[dillona]

> Not that have knowledge of royalty proportionality, but it also seems unfair to have royalty costs dwarf any other business costs.

Why? Their business model is to take other people's work and distribute it to subscribers.

It seems to me that acquisition of the actual product should be the majority of their cost.

[Glyptodon]

Excessiveness in the injection of normative notions to a market seems like a bad idea.

In any case, the content is only an aspect of the value, and without the value add many services would be rather useless. If the cost of content dwarfs the use's value add, something with potential becomes something untenable.

I mean without streaming, multiple platform support, browsing/searching, etc., what would Netflix be? The delivery method and interface themselves have value, and it's not insignificant at all.

Remember the purpose of copyright isn't to give creators rights. It's to drag as much out of them for as little cost as possible for the sake of the enrichment of society as a whole.

[monkeyspaw]

Apple's store does the same stuff and takes a 30% cut. They aren't directly comparable, but they are charging the 30% for similar services (streaming/downloading, platform support, browsing/discovery, and they add payment and distribution on top of that...)