Hacker News Reader

Comment by zelly | Hacker News Reader

It's called torrents. All the content on all the streaming platforms for an even cheaper price ($0).

I wish I could buy torrent files direct from the creative forces behind the entertainment I watch. Imagine if a single TV episode torrent file cost, say, $2. A season torrent file could be say $16 for a 10 episode long season and a movie could be $12 or so. (Numbers just plucked out of the air, but you get the idea)

Let me give the creative forces the money they deserve for the content they produce, but let me keep the file without being bound to a subscription service where I lose everything the moment I cancel.

Ten years ago it looked like that might be where the entertainment industry was headed, but then Netflix and Spotify got big because it was even more convenient than torrents. When there are 10 major streaming services with exclusive content, then it's no longer convenient and torrents come back. If it were stupid-easy to get torrented content on a big screen television, then Netflix et al would be in trouble. That's the one missing part, which may keep people on streaming even with the Tower of Babel variety of different services. Netflix et al is installed by default on all new TVs you can buy in a store now. I think there was an attempt to make pirated content easy to consume, those Kodi boxes which are now banned and relegated to enthusiasts now. That's what they are really afraid of, because when your mom can torrent with a remote control it's over.

(Spotify on the other hand is in a different league because there is almost no such thing as exclusive music. It's still way more convenient and time-efficient than torrenting. In my experience you can't even find music torrents anymore unless you go down the private tracker rabbit hole (which definitely doesn't scale)).

all of the simple player boxes like roku et al have terrible support for playing plain old media files whether via USB storage or over a network (which is often not a feature at all, and forget the smart tv built-in players altogether).

I've wondered if that is intentional, to discourage casual piracy.

This is more or less how I buy content through Apple. But, I feel like you meant something else, so what am I missing?

That if the creator is seeding paid torrents, there is no middle man (Apple) to collect a fee.

Maybe, just maybe, the middleman is adding some value? Otherwise creators would have skipped the middleman a long time ago?

Also, how is the money getting to the creator exactly?

My guess is a middleman like Apple isn't necessarily a problem if the content were DRM free. It's the sword dangling overhead which may invalidate ones license without reimbursement, or limit access arbitrarily that is burdensome.

When I downloaded a movie from Netflix I couldn't watch it on vacation because of region locking.

Region locking is typically do to contracts with the content creators, actors, etc. typically has nothing to do with the middleman. DRM isn’t much different, the content creators often demand/expect it.

P.s. I’ve worked in this space.

While true the middlemen often are more visible than rights holders. And some are big enough to push back on DRM as Apple did with music.

Probably minus the "through Apple" part. If that's not your thing, there's lots of independent content on youtube, podcasts, etc that are member-supported via patreon and its alternatives. Shame that isn't available for all the mainstream stuff too, but maybe things will move in that direction.

I pay far more for the content I get on Patreon than the content from the big providers. Curious why that is, maybe it’s content that lacks broad appeal, and content that has broad appeal works better on the platforms?

You can't buy episodes of a series(or even the entire season in a lot of places.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com