rather than this stupid fucking snip snap game where, instead of, as a user being able to buy into a company that’s building a massive, marvelous, library-of-alexandria-core archive of every good show ever made, you’re paying into some shitty ephemeral bullshit made by stupid greedy dickheads who have no fucking sense

  • Phen@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    10 months ago

    Because nobody knows for sure how much a show will be worth in the future and everyone is afraid of losing or wasting potential money.

  • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    10 months ago

    Because profit. And weak consumer culture just accepts it as normal. Smart consumers are left to look for other means, or are left to sail the high seas.

  • tryitout@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Because the goal of capitalism is to chase infinite profits and raze the earth in the process. Providing you with convenience or value or helping any human is not a part of this process.

  • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    First, contracts in perpetuity rarely hold up. They always have an end, or at least regular off ramps that parties can take with no particular (legal) reason.

    Second, contracts are complicated, and depend on countless other contracts that are in place. Netflix wants to stream a show? They have to negotiate a contract with the production companies (however many were involved). Each of those has contracts with the actors, writers, set designers, etc. They also negotiated some licensing from Sony records for the song used in S03E05, Paramount for the movie they imitated in season 2, Apple for all of the product placement (fun fact: the “bad guys” are never allowed to use Apple products), etc. Each of these had extensive terms and expiration dates, and have to be renegotiated when circumstances change. This is especially needed because…

    Third - every contract is written in an attempt to screw the other parties out of as much income as possible. They say the most creative people in Hollywood aren’t the actors or the writers, but the accountants. For instance, have you ever noticed how actors always get a percentage of gross instead of net? It’s because on paper, nearly everything loses money to avoid paying on these contracts. Once the interest is established (i.e. the show is created and people like it, and we can say with confidence how much they’re willing to pay for it), everyone now wants a bigger piece of the pie. You often see shows where the soundtrack changes in certain versions, because the record label wanted too much for the new license.

    Yes, it’s absolutely insane. But I don’t really see any solutions that treat everyone fairly.

    • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Your third point isn’t as sound as the other two. Paying out on gross instead of net is more commonly done with movies. In fact, many tv series die around the season 3 mark because that’s when conditions usually kick in on the regular casts contracts and they start making bank and the studios simply don’t want to pay that much.

      • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It actually sounds like you’re agreeing with me- they cancel the show to avoid paying out. The contracts are written in a way that it can be used to screw them.

        Season 6 is more common, since that’s when contracts typically come up for renegotiation. Friends famously almost ended because the actors demanded what they were worth. The studios launched a smear campaign by “leaking” how overpaid the actors were.

        TV shows do have a fundamental difference from most movies in that it’s an ongoing operation. With movies, nearly everything has to be completed before release. There is more of an element of risk, since you don’t know how popular it will actually be. Once it’s been released, or you’re 6 seasons into a show, that’s pretty well known. Everyone wants their cut, and they know exactly the pie is.

        • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Same end result, the money doesn’t come from the gross though. Well, it does indirectly cos the studio has to get the money from somewhere, but their contracts usually aren’t written in such a manner as they directly get the gross percentage straight to their bank account like a movie actor would (if movies ever actually made any money on the books). Which is all rather simplified, but I think it illustrates what I mean.

          As for the contract length, yes the standard sign on time is 5yrs, but those contracts are renegotiated at the end of every season. There is a term for the conditions kicking in I referred to earlier but I’ve forgotten it and my google fu is failing me. Not every actors contract has them, but many do. To follow the friends example, kinda a moo point though, the point is that they get screwed if the studio can get away with it.

  • Banzai51@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    Because the content creators have the upper hand for now. If you won’t agree to their terms, they go to the next streaming service or start their own.

  • Llamajockey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    It all stems from corporate greed Loan out the cash cow until you can learn how to make your own cheese. I genuinely thought Disney+, peacock, and paramount streaming would fail but the problem is also people willing to pay for their fragmented service. Even HBOmax, which I genuinely liked, becamejust MAX because they started loaning out their OWN IPs for money. So dumb.

    At least we got to enjoy the early Netflix era around 2010 before it all became crap.

    • notfromhere@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Buy up used DVDs and Blurays and set up a Jellyfin instance at home. Instantly transported back to 2010 era Netflix.

  • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    My hot take is that you don’t actually want fewer streamers. As it stands, pirates benefit the most from content wars because the services are paying more to produce shows than they are receiving in subscriptions.

    The obvious losses are legacy content and access to it. I don’t know that there’s a good solution. A streaming service benefits most from surfacing content that will keep you on the platform, meaning either a modern series with promised future seasons, or older content that’s still popular. Any old obscure media is going to lose money for rights holders on a $/stream deal because they could potentially make more $ from a single physical media sale than any amount of streaming would net them (if it’s $/stream, and only 2 people stream it, that’s very little return). And nobody subscribing to these services is going to shell out more money for specific titles because to them, that’s why they’re subscribing in the first place.

  • _number8_@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    and where is the office for streaming now? why can’t they at least all have the same shit, like with music streaming, and compete on features and price, rather than this absolute transient hell where it’s ridiculously stark how none of anyone involved cares for art or culture