Xii wrote: | Uh huh, I'll stop stealing from you when _you_ stop stealing | from me. | | Advertizements everywhere stealing my attention, public | space, and landscape beauty. Stealth taxes on empty hard | drives and other storage media. Hardware-destroying rootkits | and other malware (lost a DVD drive to DRM, will you | reimburse me?). Draconian control mechanisms and lobbying | stealing my control of the devices I own. Mountains upon | mountains of disposable plastic promotional crap stealing my | planet and ecosystem. | | I'm not stealing from you. I'm extracting some small | reparation for the many toxic behaviors your industry engages | in. When you start offering an honest product I'll start | honest buying. And I do - I pay more combined to good people | producing good content via Patreon than a monthly Netflix | subscription. | ripper1138 wrote: | This is a joke right? Kind of like rioters looting local | businesses and then saying "society stole from us first"? | hypertele-Xii wrote: | Never rioted nor looted nor seen either, so can't | comment. Joke, it is not. | Stunting wrote: | You, personally, are stealing from my income. All those | issues you raise are valid and important issues to address. | Stealing because those things make you angry makes you part | of the problem. | jdgoesmarching wrote: | If the entire world of piracy tripled tomorrow, it still | wouldn't have the tiniest shred of impact on your income | compared to the decisions of rapidly consolidating | tech/studio execs who are tanking your industry and | fighting your unions to chase pennies. | | A lot of us would gladly pay the cast and crew directly | to own a copy of your output that we could access on our | own terms, but that isn't a reality for most trade under | capitalism. There's a reason Googlers on HN aren't trying | to guilt trip everyone for personally stealing their | income by using ad blockers. Maybe this is particularly | to the entertainment industry, but most of us would shrug | our shoulders at the equivalent of petty shoplifting from | our employers. | anthuswilliams wrote: | I don't personally pirate much, but I take umbrage at you | characterizing it in this way. You seem to think that the | issues of accessing media without subjecting yourself to | user-hostile behaviors are wholly orthogonal to the issue | of accessing media without paying for it. They aren't. | | Imagine a hypothetical universe where, in order to watch | one of your movies, people had to a) pay you $1 and also | b) let you punch them in the nose. Then, when people | sensibly start pirating your content instead because they | don't want to get punched, you loudly proclaim that they | are stealing the $1 you are owed. | | That's what's happening here. People want to watch your | content, and are willing to pay for it. But they don't | want to pay for it AND get punched in the nose. They | pirate because your distributors, and by extension you | yourself, have made it impossible to watch your content | (and pay you!) in any other way. | | I get that your natural rejoinder will be "if the content | is not worth being punched in the nose, just don't watch | it!" Which is fair. Debatable, but fair. Just don't come | here pretending that all you have asked for is the | reasonable sum of $1 when you are actually demanding that | your customers subject themselves to the indignity of | your fist. | cwkoss wrote: | Film is competing against loads of free content and the | industry is thrashing to avoid accepting the obvious | fate: it is no longer economically rational to produce | films with budgets in the hundreds of millions. | | Jobs will be lost, just like happened with farriers and | switchboard operators. Your income will disappear | regardless: the demand for stunts is elastic and the | supply is increasingly competitive. Blaming pirates is | being unable to see the forest for the trees. | michaelmrose wrote: | The world is full of problems. We are looking at actual | massive potentially civilization or species ending issues | in the large and dealing with trying to make a living, | manage illness, deal with death, parenting in the small. | | If you live in a big city you probably walk by people in | the street slowly dying from a drawn out form of suicide | because you can't possible change all their lives on your | way to the grocery store or coffee shop and people at | large are choosing to do the same with your income | stream. They opt to deal with problems more important and | more personal than fixing the way in which culture is | monetized so as to funnel slightly more money to rich | folks who could do more for society as soylent green in | hopes that a few extra bucks will stick to the hands of | useful folks like yourself. | | For myself I'm not angry nor do I have any intention of | fixing the problem because nobody with any decision | making power gives two shits what my opinion on anything | is. I have monetarily in life about nothing and indeed | will have nothing tomorrow and the next day. You feel | like people are violating the social contract by not | paying for multimedia. Part of your problem is that you | even believe that we are part of the same society or | share the same ethics. | | We really aren't. I am not the benefactor of the current | situation nor do I have any meaningful power to negotiate | new ground rules or even enforce existing ones so | rejection makes worlds more sense. | | You say stop downloading and I hear enjoy poverty but | with fewer books, music, movies, games. I wont actually | be supporting the folks you mentioned to any greater | degree but you will find such more ethically palatable. | HALF of America is sharing 12% of the income. We don't | have anything but you can stick a $200 PC and plug it | into a $20 monitor and courtesy of a $10 internet | essentials package download as many books music movies | shows as you can possibly consume. | | I don't feel like making my shitty life shittier in order | for you to feel better. Artificial scarcity is a dumb way | to run a society and its not my fault the people with all | the money in this society have chosen it. | BonoboIO wrote: | What a coincidence, I finished ,,no sudden move" seconds ago. | Stunting wrote: | oh rad. I had an amazing time watching Soderbergh literally | operate a camera above my recently deceased body. It was | spiritual. | cwkoss wrote: | It's not stealing if they wouldn't have paid for it | otherwise. | joemi wrote: | Thanks for speaking up about this from a perspective not | often seen here on HN. It's really pretty weird that someone | needs to explain to so many people that media piracy affects | actual working people. | sleepybrett wrote: | When I lend a physical dvd to my friend is that stealing? | Stunting wrote: | Did you purchase, rent, or legally borrow the physical dvd? | | When you lend it out, are you still able to enjoy the | entertainment service provided by the dvd? | | The answers to these questions are the answers to your | questions. | dml2135 wrote: | > Every time one a show is pirated, there is less incentive | to spend more money on an entertainment spectacle. | | I'm fine with this. Some of the best movies ever were made in | the 70s, after the Hollywood studio system collapsed and a | ton of money was sucked out of the industry. | californical wrote: | Is it really stealing if they wouldn't have ever paid for it | in the first place? | | If it's not easy to find and use on a subscription service | that I already have, I'm just not gonna try to search for it | or pay for it. What difference would it make if I pirated it | and watched it anyways? | | (FWIW I personally don't pirate anything, I just really don't | see the merit to the "stealing" argument) | bumby wrote: | This reminds me of the squatter issue and the claim that | it's not wrong if the owner wasn't using it. This is only | true if you have a vastly different idea of property (real | and intellectual) rights that much of the country/economy | is founded upon. | [deleted] | CodeMage wrote: | Yes, it is. But even though you didn't manage to | communicate your point correctly, it still stands: the only | reason streaming replaced piracy was because people could | afford it and it was easier to use. | | Even the ease of use has declined, and the affordability is | down the toilet. And as usual, we have people at the top | reaping record profits and making victims of their greed | blame each other at the same time. | | EDIT: Fixed a grammar error. | Stunting wrote: | Yes it is really stealing. | | You want something. You don't want to pay for it. You take | it without paying. | | That's stealing. | | If you really truly didn't want to watch it, you wouldn't | steal it. | dml2135 wrote: | You don't take it, you make a new, identical copy of it, | leaving any previously existing copy intact. | Stunting wrote: | I will happily take your money and provide you with a | new, identical copy of it if that's the deal you want to | make. | Krasnol wrote: | That doesn't make any sense as an allegory. | | Nobody is TAKING anything. Everything is at the place | where it belongs. | | Also if you'd be able to make identical copies of money, | of course people would accept it. | Stunting wrote: | I'll go into your mailbox and take your paycheck. I'll | provide you with a new identical copy of it. I'll leave | the previous existing copy intact, but in my possession. | | Which one of us gets to deposit the money? | JamesBarney wrote: | You're copying the check but stealing the money. The | money and the check are not the same thing. | | If I copy your car key and use it to steal your car. I've | copied the key but stolen your car. | Stunting wrote: | You're copying the entertainment value provided and | stealing the income that is related to that value. | hunter2_ wrote: | What about borrowing from public libraries? Buying a used | legitimate disc at a garage sale? Are people who do this | in the wrong? | Stunting wrote: | Finally! I agree with this. I think that physically | purchased goods should be free from any sort of "DRM." | and is not stealing. | | The difference is one party at a time, i.e. household, | library patron, etc, can enjoy the entertainment service. | | When you pirate it, The original owner of the dvd retains | the service value as well as providing the service to | others without any value being transferred to the | workforce/IP holders. | | That's the difference and I personally am all in for a | mythical solution that but still allows complete freedom | of ownership while also stopping people from digitally | reproducing assets and dispensing them exponentially. | | I don't believe it will ever happen tho :/ | pie_flavor wrote: | Theft is when you take something _from_ someone. As in, | what you have materially gained, they have materially | lost. Copyright infringement is _not_ theft, and must be | treated differently, because what you gain, nobody has | lost; the supply is infinite. | | If you accuse someone of stealing the income, but they | haven't gotten any money out of it, how does that make | sense? What you're describing is a _missed opportunity_ | for a sale; had someone 'stolen' nothing and simply | passed the product by, you would still not have made that | sale and nothing would have changed. | TechBro8615 wrote: | I generally support this argument, but to play devil's | advocate, you might consider the bit stream used to | transfer the content to be new bits. The file may be a | bit-for-bit copy if you ask a computer, but streaming it | required a series of voltage fluctuations that wouldn't | have happened otherwise. You could consider that series | of events to be roughly analogous to a CD-ROM containing | some content. You can load the CD onto two computers and | get two copies of its content, but there are two | physically distinct CDs just like there are two | physically distinct series of bits streaming to two | locations. | mockery wrote: | So if I make a new, identical copy of a GPL'ed codebase - | should I feel free to use it for whatever purpose I want | and ignore the GPL? | mgh2 wrote: | Literally the NFT argument | hunter2_ wrote: | An NFT is a certificate of authenticity. Copies of the | associated item don't have a valid certificate. Getting | satisfaction from a copy is orthogonal to the value | associated with the authenticated original. | [deleted] | hutzlibu wrote: | But you agree, that there is a difference between copying | information and taking physical objects away? | roland35 wrote: | I seriously don't understand why this point keeps getting | repeated. It is just semantics! | | Yes, we all know copying a digital show isn't the same | exact thing as stealing your car. However, you are still | taking something of value! Let's say you snuck into my | band's concert venue and didn't buy a ticket. Yeah you | didn't physically take anything from me, but you are | having access to something you shouldn't without paying. | pie_flavor wrote: | No, I am not taking anything of value. You still have all | the things of value you had before. The difference | between a rivalrous good and a non-rivalrous good is | _not_ semantics. | Stunting wrote: | piracy is receiving the service value of entertainment | without providing the requested fee. | | Another word for it is stealing. | pie_flavor wrote: | Theft is not defined by the receiving, it is defined by | the taking. The moral ill is not you being enriched, it | is the person who had it rightfully, being deprived of | it. | cwkoss wrote: | For receiving the service value of entertainment of | reading this comment, I request a fee of $1,000. | | Is my request reasonable? Do you feel inclined to pay me? | Do I incur $1000 of damages if you choose not to? | Lord_Baltimore wrote: | The mental gymnastics to justify piracy as anything other | than theft is always interesting to watch. | pie_flavor wrote: | So is the substitution of moral smugness for complex | thought. | JamesBarney wrote: | It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. If | someone steals my car I no longer have my car. If someone | copies my car my car loses values because there is now | one extra copy of my car floating around. | Stunting wrote: | entertainment is a service industry. Extracting the | service value without providing the requested fee is | stealing. | dang wrote: | You've posted 67 (!) comments in this thread, mostly | making the same point over and over in angry ways. | | I get that you have legit reasons for feeling strongly | about this topic, but this is way over the top, so please | don't do it on HN. We want _curious_ conversation here. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | [deleted] | bumby wrote: | If intellectual property is indeed property, it can be | stolen. Considering (in the US, at least), intellectual | property is codified within the Constitution, it's pretty | hard to say it isn't real. | | Edit: to be clear, I agree it's not 'theft', but am | pushing back on the way this distinction is sometimes | used to insinuate that it is victimless (not saying the | poster above is claiming that, just that it's worth | pointing out) | burntoutfire wrote: | > You want something. You don't want to pay for it. You | take it without paying. | | This is an age old argument... I'm not taking anything. | I'm merely looking at something. The same way that I'm | not "stealing from Leonardo" when I look at statue of | David. I understand that the makers of the movie had some | hopes of monetizing my looking but alas, they failed. | Based on pure logic alone, it's clear that piracy is not | theft, it's something else. | rhino369 wrote: | >Is it really stealing if they wouldn't have ever paid for | it in the first place? | | >If it's not easy to find and use on a subscription service | that I already have, I'm just not gonna try to search for | it or pay for it. | | That is easy to say when you just take it for free | regardless. I strongly suspect people saying that would | actually pay for a decent amount of it if piracy wasn't an | option. | | And the number of pirate I know would plop down 15 bucks | for a movies (since CAMs and TSs are terrible copies) but | won't pay for a movie on VOD (since they can pirate it in | clear 4k) confirms my suspicions. | bin_bash wrote: | > Is it really stealing if they wouldn't have ever paid for | it in the first place? | | Since when does it matter if I would've paid for it? If | someone steals a Mercedes from a dealer is it not stealing | if they wouldn't have bought it anyways? | yata69420 wrote: | That's stealing because it deprives someone else of their | property. The dealer cannot sell the car once you've | stolen it. | | "Intellectual property" doesn't really work like that. | rewgs wrote: | You are wrong. You're focusing on the wrong thing here. | It's not whether the good can still be sold, it's about | whether the business can continue to get money. | | Say you have a business idea. Perhaps something that you | want to patent. I use it and start my own business, | rendering your potential business moot. | | Did I steal from you? If so, what did I steal? | dleslie wrote: | Bandwidth, storage, and hosted servers aren't free. | Neither are staff. | Stunting wrote: | the income associated with IP very much does. | yata69420 wrote: | Just out of curiosity, do they get deprived of the income | when I download the content, or when I watch it? | | Do they lose more income if I watch the content with | friends? | | In the early days of photography, people believed that if | your photo was taken, it was stealing your soul [1]. | | I can understand the idea of piracy being wage theft in | the same way I can understand the idea of photography | being soul theft, but I think both are rather silly | ideas. | | https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/8382 | Stunting wrote: | We get deprived of the income when it is consumed without | providing money for that service. | | If you watch it with your friends, 5 people watch it for | one purchase. If it's good, you all tell 3 more people. | Of those 15 people, 20 percent end up purchasing a | viewing and the system repeats. | | When you pirate it you take all the service for zero | cost. That affects real people. | yata69420 wrote: | What if 6 people watch it for one purchase? Does it | become theft then? | | How about a college dorm hosting a movie night? Maybe | theft? | | What if a million people watch it for one purchase? I | know you think that's theft, but I'm not sure where you'd | draw the line. | | I think the reality is that 90% of the population won't | pirate because it's too much effort and legally | ambiguous. If your content becomes popular through | piracy, you will absolutely reap the rewards of good | content creation. | | If a billion people pirated your content because it was | _that good_ , you'd have absolutely no problem | monetizing. You'd be a household name. When Disney loses | their copyright on the Mouse, they're still going to be a | huge company capable of monetizing all things Mickey. | | If we get back to a state where everyone is pirating | because the content services suck, then you need to | petition your content distributors to lower friction and | provide an experience worth paying for, but we're nowhere | near that. | | Gabe does it with Steam. I used to almost exclusively | pirate games, and now I almost exclusively buy them, | because Steam has value adds (achievements, friends, | online play, tournaments, workshop content, etc). | | Also, you have to understand that many people who have | large collections of pirate content see themselves more | as archivists than viewers. I'd guess most pirated | content never even gets consumed, just downloaded for a | "later" that never comes. | cupofpython wrote: | >if you watch it with your friends, 5 people watch it for | one purchase. If it's good, you all tell 3 more people. | Of those 15 people, 20 percent end up purchasing a | viewing and the system repeats. | | or he could have not watched it at all, told no one, and | you would have 0% instead of 20%. | | Pirating at scale is a real problem, but an individual | pirate is just an opportunist. There is a difference | between taking something off the shelf vs picking it out | of the trash. | | There is a small volume of "piracy" that could be | considered "picking through the trash". Some (a lot) of | entertainment looks like trash to some (a lot) of people | and the only reason those people watch it is because it | they get to watch it for free. And then when they are | pleasantly surprised, they tell people about it. This is | the heart of the "i wasnt going to pay for it anyway" | argument. Its the type of person who wouldnt pay for a | donut, but if you were about to throw them out theyll | take one. | | Id be curious to see statistics that shows the relation | of being successful in the pirate world and successful in | the real world. Because that is ultimately related to the | argument you are making. that the current state of piracy | is hurting your industry, not helping it - since you say | this specific pirate is hurting you right now. | | it certainly hurts the transactions bottom line when | isolated to viewing your bottom line with or without | pirate sales - but thats an incomplete financial scenario | (this type of thing is _my_ job). you shouldnt assume a | gain of x% sales of pirates that 'would have paid for | the content if they couldnt get it for free' without also | _subtracting_ y% of sales from people 'who only bought | it because pirates started the conversation that | ultimately led to their purchase'. | | Sometimes the marketing for a movie sucks, and not a lot | of people are interested in seeing it. There is a small | time frame of relevance and pirates might help overcome | the shortcomings of marketing efforts and make the movie | more relevant which helps it reach more people than it | would have. | | In all of your discussion, you seem to presume that the | pirates knew about and had an interest in your film to | begin with. You assumed successful marketing of your | film. maybe you're right, and it probably does 'hurt' | (tax?) the biggest blockbuster of the year... but 'people | who only watch things online for free' is a real | community of maybe significant size and i dont know if | there has been any work done to try to measure the impact | of what penetrating that community has on the financial | success of entertainment media in general. | | "all theft is bad" is a nice story, but it ultimately is | not always true. sometimes companies _allow_ theft on | purpose as a form of marketing. They do that as an | observational response to the fact that the cause and | effect of 'influencers' exists outside of the intent of | the people involved. | | This leads to a hypothesis that pirating is a form of | marketing for your industry. If it were to become too | easy to perform or too widespread, it would likely cross | a line into being actually damaging. But if the people | pirating it are mostly a small group of tech savvy, | relatively intelligent, movie enthusiastic people (due to | the technical requirements needed to pirate) then maybe | when they pirate you they might be autonomously servicing | your industry as an influencer. I know it sounds asinine, | but if you want to talk money - there are a lot of | factors to consider. | | So are they stealing? sure. Are they taking money OUT of | your pocket? very debatable; unclear. They are | influencing with the pool of money that ends up in your | pocket, and it isnt so black and white what their actions | have on the size of that pool due to the complexity of | your industry. | | --------------- Sorry for the long post, and it isnt an | attack on you or even a support of piracy in general (it | might read that way) - i got caught up in mentally | exploring the underlying financial model at play in the | current market. fwiw im too lazy to pirate, but i still | feel there is an incredible difference between people who | pirate for themselves vs people who make it easy for | others to pirate. People who invite some friends over to | watch something they pirated, vs someone who distributes | pirated content on common low-tech household media | formats like USB, CD, etc. | rjbwork wrote: | You assume people are going to pay for it. If you provide | a good service, they will, as shown by Steam and Spotify | and, at least initially, Netflix. | | If you don't, they won't, as shown by the proliferation | of shitty streaming services and the gutting of content | on Netflix. | | It's got to suck to feel that people are stealing from | you because you have no control over the content | distribution mechanisms in the industry you work in, but | I think you're largely engaging in fallacious | argumentation here. It's pretty much the 90's version of | piracy rhetoric. One pirated watch != one watch worth of | income lost. | Stunting wrote: | I assume that if people want to enjoy a service without | paying for it, it's theft. | | It's the "I don't want to pay for it, but I still want to | watch it." that seems to be hang up for so many. | | Let me explain it simply. That is stealing and it | directly affects my ability to make a living as well the | motivation for service providers to make more products | you enjoy. | pie_flavor wrote: | It does not affect your ability to make a living if I | consume a copy of your IP that I was not going to pay for | in the first place. You have lost nothing you would not | lose otherwise, and you have gained nothing you would not | gain otherwise. | Stunting wrote: | You gain the value of service without paying the | requested fee. If you weren't going to watch it, you | wouldn't. Watching it, without paying for it is theft and | it takes money from me. | pie_flavor wrote: | Proof by repeated assertion. The post you are replying to | is an effective response to yours. Once more: It does not | affect your ability to make a living if I consume a copy | of your IP that I was not going to pay for in the first | place. Watching it without paying for it does _not_ take | money from you, because you would still not have had that | money if I had simply not watched it at all. | | > If you weren't going to watch it, you wouldn't. | | This is flat out false and incredibly obviously so. You | can easily see it just by cranking the numbers - if a | video game is fun, but costs $500, do you really think | that each person who pirates it is depriving the | developer of $500? If some magical DRM scheme was | implemented that could not be broken and guaranteed every | person who played it, bought it, would everyone who | pirated it in the previous hypothetical instead buy it | for $500? No, they would ignore it, nobody would buy it, | and the developer would have just as little money as they | had before. | | Pirating a piece of IP does _not_ translate 1:1 into a | lost sale as you keep variously asserting and acting like | it does. It can even turn into a _gained_ sale, in the | case of video games or software, when people would not | have bought it based on the promotional material but | consider it worth buying after actually using it. You | have a right to exclusivity on sales - selling pirated | material is criminal - but you don 't have a right to | actually make any sales if nobody wants to buy it. | rjbwork wrote: | What are your thoughts on me and all of my friends and | family getting together in my home theatre and watching | the latest movie that I paid 4 bucks for on something | like Amazon or Youtube? | | Is everyone there except me stealing? It feels to me a | little bit like the N=1 vs N=0 problem of theism - I'm | simply an atheist to one more god than you are. | Similarly, I simply don't think it's theft to one more | person in that context than you might (of course, here | I'm assuming you don't think all those people are | stealing). | Stunting wrote: | I am 100 percent okay with it. One entity has provided | the fee for service (and afforded me 1/100th of an | avocado toast, thank you very much) and is not in their | ownership to do as they like. | | That they want to share it is their business, not mine. | If it's good, those friends will tell other friends and | someone along the way will purchase it again, and I'll be | even closer to my mortgage busting avocado toast | | The hypothetical argument against that is "what if I get | 100 friends, for 100 nights to watch it." Sure, | hypothetically you could but then it'd be pretty | expensive for you and added wear and tear on your home | and a pretty big headache to deal with. THe only way to | justify it would be to start charging, which at that | point, would be stealing. So it always comes across as a | thought problem, but I find it's not a real problem. | | I don't mind if the town throws a movie festival once a | month and plays my movie. I mind if they all get to go | home with the luxory of having it on demand and the | ability ot share it with everyone they know without | providing the service fee requested. | dml2135 wrote: | If you steal a physical object, you deprive someone else | of having it. Nothing of the sort happens when you copy a | media file. | Stunting wrote: | when you steal a viewing of a show, the income related to | your consumption is directly stolen from me. | dml2135 wrote: | It's not though. You could argue it is indirectly stolen | from you by impacting your potential for future earnings, | but please explain how the "direct" part of your | statement works. Are funds withdrawn from your bank | account when someone pirates a movie? | rewgs wrote: | Ever heard of royalties? | | When you pirate instead of purchase/stream, I lose that | potential income. Directly. Period. What would have been | $x is now $0. | | Before you dive into the semantics to avoid being held | responsible: sure, "stealing" isn't precisely the right | word. What you're really doing is opting to do the thing | wherein I don't get paid, rather than the thing wherein I | _do_ get paid. So instead of "stealing," let's call it | "removing access to my livelihood." Is that better? | | Oh, and our up-front payment has been eroded away for | decades because we'll apparently be paid on the back-end. | | Oh, and! Our back-end payments are multiple orders of | magnitude lower on streaming services vs broadcast | because streaming services say that streaming != | broadcast, so they shouldn't have to pay royalties at | all! | | So we're getting hammered in all three directions -- the | audience doesn't want to pay for streaming, the streaming | services don't want to pay royalties, and the production | companies don't want to pay up front. And yet the demand | for what we make only ever continues to go up. | Interesting. | | Maybe people are just selfish and full of shit, willing | to bend any logic to their favor or not educate | themselves if it benefits them? | | To anyone in this thread that doesn't work in film: you | know when you see people talking about something that you | know a lot about, and they're just totally wrong and | totally confident about it? That's how I feel reading | this thread. Except you're not just wrong about some | meaningless fact -- you're literally all patting | yourselves on the back for arriving at the pocket of | logic that allows you to continue removing me and my | peers' ability to make a living, guilt-free --- as long | as you don't have to pay the equivalent of a single fast | food meal per month. | | The impact is DIRECT and MASSIVE at scale. All those | shitty trends in movies you hate --- all of which come | from the studios being more and more risk-averse? The | massive tent poles, the monoculture, the re-hashed | stories, the horrible fan service, the product placement, | etc? That all is a DIRECT result of piracy. Period. | | Stop. Fucking. Pirating. | dml2135 wrote: | But what if someone is not pirating instead of | purchasing, they're just pirating instead of doing | something else? | | You need to consider that maybe the product you are | producing is simply not that valuable. | | I'm an artist myself. If someone took a photo of | something I painted, and started making copies and | _selling_ them, yea I 'd be pissed. That's what copyright | law should be used to protect against. | | If someone took a photo of my painting for their personal | use, instead of buying one of the photos of my painting | that I sell myself, I'd reconsider whether my business | model of selling photos is the right one. | rewgs wrote: | > But what if someone is not pirating instead of | purchasing, they're just pirating instead of doing | something else? | | By "something else" do you mean "another activity | _instead of_ watching TV /movies/etc," or do you mean | "watching TV/movies/etc, just via another method?" | | If the former...who cares? That still doesn't justify it. | Just because I chose another recreation activity instead | of watching a movie doesn't mean that I'm entitled to the | movie for free. _Not choosing_ something doesn 't have an | effect on the price (at least on the micro level; on the | macro level, this is of course the concept of "demand," | but even if the demand is so low that the "correct" price | is effectively $0, that still doesn't give you the right | to steal it -- the Intellectual Property is still | _property_ of the owner, and they are the only ones who | have the right to sell it or give it away, just as you or | I have the right to sell or give away any of our | property, be it a couch, a TV, a pair of shoes, an idea | for a story, whatever. It 's all property). | | If the latter, what could possibly fit that criteria? | You're either getting the TV/movie via official methods | or piracy, there isn't any other way. It's binary. There | isn't a way to get your hands on a film that is neither | officially sanctioned nor piracy. | | > You need to consider that maybe the product you are | producing is simply not that valuable. | | Not that valuable? Are you serious? We're talking about | products that are considered "low budget" when they cost | 1 million dollars to make and at best receive profits of | hundreds of millions of dollars. The entire premise of | this thread is that everyone _wants_ to watch everything, | they _want_ access to everything (i.e. the demand is high | and not going anywhere). They just don 't want to pay for | multiple separate services -- but only because they can | compare to and prefer the brief, golden period wherein | everything was accessible on Netflix and Hulu, back when | they were the only two games in town and were a breath of | fresh air compared to the expensive cable packages | (which, might I remind you, people _still_ paid -- | economically, that means that the price is considered | "fair" and commensurate to demand). Back when Netflix and | Hulu were both unsustainably hemorrhaging money, I might | add. | | Paying for 100% of the streaming services now costs <= | your typical cable package just 20 years ago, and that's | not even adjusting for inflation. So things are _still_ | cheaper than they 've ever been, with a not-insignificant | raise in convenience and overall quality of the product | to boot. Had we jumped from cable packages to the current | situation, HN would be jumping with joy. | | Just be honest: you want what you want, for as little as | you can get it for. And that's fine! That's human nature. | What's not fine is, because you can get it for $0 pretty | much risk-free, you'll bend over backwards defending why | doing so is okay. | | (Comment too long for HN, continuing in the next one...) | rewgs wrote: | (cont) | | > I'm an artist myself. If someone took a photo of | something I painted, and started making copies and | selling them, yea I'd be pissed. That's what copyright | law should be used to protect against. If someone took a | photo of my painting for their personal use, instead of | buying one of the photos of my painting that I sell | myself, I'd reconsider whether my business model of | selling photos is the right one. | | Boy, I think that if this were happening at scale, you'd | change your tune (to be clear, by "you" I mean "the | general you," because I don't know and can't speak for | "the literal you"). But let's dig into this. Why is it | not okay for someone else to sell something that you've | already decided to give away for free? Where does the | problem lay? | | Question: You'd only be upset if someone took a photo of | your painting and started selling it to...whom? Answer: | The same people to whom you'd otherwise be giving it away | for free, of course. Whether those people buy it for $0 | or >$0, they're all just using the photo for "personal | use." No matter what, the photo/painting is ostensibly | ending up in the hands of the same people, so why is it | problematic if someone else sells it? You've already | stated that you don't want the money by opting to give | the photo away for free when you could just as easily | sell it, so it's not like the seller is getting something | that you otherwise want. You're still getting what you | want -- $0. The audience is still getting what they want | -- the painting/photo. Even in the scenario you mentioned | in which someone snaps a photo of your painting, I'm not | seeing the issue (well, I do of course, but acting as | devil's advocate and pretending that I don't care about | IP for a moment, I don't see the issue) -- they're | effectively doing exactly what you're doing, which is to | say they're snapping a photo of this painting and then | selling it (in this case, to themselves) for $0. | | In fact, taking a step back, allowing others to sell | something that you're opting to give away for free is | almost saint-like -- putting effort into making a thing | that can ostensibly be sold for a profit, but choosing to | give the ability to make said profit to others. That'd | certainly be nice of you. In fact, how often do we see | Reddit celebrate Frederick Banting for doing just that | with insulin? I feel like that story makes it to the | front page every few months. But you'd be feel bad for | doing the same thing with your painting...why? | | So, what's the crux of the problem? | | (Putting aside what "the problem" is for a moment, let's | take a moment to acknowledge that this scenario that | would upset you -- someone selling your product when | you've opted to give it away for free -- wouldn't | actually happen, because no one would knowingly choose to | pay someone else for one of your paintings/photos when | they can get it for free from you. Whatever problem you | have with the seller, you won't have to worry about it | for long, because eventually the audience will learn that | they can get the same thing for $0 from you. It's | literally the exact same scenario that we're talking | about re: film/TV piracy, except that the roles of who's | selling it for > $0 and who's distributing it for free | are reversed. The very existence of film/TV piracy, the | very fact that we're having this conversation, proves | that the imagined scenario in which someone other than | you sells your product for more than $0 wouldn't exist | [at least not at a scale worth worrying about]. People | always choose the cheapest option). | | (Furthermore: what even does "personal use" in your | example _mean,_ if not something that literally | encompasses the entirety of the audience 's engagement | with the photo/painting? Is there a way to engage with a | painting/photo -- regardless of whether I pay for my | access to it or not -- that doesn't fall under the | umbrella of "personal use?" Regardless of the form of | your painting that someone engages with (via the | original, or via a copy/photo), and regardless of whether | they buy it from you or someone else, or get it for free | from you (or someone else); regardless of any of that, | the definition of "personal use" is always the same: the | audience looks at it. That's what people do with | paintings and photos. "Personal use" here is a nonsense | term that means nothing other than "not selling" and is | only included in your argument to give undue credence to | your "side" of giving it away for free, the function of | which is to make the other "side" look more in the wrong, | but only if you squint your eyes). | | So...what _are_ you worried about? Why does someone | selling the same IP that you give away for free irk you? | Either: someone tries to sell your IP, you undercut them | by giving it away for free, they can 't sell it; or, | someone tries to sell your IP, and those who you | apparently wish to have access to it still have access to | it...what's the problem? It certainly isn't the fact that | you're "losing out" on the sale of the photo, because | you've already forfeited your right to that. | | There's two possible answers here: | | 1) You have a moral stake in the price being $0, and wish | to protect the photo's price of $0 regardless of who's | "selling" it. It's the Arizona-Iced-Tea-only-ever-being- | sold-for-99-cents thing. And hey, I can't argue with | that. I respect that and that is of course your choice. | Though, you might have trouble _enforcing_ that price | without protecting your IP, so adhering to the tenants of | IP is still in your best interest. | | 2) The other (and I think more likely) answer: You could | sell it, you could give it away for free -- both are fine | as long as _you 're the one that's doing it._ Why? | Because it's YOUR PROPERTY. You're trying to disagree | with me, but deep down even you intuitively know that | it's wrong to do _anything_ with someone else 's | property, whether that be selling it, giving it away, | breaking it, duplicating it, stealing it, writing on it | with a marker. It's all a question of consent and who is | logically fit to give it. If I come to your house and | steal your microwave, you'd probably be _some amount_ of | pissed -- it doesn 't matter if I give it away to someone | who can't afford one, or sell it for more than you bought | it, or break it, or keep it for myself. No matter what, | you'd still be somewhere on the continuum of "pissed," | because it's _yours._ | | (Comment too long for HN, continuing in the next one...) | rewgs wrote: | (cont) | | But it's more than that, isn't it? The thing that _makes | it yours_ is _what you put into creating /acquiring it,_ | i.e. you paid for it by putting work into acquiring it | (even if you got it for free on Craigslist and the | previous owner literally drove to your doorstep and gave | it to you, you still invested a few seconds of time). How | _much_ you put into it, and in what _form,_ multiplied by | the _value you get from owning /using_ it, would likely | be commensurate with how pissed you'd be at me for | stealing your microwave. If the Craigslist guy drove it | to your house, and you didn't use it and just kept it in | storage, you probably wouldn't be all that pissed if I | stole it from you. If you purchased it brand new and it | was very expensive and took a lot of hours working, and | it also gave you a vast amount of value (perhaps it's | your first microwave after a lifetime of preparing all | food from scratch over an open fire), you'd be very, very | pissed at me, right? It's all about context -- the | context being defined by what you put into acquiring it | and what you get by owning it. | | Making a thing -- whether we classify it as "art," as we | do with film/TV/paintings/etc, or whether we classify it | as anything else, as we do with | iPhones/microwaves/chairs/etc, has no bearing on this | fact -- is literally no different. They're all | "products." The person who put the effort into realizing | it ("making it real") is the ONLY one who _can_ be argued | to own it (unless of course that ownership is knowingly | and purposefully transferred to someone else, either in | whole or in part). And thus the creator is entitled to | the act of "exploiting" it (the legal term encompassing | the act of duplicating, dispersing, selling, hopefully | profiting from, etc). | | The whole premise of Intellectual Property is that _you,_ | the _creator,_ are the only one who should be able to | decided the price of the thing you created, or whether | even to sell it _in the first place._ It is PROPERTY, and | just like all other forms of property, it really is | nothing more than a social contract. Law can enshrine it, | back it up, give mechanisms for enforcement (but the law | can of course sometimes be ineffectual, or changing times | /technology/context/etc can render certain social | contracts difficult to enforce -- as we're seeing now in | the post-piracy era). At its core, though, the concept of | property, intellectual and otherwise, rests entirely on | good faith, ethics, just like not driving on the wrong | side of the road. | | This property is "intellectual" because it's not | necessarily physical, is perhaps a little abstract, and | is the result of thinking, not building (physically; not | yet, anyway). You can't touch or taste or see it -- you | can only touch or taste or see _copies_ of the thing, or | _specifications_ of the thing in terms of schematics or | patents or whatnot. IP isn 't about the _copies_ of a | thing per se -- those are just the cookies that result | from the cookie cutter. The cookie _cutter_ here is the | valuable thing; whether or not you choose to "exploit" | the cookie cutter by creating and selling the resulting | cookies is up to you, the owner of said cookie cutter. | But if the cookies are selling for $0, then ownership of | the cookie cutter is effectively worthless too. Who cares | if you own something that can create something that's | worth $0? Which is why protecting the sale of the | _copies_ of IP is so important, as they are the only | tangible proof we have of the cookie cutter 's value. | | IP is, basically, a little business all to itself. Sure, | businesses are built _around_ IP, but they are nothing | without it. If you take away IP, the only businesses you | 're left with are services. Literally all other | businesses are based on the exploitation of _some_ IP, | because IP is essentially a business, and the copies of | the IP are essentially the products sold by the business. | When you purchase a Blu-Ray, you don 't own the movie, | but you do own the physical plastic/etc that comprises | the Blu-Ray. If someone steals your Blu-Ray, you can | technically call the cops to report stolen property (in | practice, they probably won't care, of course), but you | can't call the cops to report a stolen _movie._ No one | stole a movie from you, they stole a copy of the movie. | No one stole your cookie cutter -- they just stole your | cookie. | | Consider how often we see people on HN freak out that | they don't feel like they "own" anything anymore (it | doesn't matter whether we're talking about ads in Windows | Explorer or an artist suddenly being removed from their | music streaming service of choice). Why does that bother | them? Because they're still paying for access to it, and | this computer is sitting in their house, and with that | comes irrevocable feelings of ownership and all that | comes with it. Paying for a product entitles you to some | form of control or ownership (even if not 100%) of the | thing (or at least the right to do what you will with the | copy of the thing); paying to _create_ a product entitles | you to the money incurred by exploiting it. | | Think about just how many people on HN alone are | harboring totally incompatible thoughts, complaining | about not feeling like they own their copy of Windows, | and yet still being pro-piracy of film/TV. And then | within that you'll have some who are totally against | pirating software, some RMS level open source die-hards, | and some who only believe piracy is fine if the company | in question "deserves it," like Adobe. There's no logic | anywhere with this shit, no consistency. It's all just | unexamined feelings. | | I wonder: would you be upset if the imagined seller | decided instead to also give away your paintings/photos | for free? | | All of what I'm saying can basically be summed up as | "first principles of intellectual property," i.e. | fundamental truths, not changing, borne of logic. There | is no disrupting the business model to the extent that | any of these first principles change; these are the | basics of select parts of human nature, of markets, etc | -- the connective tissue of society that I have as much | expectation of changing as I do the Periodic Table or | Newtonian Physics (spare me the "but actually..."s, you | know what I mean). | | In light of of this whole spiel, I hope that the sentence | "I'd reconsider whether my business model of selling | photos is the right one" comes across to you as it does | to me: it sort of feels like a thief who just stole from | me saying in response, "I'd reconsider whether my model | of owning property at all is the right one," or someone | who just shot me saying, "If I were you, I'd reconsider | whether my model of living is the right one." Which, | sure, we can have that conversation if you want, but I | imagine it won't be particularly fruitful. | | What you and everyone else in this thread who's okay with | piracy are saying is: "I would rather have the tools that | enable piracy than art." The value of the tools that | enable piracy is what they give you, i.e. art. So, if | using the tools of piracy kills art, and you use the | tools of piracy because you want _access_ to art, DO NOT | ENGAGE IN PIRACY. Choose art instead, because that 's the | thing that you _really_ want. | | In a word, the only salvation out of this mess is ethics. | True, ethics is unreliable and pretty much | doesn't...happen...at scale, but as all instances of the | Prisoner's Dilemma go (and this is certainly one of | them), the only thing that breaks it is choosing to act | virtuously in spite of the potential harm involved (as | opposed to what happens when we don't choose to act | virtuously: we all but guarantee that the harm inflicted | on us is greater than it would have been had we not tried | to avoid it; the instances in which people escape | unscathed act as carrots, tempting us to act unvirtuously | in case we too can be one of the lucky ones. But the | Prisoner's Dilemma is a Whole Big Thing so I'm gonna stop | there). | | Or, keep pirating, and you'll find yourself in a world | with more and more stringent DRM, locked-down devices, | more atomic streaming services (and then mergers and | acquisitions, meaning Disney becomes even more of a | monopoly [remember that they already own Hulu], the movie | studios become property of tech giants, etc etc | etc...Either way, one day, you won't be pirating content, | but you can at least contribute to the reason why. | Stunting wrote: | The workforce's income is contractually tied to the | amount of post box office profit the film makes. When you | steal a show you get the entertainment value without cost | of your money. That is directly reflected in my income. | dml2135 wrote: | That's fair enough and I did not know that, and will | certainly take into account when making future purchasing | decisions, thank you. | | But the bottom line is, it's just not worth paying for | digital content for me, merely by knowing the fact that | it's available for free. A file has no intrinsic value, | why should I pay for it? | | I'll gladly pay for an experience, or service, such as a | movie theatre or a streaming platform that does the work | of delivering content to me. But there is so much free | stuff out there, paying to download the latest Batman | movie is simply not worth it. | [deleted] | Stunting wrote: | "When it's so easy to steal why should I pay for it." | | When you pay for things you like, more of it gets made. | dml2135 wrote: | But what if I don't like Hollywood movies, consider them | cheap crap, and don't care if more of them get made? I | just want to watch them to see what everyone else is | talking about. | Stunting wrote: | Then you are a thief who steals products that you don't | enjoy. | elenaferrantes wrote: | you are making assumptions about the prerequisites. | Talking about "income" implies that the person is viewing | a show inside a form of commercial contract like going to | a place where the show is displayed or buying a dvd or | paying a streaming plateform etc... | | Downloading a file (containing the show) from a publicly | accessible server on the internet is completely outside | of commercial contract so there's no income in the first | place. | | Authorities can decide to make it illegal to download | files from internet but it's not "stealing" | tigertigertiger wrote: | The difference is obvious. If they steal a Mercedes it's | gone, the car dealer does not have it anymore. | Stunting wrote: | when you pirate a show, no longer get the contractually | based income related to your viewing. | greatpatton wrote: | The probability of that income is quite hypothetical. | Most of the time, the person would never have payed for | it. | Stunting wrote: | and yet they consume it. Consuming goods and services | without providing money for that is...wait for it.... | | stealing. | | Not paying for things that they do not consume is voting | with their dollars. | elenaferrantes wrote: | yreg wrote: | Do you believe that if there was no piracy people who | pirate wouldn't watch paid entertainment? | kemiller wrote: | @Stunting your perspective in this thread is very | valuable, and the best thing that streaming has done, | much better than old-school bundling and certainly better | than piracy, is encourage a boom in interesting content, | and I'm very glad you and the other workers in | entertainment are getting paid. | | But flogging the tired comparison between stealing | physical objects and making illegal copies of content is | a losing argument. Everyone instinctively knows it's not | the same thing. Just because an end user gains a benefit | they didn't pay for doesn't mean it's theft. The owner | still has the content and can sell it to as many paying | customers as they like. Once the car is gone, it's gone | and unavailable to sell to someone else. Consider: what | would the auto market look like if we had Star Trek-style | replicators and could make copies of physical objects for | pennies? Let's use bikes instead. If you had the ability | to make cheap copies of a bike, would it be ethical to | deny the use of a bike to a poor farmer who could use it | to get goods to market and make their life better, when | your marginal cost is near zero? Do the needs of the R&D | people who designed the bike override that consideration? | | This is just as much of a problem for all the software | creators on here as for the content creators, though the | rise of SAAS has changed that somewhat. Content's | inherent non-scarcity is one of the best things that has | ever happened to humanity, it just happens to break our | pre-existing economic model and hurt the people who | create it. This is a fundamental shift in our economy | that's underway and we have been lurching around trying | to solve it for decades now. We need to solve it, but | pretending that it's the same as theft is just not going | to get us to a solution. | Stunting wrote: | Or we could all just admit that it's theft. | | Society being in a lurch between how we handle our | physical goods and our digital goods is a very important | subject that is going to get ironed out over the next few | generations I'm sure. | | That doesn't make it not theft, even if its' really easy | to do. | hunter2_ wrote: | Virtually every dictionary clarifies that theft requires | intent to deprive the original owner from using the | stolen item, which is incompatible with the act of making | a copy. | | As gp said, your points are valid, but you're using a | word incorrectly. Just use a different word so as not to | have dictionaries disagree with you. Copyright | infringement. | elenaferrantes wrote: | Say A makes a film. Situation 1 : B do not watch the film | a do something else. Situation 2 : B downloads the film | from P2P network and watch it. What is the difference for | A ? | bin_bash wrote: | They lost a potential sale because someone didn't have to | pay for something. | | This is obvious. It's crazy how many of you are twisting | yourself into logical knots to try to justify this | action. It's not murder, but it's clearly wrong on its | face. | elenaferrantes wrote: | The sale is not lost because it would not happen _anyway_ | | This is obvious. It's crazy how many of you are twisting | yourself into logical knots to try to qualify this action | of stealing. Righteousness is debatable, but it's clearly | not stealing. | traject_ wrote: | I don't know; it seems there is a clear learned aversion | to the word "stealing" but doesn't change the unethical | nature of the crime is equivalent to stealing royalties | deserved for the consumed work. I pirate some times sure | but I do so with the understanding that what I am doing | is unethical and try to avoid it. | | Consuming media/entertainment is no human right and if it | is too expensive/too inaccessible/whatever and you wish | to be ethical, don't pirate it in the first place. | | Humans have great difficulty controlling their impulses | especially in connection to crimes that are undetectable | and easy to perform but the honest will at least own up | to what they do. | kjs3 wrote: | Such is the state of ethics is the world. Some people can | justify anything. | expensive_news wrote: | Yes, obviously. I really don't see how one could possibly | sympathize with this argument. Say I go to a bakery and I | only "sort of" want a cookie. I'm not hungry enough to pay | for it, so I just take it, and claim "I'm not actually | stealing because I wasn't going to pay for it anyway". | | You could claim it's different with digital goods, but it's | not. Money still went into making that good (whether that's | software or a movie or even just a picture) and you're | still getting the benefits of owning that good without | paying for it. Put another way, how does not caring enough | about something entitle you to ownership? | | So you are absolutely stealing whether you would "have paid | for it" or not. | californical wrote: | What if most of my enjoyment of a cookie is looking at | all of the pretty designs and crafty details on the | cookies, and I don't actually care that much to eat them. | Is it stealing to go into a bakery and look at the | cookies, then leave? I've gotten all of my enjoyment for | free, after all! | hunter2_ wrote: | You might be satisfied, but you only consumed a component | of the work that the creator explicitly offers for free | while refraining from consuming the component that | requires payment. Just like browsing an art gallery: I'm | satisfied seeing a painting in the gallery location, | which is a freebie, and I don't care about also seeing it | in the location of my choice, which has a price tag. | danielovichdk wrote: | How much money do you make per movie ? Honest question | Stunting wrote: | I don't give out exact income on the internet. | | Our base pay is daily rate governed through SAG-Aftra CBA | with the Producer's guild and scaled off the budget of the | production. Then there are OT factors and bumps that go | along with how difficult the particular work is. | DontMindit wrote: | Disney, Paramount, CNN would eventually be held hostage to | their platform by a Spotify or Steam ... The Music business and | artists have been destroyed by Spotify | unboxingelf wrote: | Having not touched this since early days of TPB, is there a | decent overview to approaches in 2022 you could point me to? | E.g. has torrenting moved to the cloud or are most running | vpns? Asking for a friend. | malermeister wrote: | A friend can recommend bytesized hosting if you want minimal | hassle. They have installer scripts for all the most popular | tools (like the ones in parent) and it's really easy to set | up your own netflix-like experience, with Plex as the | streaming UI, deluge as the torrent client and Sonarr and | Radarr as automated torrent downloaders. | sergiotapia wrote: | Latest and greatest is "plexshares" just google that. I've | been sailing the high seas since 2002 and this is my last | stop. No fuss, no worrying about anything. Wife and kids are | very happy. | john_minsk wrote: | Wow. Thank you very much. Any advise for noobs? | sergiotapia wrote: | Find one in there that you like in your price range. I | pay $20 and have 1080p/4k remuxes. I used to spend at | least 10 hours a month managing my own Plex/Emby, the | money is well spent to me. | | Also, buy an nvidia shield tv pro. It plays everything | directly with no transcode, and handles all subtitles | effortlessly without triggering a transcode. | | I tried roku, amazon cube, apple tv, everything - the | shield is the best still despite it's age. It's flawless. | Supermancho wrote: | rarbg.to is the popular index site. Bittorrent, the purple | client. My smart TVs can access my PC's dedicated media | directory - which took a bit of fiddling to get right. The | big drawback is a lack of subtitles, unless they are baked in | to the rip. | | I still have Netflix and Prime Video (because of AMZ Prime). | I have thought about dropping Netflix more than a few times | after the price hike. | cercatrova wrote: | I wouldn't recommend BitTorrent/mTorrent, they're now run | by a Chinese cryptocurrency company and have ads. | | qBittorrent is an open source alternative that also has my | favorite feature, downloading a file in sequential order so | as to stream it immediately rather than waiting until it | all finishes downloading. | 8ytecoder wrote: | I'd recommend checking your local library for their DVDs. | Mine has a pretty good collection. | colechristensen wrote: | The search term you're looking for is "seedbox". | unboxingelf wrote: | I have heard this term and briefly looked into it. My | takeaway was it's a vps with prebaked software/config | offered by shady looking providers. Is that roughly correct | or did I get lost in adwords? | tblt wrote: | Unlike your standard VPS hosts (DigitalOcean etc.), a | good seedbox host will take your inevitable DMCA notices | and file them in the shredder. | colechristensen wrote: | Basically, you'll find ones with fast storage with big | storage for reasonable prices and that are... explicitly | sanctioning this use case. And I'd bet the competent ones | specifically design their network and client settings for | good performance. In professional settings getting good | large storage performance is sometimes a struggle or | expensive. | | I've thought about using them for non-shady data storage | and transfer given the price and performance. Nothing | sensitive which wasn't encrypted, obviously. | rsync wrote: | All the cool kids discuss seed boxes, etc., at a forum | named "lowendtalk". | | It's not my crowd but it's interesting... | gruez wrote: | >You get the benefit of high quality (true 4k, not stream | compressed "4k") | | Where do you think pirates get their source content from? Sure | if it's a movie with a blu-ray release there's a 4k high | bitrate source, but if it's a netflix original the "stream | compressed 4k" is the only version available. | cercatrova wrote: | Yes but a physical file does not buffer once fully | downloaded, and I can upscale via mpv filters or madVR if | needed. | [deleted] | me551ah wrote: | This is exactly what I use. Throw all this on a good quality | seed box and you have your own machine on the cloud. | JanisErdmanis wrote: | Since the rise of streaming services it have been surprisingly | hard to get older and less popular content as less people are | seeding. Also seems there are stringent laws present for | content sharing than it was 10 years ago. I doubt that content | piracy will come back in the way it was so that an ordinary | citizen could say "It's easier just to pirate". | sylware wrote: | ... and you are not forced to use those grotesquely and | absurdely massive and complex google(blink/geeko) or | apple(webkit) based browsers (and their SDKs), in other words, | open source drm software which is "obfuscated" via complexity | and size: you can use the media player you like, and in my case | _my_ shmol media player _I_ wrote (using ffmpeg). This issue is | actually critical as it is not really piracy as it narrows down | to the right to have interoperabitily with technically | reasonable and sensible software. | ehsankia wrote: | Hell, even those browsers only get 720p... | bageljr wrote: | Gecko isn't google its Mozilla, all you have to do is change | the search engine. But the rest is all correct | sngz wrote: | I haven't had netflix subscription for years now since they | stopped carrying movies and TV shows other networks had and | shifted towards producing their own shows. I'm not interested in | any of their original series / movies and just used it to avoid | going to the movie theater and watching TV ads. | cpt1138 wrote: | I think I would pay for all these services for content if I could | be assured of watching the content how I want. I don't like the | monthly fees, but Ill put up with it, I prefer the rental model | and I'm willing to wait (like we used to for rentals). That said | the way I want to watch content is downloaded for offline | viewing, on our projector, with the sound split since my wife is | hard of hearing and likes the sound going directly to her hearing | aids. The content providers see that as pirating and disable it. | Its frustrating to find that out, when you are no longer anywhere | with service (the reason for the downloading the first place) and | can't do anything about it. Netflix has worked like that for a | while and the problem is finding good content. Amazon Prime | "works" and is the rental model and I like that the best. Disney | does not work at all. And I cant be bothered to try every service | to see if it works like that. I would love an aggregator and | would be happy to pay monthly if they could provide EVERYTHING. | In the meantime, Ill often even pay for the content somehow and | then pirate it to watch it how I want. | aneil wrote: | I thought I was alone when I unsubbed. I couldn't believe | everyone was watching the trash Netflix was churning out. I take | their decline as a positive statement about humanity. | brewdad wrote: | For those trying to justify piracy (and, yes, I have been and | probably will be an occasional pirate myself) would you consider | it acceptable to sneak into a theater without buying a ticket if | there were empty seats? | | Why or why not? | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Fun thought experiment. | | Clear violation of private REAL property. I think a lot think | INTELLECTUAL property is rent seeking. | ElectronShak wrote: | Netflix should just get live soccer content, massive massive | market! | treis wrote: | These suggestions are pretty weak. Mostly boil down to making | better stuff for cheaper. Which is obvious and something everyone | is trying. | | IMHO, Netflix is the classic .com company where they think they | can do everything better than the incumbents. That's true when | there is a paradigm technology shift (internet ordering and then | streaming). But it's almost never true when you're talking about | core competencies. | wtetzner wrote: | > Mostly boil down to making better stuff for cheaper. | | I wonder if they'd be better off making better quality content, | but less of it. | standardUser wrote: | Readers here love to crap all over Netflix, but it's still the | service I use most. Yes, the movie selection is lackluster and | yes, they make a lot of mediocre shows (though often for niches | where fans of that content may have few other options). But they | also make some of my favorite shows of all time like Bojack | Horseman, Big Mouth and Sex Education. And they've revived some | of my favorite content of all time like Arrested Development, W/ | Bob & David and Wet Hot American Summer (with mixed results, but | still). Not to mention a lot of fringy comedy that may have | otherwise never been produced, like I Think You Should Leave, | Aunty Donna and Middleditch and Schwartz. | | And they've brought content into the mainstream (in the US) that | we otherwise may have never seen, like Black Mirror and Squid | Games. | | Throw in some flagship nature documentaries, a ton of stand up | specials and the occasional cultural phenomenon like Stranger | Things and I still feel like Netflix is easily worth the cost. | And just because they produce a lot of crap doesn't negate any of | the above. There is no number of Adam Sandler movies that will | change how much I loved Michael Bolton's Big, Sexy Valentine's | Day Special. | tomjen3 wrote: | The reason you used to have Netflix was that you could binge | watch old shows. As Netflix lost the license to these many | seasons deep shows and replaced them with single seasons of just | a handful of episodes people got less and less out of it, but it | became much more expensive for Netflix and so they raised their | price. | | We need a 'must-license' system for TV-shows and movies, so that | any movie that is available on one streaming service must be | available to any other streaming service for the same terms. No | doubt this will not mean that all movies are available on all | streaming services, but it will mean that there will be actual | competition. | rednerrus wrote: | This is a case of disruption being too disruptive. They stuck | with their disruptive models instead of adopting the parts of the | older model that were working. Binging is great but it's hell on | getting people to come back every week and continue to build the | buzz for shows. | | Squid game was huge and should have been a monster pole to | hammock off of for months. The conversation about Squid Game | should still be goin on... | | Killing off shows because they're not bringing in new users is a | terrible idea. | | Their tech is great but the running a network aspect was pretty | terrible. | mkl95 wrote: | I unsubbed for two major reasons: | | 1. Netflix is boring | | 2. Their recommendation algorithms didn't solve 1. | | The root cause of it all is their odd focus on expensive | originals over third party content. Their catalogue is just not | deep enough if you remove all the subpar content. Before using | Netflix I engaged in massive piracy for over ten years, and I'm | considering it again - this time in smaller amounts, because I | don't have that much free time anymore. | garciasn wrote: | In addition to these things: the way the force us to browse | content is awful and it's been copied by all of the vendors. | Netflix and Prime are particularly terrible because of the | volume of content, much of it absolute garbage, they have | online. | | 1. I want to find my own shit with filters, not by scrolling | through endless reams of D- grade cable TV quality shows. | | 2. I want major efforts from networks and studios, not homemade | content. I know I may be in the minority here, but I strongly | prefer HBOMax right now (which I get for 'free' with my phone | plan) because the content is aligned here coupled with their | own solid content, not D+ grade self-created content. | thadjo wrote: | Came here to say the same. I cancelled two months back and I | really don't miss it. On the other hand if HBOMax hiked their | prices to $30/mo I wouldn't blink. | | For me I associate the big red "N" with bad content. So when I | open Netflix and see the red "N" plastered on every thumbnail | the algo serves up, I immediately wanted to close the app. I | eventually felt tired of batting away their originals to find | good content so I unsubscribed. | | I don't know how many other people actually feel the same way, | but it seems pretty clear to me that their subscriber base | doesn't like Netflix's original content as much as Netflix | does. | JaimeThompson wrote: | I would have kept Netflix but I got tired of being up charged for | 4k content and because they are unable to make dark areas look | like anything other than a blocky mess. | nojs wrote: | This may be country-specific but here the Netflix catalogue is | _really_ bad. It's basically only good if you're really bored and | happy to watch whatever they recommend (usually their originals). | If you have something in mind and search for it, it's almost | never available. | 0xTJ wrote: | The entire TV/movie streaming industry is pushing the world back | to a cable-like one, and that's already pushing people back to | pirating. There are a lot of people who were content to pay for a | couple services, but even without any sports, you can easily be | paying for 3 streaming services for ~$60, just to get content | that used to be on Netflix (plus whatever's been released since). | Once you add one or two sports, you can be looking at prices | above $100 per month. | elicash wrote: | Why not just have one streaming service at a time? Each has an | absurd amount of content so just switch it up every few months. | You get to watch everything and it's super inexpensive. | | Sports are trickier of course. | olex wrote: | This is what I do. When the "to watch" list of shows I got | recommended or am otherwise interested in watching on one of | the services gets a few items on it, I buy a month of | subscription and immediately cancel. Then watch the stuff | during the month, and some time later get another month of a | different service. This has been working great for the past | couple years. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > you can easily be paying for 3 streaming services for ~$60 | | You can easily buy and cancel what you want when you want, so | that is the not cable-like development. | | I do not see why people should fee they are owed all the | content in the world for $x. | | The important part is the creator/curator/seller of the content | and the purchaser of the content are not held hostage by a | monopoly/monopsony distributor. | chrisan wrote: | > I do not see why people should fee they are owed all the | content in the world for $x. | | People just want to pay for what they want. What is so hard | about that? | | I don't want cable with 500 channels of no interest. I also | don't want to deal with subscribe/cancel 20 services as shows | come and go. | | Just make it simple ffs. | mywittyname wrote: | A lot of content can be purchased outright on several | different platforms. | | It's $40/season, but it's available. | lowbloodsugar wrote: | While I myself have purchased many seasons of TV, I | should caution you that none of it can be "purchased | outright" on these platforms. Your account can be | cancelled at any time, and you then lose access with no | recourse. "Purchasing outright" requires buying physical | media, and even then, disc players are becoming | dangerously niche. | anecd0te wrote: | > What is so hard about that? | | Media companies have been using the value of "content you | want to watch" to subsidize "content you don't know you | want to watch" for about a century now, the back catalogs | are what will keep you paying but that only retains value | so long as new content can be added to it. | rekoil wrote: | If people really start doing that en-masse, then the next | thing the streaming services will implement is that | cancellation means you lose access immediately. | [deleted] | lotsofpulp wrote: | Then I will set a reminder on my phone to cancel before | next renewal. Or if too troublesome, I will just pay for | the specific episode or show or movie. | | Or if the price is too high, I will find something better | to do with my time. Same as every other entertainment | option in life. | oceanplexian wrote: | > I do not see why people should fee they are owed all the | content in the world for $x. | | Why do actors and movie studios, producers, and glorified | CDNs/streaming services think they are entitled to tens of | millions of dollars for producing a TV show? They create | mindless entertainment for society and yet they are so highly | compensated. Yeah, I don't feel like I owe them anything. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > Why do actors and movie studios, producers, and glorified | CDNs/streaming services think they are entitled to tens of | millions of dollars for producing a TV show? | | Because that is the agreement they made for selling their | labor/services/content to the buyers of the | labor/services/content. | | > I don't feel like I owe them anything. | | Correct, you do not owe them anything. | toomanyrichies wrote: | "Mindless" is a subjective term. Millions of people enjoy | the entertainment you refer to, as judged by the fact that | they go to the cinema and pay for admission. That's why | they're so highly-compensated. | | If you don't see the value in the entertainment those | companies provide, you're probably not the target audience. | bcrosby95 wrote: | They aren't entitled to it. They get it because that's what | most people are willing to pay. | 0des wrote: | lotsofpulp wrote: | > it is easy to see how a family of frogs is slowly boiled | back into having an expensive "entertainment package" as if | it were the old cable days again, | | It is not easy to see for me. If you want access to all the | content all at once, then pay up. | | If you want access to specific content at the specific time | you want, then pay then, watch, and cancel the subscription | if there was one. | | This latter option was not available before, and it is now. | I am loving the new system which cuts out the middleman | (cable/satellite tv) that was able to jerk around both me | and the content seller. | | The next problem needing to be solved is reducing copyright | length to 10 years or so. That is what will make the price | of content go down by increasing the number of content | sellers. | aww_dang wrote: | Buy a subscription. Then get a VPN so they don't force me | to watch things from the wrong country. Then dislike the | political narrative forced on me? Or just click through | to some streaming site and close a few popups? | Markoff wrote: | > The entire TV/movie streaming industry is pushing the world | back to a cable-like one, and that's already pushing people | back to pirating. | | Downloading video content for your own consumption is not | technically pirating in many EU countries and it's perfectly | legal (not so much uploading/hosting it). While in same EU | countries would be already torrenting (distributing) it | illegal, so you are safe only with DDL. | | But yeah, fragmentation of market killed it for end consumer. | grayfaced wrote: | All these services are going for the strategy of a couple big | releases and hope people forget to cancel. But now with a dozen | different services consumers are being forced to learn to swap | in and out. | | Once they swap into a good pirate solution, it'll be very hard | to get them to swap out. | JKCalhoun wrote: | We're being nickeled and dimed to death. | | Where I live now there is an insane number of carwashes -- | and more being built. Apparently they're a "subscription | service" like 24-hour gyms, etc... | jimmar wrote: | Lots of people are complaining about terrible content on Netflix. | Years ago, Netflix was praised for its "long tail"--basically it | could have content that appealed to people with diverse | interests. But it seems like people now see the long tail as | useless junk and would prefer a shorter tail with more | concentrated quality. | robonerd wrote: | Netflix _had_ a long tail, when it was a DVD rental service. | Netflix streaming has never had a long tail and definitely don | 't now. They presently have less than 4000 movies, including | all their 'originals' (which should probably be called | 'derivatives'.) This is scarcely a long tail as far as I'm | concerned. I cancelled my account years ago because there was | nothing I wanted to watch. I realized I spent two or three | times as much time browsing the catalogue as actually watching | something, and half the time I was settling for something I'd | already seen. Nothing I've seen or heard even remotely tempts | me to come back. | nikanj wrote: | The long tail I want: movies/shows made in the 80s, your | friends might recognize the name. The long tail netflix has: | made last year in Romania, nobody has ever heard of it. | sct202 wrote: | If Netflix would make it more obvious what is junk vs not I | think it would be a more enjoyable experience. Right now I have | to keep switching from their app to cast and IMDB/Google/Rotten | Tomatoes to figure out if something just has a rough start or | is just bad. | listless wrote: | Apple TV seems to do this well. Too many choices appears to be | just as bad as no choices. I don't go to Netflix because | there's just too much. It literally makes my anxiety rise just | being in there. | regularfry wrote: | Long tail works as long as the people in the tail can find the | content relevant to them. If browsing and search is bad enough | that it doesn't seem to be there, it might as well not be. | itronitron wrote: | Their UI, or the service itself, is also flaky. It's fairly | common for us to start watching a series and the next day | Netflix will show us as having already watched all of the | episodes, despite our changing to a complex password and also | not enough hours passing for us to have watched them all. I | wonder if they are juicing the numbers for some reason or if | it's just an error. | hatchnyc wrote: | > It's fairly common for us to start watching a series and | the next day Netflix will show us as having already watched | all of the episodes | | Wildly off-topic but perhaps you're turning off a TV | without the streaming device itself shutting down? | itronitron wrote: | I suppose it's possible that their auto-play feature is | doing it. Most of our Netflix use is on a laptop so if | the browser tab isn't closed maybe it keeps streaming the | auto-play, although I haven't checked for that. | matwood wrote: | Netflix lost a lot of good long tail content when networks | pulled their old content to form the foundations of their own | streaming platforms. For example, The Office. | marcosdumay wrote: | > But it seems like people now see the long tail as useless | junk | | Hum... It's not that. It's just that it's impossible to access | the long tail of Netflix content. | leothecool wrote: | US growth is saturated. They raised the price 10%. They lost less | than 1% of subscribers. What's the problem? | sudden_dystopia wrote: | Interesting analysis. | | I find it interesting that so many people spend so much time | watching tv in the first place. Growing up, I was one of those | people but about a decade ago I lost interest in pretty much | anything on television. There are certain shows that I will watch | on occasion that get me hooked, but I usually struggle to find | anything that is actually worth my time and end up just turning | the tv off after surfing the streaming options for 10 minutes. It | boggles my mind when I hear things like "golden age" of content. | Sure there is a ton of content, but it's all so vapid. | stack_framer wrote: | This is exactly how I feel. Even after years of this, I'm still | amazed at how much is available, and how little of it I | actually want to watch. | MivLives wrote: | During quarantine I switched to mostly movies. They require | more singular focus (it's harder to watch a movie while doing | other things), don't really have the binging problem (2 hour | and done instead of just continually extensions of 45 minutes), | and are generally higher quality. I've seen some very good | (Memories, Son of the White Mare), some very bad (I went | through a Bakshi phase), and overall decided I prefer this to | watching yet another sitcom or graphic novel adaptation on tv. | mackrevinack wrote: | movies can also better adapt to be a bit shorter or longer | depending on whether the story calls for it. | | something i notice myself thinking after i finish most tv | shows i watch is: "that really could have been shorter". it | might be some parts of an episode could have been trimmed | down or in some cases even multiple episodes of a season. | | i don't think this is exactly surprising either considering | the rigid schedule of most tv shows to fit a story into 45 | minutes slot and a set number of episodes per season | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I'm the opposite of you. From age 20 to about age 45, I did not | watch TV at all. Part of that was because I grew up in the UK, | and the experience I had with the BBC (and a bit of Channel 4 | and very occasionally ITV) made US TV just look stupid to me. | Endless stupid ads, laugh tracks, completely unrealistic | characters, dumb plots, and more endless stupid ads. | | Then ... Netflix arrived. I started watching a few of the shows | that people raved about from their days on network TV, and I | realized that the biggest problem was ... endless stupid ads. | Which Netflix did not have. I became willing to try out HBO | from time to time, got in Battlestar Galactica, and of course | in 2014, True Detective showed up on HBO. In 2019, I discovered | Deadwood (at that point nearly a decade old), a more or less | Shakespearian epic of 19th century US history. Over the past | decade, I've discovered so many truly worth shows - and I | haven't event started on The Wire yet! | | On top of that, Netflix has given me access to several UK shows | (Luther, for example, but also Grand Designs (now, thankfully, | on Youtube)) that have rounded out the menu. | | I understand that aesthetic choices with TV shows are very | personal, but I can honestly say that I now absolutely believe | that "TV" (ala the new streaming services and/or their | presentation of material without ads) can be a medium for | stellar story telling. I would like it if we had a few more | defined "limited series" where there's a story already known, | with a beginning, middle and end (True Detective and Mare of | Eastttown are great examples of this (as long as they do not | ruin Mare by making a sequel). And sure, there are some TV | series that really would have been better as a film. | Nevertheless, the ability to spend 8-16 hours with compelling | characters is big positive to me. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | I only use Netflix and Prime, and both feel really stale to me. | It's all "content" - good to very good production values | designed to fill a gap and appeal to a demographic. But very | repetitive and production line, with no passion projects, | nothing too arty or quirky, nothing outside of the box, no | _surprises._ | | Some of it is quite watchable, but none of it is exciting or | fresh. It's all some combination of stock soapy characters and | themes in stock genre settings, usually with some | comedy/sex/violence/horror added for stickiness. | | Netflix could easily throw some money at graduate film makers | and say 'Make something no one has seen before.' That might or | might not help retention, but it's hard to shake the feeling | Netflix are deliberately aiming for the middle of the bell | curve as creative policy, and missing opportunities to lead | instead of trying to play it safe. | [deleted] | saltminer wrote: | I think Netflix's big problem is I'll occasionally discover | something amazing, and then look at the release date and | wonder "why did it take so long to find this?" | | If the experience browsing their catalog wasn't so awful, I'd | be more inclined to try and use the service. Instead, after | I've finished something good, I don't tend to come back to | Netflix for awhile - it's easier to just watch stuff on | Youtube because I know how to navigate it, the search works | well, and the recommendations are actually decent. | | I remember a couple weeks ago, Blade Runner 2049 was the | first thing that popped up when I logged into Netflix. I was | so happy to see it there, but when I went back the next night | to watch it, it wasn't there (which is fine, the homepage | isn't static). So I went to search for it, and "Blade Runner" | returned nothing relevant (nor did "Blade Runner 2049"). I | had to search "2049" to find it, and after the movie ended, | Netflix recommended the first Blade Runner (which also didn't | show up in any of my searches). | | The search isn't always this bad (both Blade Runner movies | show up in search the way I would expect them to now), but | still...even when I know something great is on Netflix, it | can be an utter pain to get to. It's like they're trying to | get me to go with the mediocre recommendations instead of | watching the good stuff that I know is on there. | | It's so annoying that if I was the one paying for it, I'd | cancel my subscription. And I remember things used to be a | lot better, which just makes it all the more frustrating when | looking for something good. | 1minusp wrote: | This exactly. Across a LOT of their anime, crime drama | espcially (in my limited view, probably applies to other | genres as well), I feel they have this minor variation on a | theme, sort of algorithmically built, almost. Everytime i | watch some new series i get this "wait a minute..." feeling. | I occasionally find new stuff to watch that is interesting | (of late, noir crime drama shows on Prime) but those also | have the same ingredients. A lot of those are not prime | original anyway. That original content seems rare. | 111111101101 wrote: | > But very repetitive and production line, with no passion | projects, nothing too arty or quirky, nothing outside of the | box, no surprises. | | I'm getting the feeling that Apple TV+ is where it's at for | this type of content. Severance was particularly good. | vikingerik wrote: | I feel what you say too, that all the content feels samey. | But I'll offer a suggestion that works for me: try some | animation. That's where you get the passion projects that can | feel _different_. Animated characters and settings can be far | more expressive and varied and fresh, compared to the stock | sameyness you get from live action. | | The new She-Ra on Netflix was the best thing I've watched in | quite some time. It's not a kiddie show, it works for all | ages, think like Pixar movies. Other great cartoons across a | variety of streaming services: Steven Universe, Gravity | Falls, Owl House, Star Trek Lower Decks, also the more | mainstream Bob's Burgers. If you want something fresh to | watch, try animation. | dv_dt wrote: | I have a similar experience with respect to watching | foreign produced content. It's interesting because they | present different approaches to the shows and even if | they're using entertainment tropes they can be different | enough because they're tropes of that nation. | | But once I watched a few, Netflix filled my entire | recommendation catalog with almost all e.g. Turkish and | Korean shows. Pretty annoying as it's like ordering an ice | cream dessert, then the only thing the menu ever shows is | all ice cream desserts. It makes me think part of people | feeling it's all the same is that the recommendation | optimization is overbearing in shoveling too much of more | of the same recent history vs presenting a mix of | recommendation and discovery. | 10729287 wrote: | I guess this is the cons of being such a data oriented | company. It requires guts to think beyond ROI when you have | so much infos about your users and their habits. | nradov wrote: | Data oriented optimization strategies tend to result in | local maximums. Jumping across the solution space from a | local maximum to the global maximum requires a visionary | leader, and some luck. | GLGirty wrote: | You're right, but Netflix has been punished for taking risks. | Look at the spike in churn rate with the release of 'cuties': | https://thestreamable.com/news/report-netflix- | saw-3-6-millio... | motogpjimbo wrote: | Throwing money at graduate filmmakers and telling them to | follow their passions would all but guarantee a catalogue | full of $CURRENT_DAY political messaging, which would be | poison for subscriber retention. | 8organicbits wrote: | Dont throw all the money there, just some to have some | unique, quirky, passionate, fresh content. Surely people | can skip titles they don't like. | npongratz wrote: | > ... would all but guarantee a catalogue full of | $CURRENT_DAY political messaging, which would be poison for | subscriber retention. | | Seems to me that's what they already have; which upon | reflection, is indeed probably why they're currently having | problems with subscriber retention. | ethanbond wrote: | I think there's so _much_ content that even with a very low hit | rate, there 's more than enough to entertain yourself to death. | For example, the 18 hour Vietnam War documentary by Ken Burns | is itself enough to burn a month or so of TV time. | alexilliamson wrote: | +1 for Vietnam. And Jazz. And The West. There is something | about starting a Ken Burns series that is super relaxing, and | releases the pressure to find the "perfect thing" to watch | for the next 10-20 hours. | | Vietnam is particularly amazing. Shout out to the Trent | Reznor soundtrack too. | slfnflctd wrote: | The West is pretty depressing, though, as it's mostly about | the horrific treatment of the indigenous people of North | America. I've been putting off the Vietnam one for similar | reasons. Not exactly what I think of as relaxing. | | Jazz and Country Music are definitely more digestible, I | finished both and was glad I did. Baseball is also actually | pretty chill & enjoyable, even for someone who never had | more than a passing interest in the sport. | f0e4c2f7 wrote: | I don't watch stuff unless it has ended and is reccomended by | someone who watches shows I generally enjoy. Here's my pitch | for the golden age of TV, though most of these are from a few | years back. Most on HBO. | | The Wire | | The Sopranos | | Generation Kill | | The Deuce | | Treme | | Show me a Hero | | Luck | | The Expanse | | Sillicon Valley (not actually that funny but like a documentary | of our field) | | Mad Men | usefulcat wrote: | Deadwood. Re-watching it now after 10+ years and am (again) | impressed. Given the abundance of -isms in that show, I'm | doubtful it would even be made today, which makes it even | more of a find. | declnz wrote: | Yes. Though stepping back a little further, I'd add (with | some qualification): | | 24 (which perhaps opened my eyes to TV overtaking film in new | ways) Lost Buffy | | And then further still: | | The X Files This Life (UK only?) | cm2012 wrote: | I'd add Arcane on Netflix, which is also on the top 20 shows | of all time on IMBD. | zeroonetwothree wrote: | I think Arcane is probably the worst scripted show I've | ever watched. It makes me immediately skeptical of ratings. | My only hypothesis is that everyone enjoying it has never | read a book. | jimmyjazz14 wrote: | Its basically a live action comic book and it does that | well though its not everyone's thing. | saltminer wrote: | And if you like Arcane, I'd recommend She-Ra and the | Princesses of Power (also on Netflix). | loudmax wrote: | Obviously any such list is subjective, but I have are a few | strong contenders for inclusion. | | Breaking Bad | | Narcos | | Battlestar Galactica | | And some weaker contenders: Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, | Crash and Burn | cm2012 wrote: | And I think Better Call Saul is even better than Breaking | Bad | mywittyname wrote: | You are not alone. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | So, I see this and think "ooh, BG, I'd watch that again". | Then I think, how do I find it, will I need a new | subscription, it's probably not even available in my | geographical area ... or I could probably go to a Torrent | site and be watching it in 5 minutes (the limitation being | the speed of my internet connection). | | As copyright is system granted by the demos I'd love to | force federation by creating a 'most-favoured nation'-type | deal where if you offer content to one delivery company you | have to make it available to all (maybe after a 1 year | exclusivity period) for the same price. Under such a regime | everyone gets paid but artificial monopolies are restricted | (such monopolies don't help the _demos_ so why allow | copyright to be used to create them??). | | The proliferation of content provider apps is getting silly | and we should mould copyright to serve the people. | f0e4c2f7 wrote: | I've never heard of crash and burn I'll check it out! | | Waiting on stranger things to end | | I enjoyed Breaking Bad, Narcos, Battlestar, and some of the | game of thrones seasons. | | If you liked Narcos you might also like ZeroZeroZero. It's | a miniseries on Amazon with really high production value. | jeffdn wrote: | Band of Brothers? Succession? Severance? | mackrevinack wrote: | true detective, season 1 | danielbln wrote: | Under all that muck, you aren't seeing the nuggets. A great | example is Severance which came out just this year (Apple+) and | it's a masterpiece, from cinematography to high concept to | acting. We live in a golden age because there is something for | everyone, but that also means there is a lot of trash. Luckily, | there are also more gems available now than ever before. | nradov wrote: | Sure there's good content, but I'm not going to commit to yet | another monthly fee. If there was a way to buy a season of a | particular show for a one-time fee then I might do that. | Amazon offers that option for some shows. | CamelCaseName wrote: | My belief is that, like any media, there is a massive backlog | of good content. | | When you get through the part of the backlog you enjoy, you | have to either wait for content you enjoy to come out (slow!) | or explore less enjoyable (to you) content. | | Back in high school, I felt "behind" in my cultural wisdom, so | I spent an entire summer watching a huge list of TV shows and | movies. | | Now, shows I truly enjoy are few and far between, because I've | seen so much of the good content in my favorite genres already. | JKCalhoun wrote: | My belief is that when I am 85 and barely functioning | physically, I will have ample time to catch up on the "good | content". | | I hear _The Wire_ is /was a good show. We'll see.... | 8note wrote: | There's one challenge with that. Your eyes might not work | very well when you're 85 | CapmCrackaWaka wrote: | Agreed, I never watch TV unless it's, weirdly enough, a social | setting. My wife and I watch TV together all the time, we have | shows that we like to enjoy together and talk about. My | roommates and I would watch TV together all the time in | college, and every now and then there will be a show that I'll | go to my friends houses to watch (game of thrones). But now | that I think about it, I don't think I've watched a TV show by | myself in over 20 years. | JKCalhoun wrote: | I haven't "watched television" in over 20 years. At the same | time, the internet (YouTube to a large degree) has crept in to | steal away my time. | | I am thankful though that YouTube sucked so bad for so long | because I spent a lot of time with my kids when they were | young, reading to them, biking with them, taking them on road | trips. Cutting the cord was the idea when my first daughter was | born - to have the kids grow up without television (we would | put on over-the-air PBS kid's shows when they were young but it | was pretty much only hotels stays when they would see _Sponge | Bob_ or whatever, ha ha). | fullstop wrote: | I'm in the same boat, I cut the cord in 2008 and truly feel | that my kids had a better experience as youths. Having cable | tv in a hotel was a huge deal for them, although they didn't | really understand commercials. | JKCalhoun wrote: | Ha ha, yeah my kids were shocked by the repetition and | onslaught of commercials. "How does anyone watch this?" | they asked. Yeah. | 8fingerlouie wrote: | I've never been into "flow tv", and about 2 decades ago i | simply stopped watching anything but the news, and that only | for 30-60 minutes per day, and shortly after that i simply read | the news on the internet and completely stopped watching | "normal" tv. | | Since then, i've only had streaming services, and my | consumption is somewhere around 3-5 45 minute episodes per | week. I have watched maybe 4 normal length movies since i had | kids 13 years ago, and zero "extended length" (3 hours'ish) | movies. | | Recently though, i find myself to be even more picky. These | days i still watch 3-5 episodes per week, but my viewing is | usually done late friday and saturday evening, and the rest of | the week i generally prefer a good book instead. | | In April alone, i've watched 5 x 45 minute episodes in total, | and read 3 books of 800 pages or more, so perhaps i'm coming | full circle :) | acd10j wrote: | I think one of the main reasons for netflix troubles is | competition catching up. With such a huge historical library | Disney is killing Netflix at one extreme, and HBO max and prime | on another. There is nothing unique that netflix offers. | Occasionally few good shows but no lasting property. | vmception wrote: | > Instead of producing two mediocre shows and an algorithmically | designed movie every single week | | Thank you. The only reason I break my Netflix embargo (and log | into my profile on a friends account) is so I know what some | viral meme is about. | | Nobody[1] talks about or remembers shows from there two weeks | later. | | [1] this is hyperbole validated by 200,000 - 2,000,000 others | seeing the light | 8fingerlouie wrote: | > Instead of producing two mediocre shows and an | algorithmically designed movie every single week | | I'm actually kinda torn about that statement. While i usually | prefer shows by other studios for quality, i've watched some | Netflix Originals that were rather good, and especially some | "foreign language" ones that i would most likely never have | watched otherwise. | | Most of the Netflix Originals are not huge budget productions, | but especially their foreign stuff sometimes proves that less | is more. They tell interesting stories in "good enough" | settings for them to be enjoyable. | vmception wrote: | nothing precludes Netflix from having great content, their | quantity over quality model is annoying. The "stars" or | "match" of recommended content has no basing on the enjoyment | by other users as it is purely algorithmic while having the | visual component of looking like reviews. They try to induce | fear-of-missing-out with their trending list, which I also | don't trust due to the likelihood of it not involving any | humans at all like their other feature. People catch on and | walk away. | 8note wrote: | Algorithmically designed movies are pretty good though. | | Every Pixar movie is exactly the same, and they're all great. | It's a good formula. My problem with movies is that they're | built for two many audiences. Pick China xor America, and the | will be more enjoyable to watch | slackfan wrote: | The huge thing that's causing this is the fact that they just | nuked all Russian subscribers. They had been heavily expanding | into that market and competing pretty well, but now, well. Yeah. | martin_drapeau wrote: | Netflix is kind of stuck. They don't have expansion revenue and | therefore growth prospects are limited to increasing | subscriptions against now a very competitive, and almost | commoditized market. | | The writing was on the wall that Disney+, HBO Max, etc would be | attacking them and taking away customers. | | Those legacy businesses have other sources of revenue and | streaming is their future. They have the means to keep their | prices low for many years to fuel growth. | | Not sure what Netflix can do to continue growing. Then again, | they managed to switch from DVD to streaming years ago. It was | rough, they made mistakes but overcame them. Looking forward to | see what they do. | throwaway4837 wrote: | NFLX lost the past 5 years of growth. I suspect more tech stocks | will (and many already have) follow this as the market corrects. | tomlin wrote: | The idea that it would grow for infinity time was the real | problem here. We should expect ups in downs in a business. | Economics is supposed to work like that. | Havoc wrote: | I think there is also a wider subscription fatigue at play here. | Please are starting to realise that all those PS10 add up | thepasswordis wrote: | Netflix stuff has just come to feel so...sanitary. It's like they | have an enforced style of wardrobe and cinematography or | something. It all just feels kindof the same. | | Even shows like Ozark have this very "netflixy" feel to them. | | The sense I got when Netflix started going original content was | that it was the place for creatives to go and flex their muscles. | They could do really weird stuff like Sense8 or The OA (both | absolutely _top_ tier stories in my opinion). | | But now, I have come to expect that no shows will ever go | anywhere (story wise) that is interesting. No boundries will be | pushed, just bland kindof all the same background stuff. It's too | bad, because some of the early stuff was really cool. | throwaway24124 wrote: | Anecdotal evidence, but I hear similar complaints from friends, | and I think that the "netflixy" feel is going to be the single | biggest downfall for the company. Netflix requires all original | content must be filmed with a true 4K UHD sensor, and because | these productions are all using the same powerful digital | camera, these shows are all filmed with cheap low lighting | setups, since these powerful new cameras require a lot less | light to capture a scene (think of the newer iphone cameras and | how they perform much better in low light). Whereas older non- | netflix shows filmed on different cameras with much more | powerful stage lighting setups. | | The result is that all these new netflix-produced shows like | Ozarks all look super flat and similar. Most scenes are very | poorly lit, which leads to a really poor experience when | watching on a laptop or tablet. I don't think all viewers are | consciously realizing it, but I think this is why many people | are getting "bored" of netflix shows. | | https://www.fastcompany.com/90653850/why-netflix-movies-look... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-22 23:00 UTC)