[chipotle_coyote]

I think you're right, but I've always been a bit skeptical of that vision -- it implicitly relies on the assumption that "THE streaming service" will choose to make as much content available as technically and legally possible; they're imagining something like "Spotify but for movies and TV shows". But I was always worried about "Apple's App Store but for movies and TV shows": one company with ultimate gatekeeper status over what you can and can't legally watch. (The movie and television business is not like the music business; the financial incentives don't, as far as I can tell, support the same kind of distribution models.)

I'm not particularly thrilled about this kind of consolidation, but given that Warner was going to be bought by somebody, Netflix may be one of the least worst outcomes.

[themerone]

HBO owns Westworld and stopped streaming it to avoid paying residuals.

[joquarky]

If they don't make their content available legally, then it should go into the public domain.

Don't want this to happen to your content? Then don't release it to the public.

We need to bring back explicit copyright registration and renewals.

[Nevermark]

Wow. That is dysfunctional.

I would be curious how the financial wires got crossed.

I would have assumed residuals were proportional to views, and views valued proportionally as contributing to subscription demand. And it would be a rare viewer to watch one show like that, over & over. I.e. only upside. Something went sideways.

[nemomarx]

I think ideally you'd have 2-3 streaming services that all have all the content without exclusives? (So the spotify of movies and tv, the tidal of movies and tv, the bandcamp of movies and tv...)

[chipotle_coyote]

That would be ideal. It's my (very limited) understanding that the costs of making television and movies makes that kind of scenario unlikely, though.