Hacker News Reader

Comment by vextea | Hacker News Reader

Yes and no, whilst centralization is convenient I don't like the implications of everything being served on say Netflix with no alternatives.

View on HN

It's not a case for centralization, it's a case against exclusives: there's no reason why a TV show should only be available on one streaming platform. Ideally you could get everything from any number of streaming or pay-to-download sources. The issue is the incentives in the current system are not set up for this, and they are somewhat self-reinforcing (basically, a streaming service will get more value from licensing a show exclusively, even if they are paying much more for the sake of it. Show producers are therefore also incentivised to license exclusively as opposed to more generally, doubly so if they own their own streaming platform, at which point they will cease to license to third parties at all)

The answer is compulsory licensing. People have been doing that for decades. It's a solved problem. Look at e.g. radio. There's a compulsory licensing scheme for radio stations. They pay into a pool that is divvied up to rights holders based on some kind of keys and metrics. Radio stations can play whatever music they want, no additional licensing required.

We should have that for streaming music and video. Any streaming platform could offer any content they'd want to host, and they pay into a pool for rights holders. Streaming platforms would have to compete on quality, features, price, availability, etc. But not on holding content hostage.

The streaming era would be greatly improved by the modern version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... : companies should be either making content or distributing it, and distribution should be on an equal competitive basis.

And with Netflix opening up physical location we seem to have come full circle.

Early Netflix was also not centralized, as they served pre-existing content. Streaming-service exclusives is what ruined this - but as it's an effective revenue generator (it is the only reason anyone would have 5 different streaming subscriptions), that part is unlikely to go away...

But right now, I'd say distributors and national license agreements are the biggest issue. Having to VPN around to find content is a pain, and because each country has its own version of content, which subtitles are available also differ - for example, Danish Netflix generally only has Nordic languages for subtitles, and does not have English subtitles. And then all you get is some low streaming quality.

This is the kind of thing that powers the whole "piracy has better UX" argument - having to VPN around, not have the right languages, and getting a poor quality vs. the effort to download a version with whatever subtitles you want.

Disney+ is so far the only service I've seen where this is largely a non-issue - but I also want to see stuff not owned by Disney.

It's arguable to me whether it's better to centralize vs having seasons 1-3 at one streaming service and 4-7 at another.

But I'm not a fan of any of them right now. The market incentive for e.g. Netflix to continue a series ends when they reach a statistical benchmark of assumed new / restarted subscriptions. There's not enough incentive to run a series unless it's like GOT, which brought HBO large numbers of new subscribers every season. Too few people are willing to make a stand and quit Netflix in protest.

I think the solution resides somewhere in the middle: make video streaming platforms more like music streaming platforms.

Nowadays, YouTube Music, Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, ..., all have roughly the same base music collection, competing on gimmicks like live lyrics or, for example, YouTube Music with normal video playback, or Spotify with its podcast library and sharing abilities.

This way, there is no centralization around a specific entity, but you also get to have the entire library of things worth considering to the average consumer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com