(no title)
dstick | 2 years ago
That's the thing isn't it? It was convenient when streaming first came on the scene. Everything in one place. "I'll gladly pay for the convenience". After roughly a decade it's approaching the state where it's as fractured as before, but now you pay a lot more - all services combined. So I'm not surprised it's growing again.
nehal3m|2 years ago
It seems purposely obtuse to me, to nickel and dime. And even if I do pay extra to 'buy' a movie, the Sony debacle has shown that I can't assume I can watch stuff that I have bought indefinitely.
WithinReason|2 years ago
https://www.justwatch.com
https://reelgood.com/
bluescrn|2 years ago
Need to save some money? - First thing to cut back on is entertainment-related subscriptions.
e12e|2 years ago
It's easier to find the media on a pirate site, than to try to guess which service has streaming rights for a show or movie in my country.
zxt_tzx|2 years ago
Furthermore, whereas we hardly rewatch the same movies, we constantly re-listen to the same music we first encountered in our adolescence (nobody can convince me that the 90s is not the pinnacle of pop music). This makes things like playlists a lot more valuable and sticky.
I am not particularly ideological about copyright/piracy one way or another, but I know I probably won't be pirating music anytime soon.
nicoco|2 years ago
And yet, if musicians being able to pay the bills is your concern, saving what you pay to spotify and buying a few albums on bandcamp instead is possibly the way to go.
From https://neurodifferent.me/@clowncollege/109994297731928004 :
> I've been a professional musician since the end days of selling CDs, and I would like to say that having experienced the decline of CD sales because of piracy transition into the paid streaming era it's unambiguous that musicians were better off when mostly everyone was pirating and then some people bought CDs or other merch out of a desire to support vs today when everyone pays a nominal fee to a corporation that pays us nothing and also satisfies their desire to support despite not actually offering support.
Youden|2 years ago
The difference is that music licensing has for the most part not been split into channels or subject to exclusive licensing. Music availability has usually been somewhat universal. If one radio station can air a track, most of the others can too. If one store can sell a record or CD, most of the others can too. If one streaming service can stream something, most of the others can too.
With movies and TV, this hasn't really been the case. Typically, one cable TV channel will license the content exclusively, so if you want to consume that content, you need that channel.
The video streaming model we see today is just a natural continuation of the previous business model based on competing through exclusivity. This isn't to say that it makes sense, just that that's the difference of the two.
ghaff|2 years ago
BLKNSLVR|2 years ago
But I also find music that was "before my time" that's just fucking magical as well.
You have to put effort in though, because passively you're just fed slops. The good stuff, the real nourishment, has to be dug out of the ground.
pier25|2 years ago
In Netflix all third party films are offered in caveman 1080p sdr. In Prime and HBO it's similar.
TremendousJudge|2 years ago
DeathArrow|2 years ago
I have to subscribe to a service where maybe only a tv show interests me and the rest is junk. Subscribe to another service for another tv show, and so on.
That is not convenient. Give me a website where I can pick from all online available media I can only watch and pay what I want.
ghaff|2 years ago
TheJoeMan|2 years ago
bearjaws|2 years ago
CubsFan1060|2 years ago
ghaff|2 years ago
2muchcoffeeman|2 years ago
DeathArrow|2 years ago