The economics of shoving the entire output of the entertainment industry on a single $15/mo streaming service don't work out. It arguably doesn't even work that well for music. Ask any musician that doesn't rake in platinum records how well Spotify works out for them.
Less money and competition in the entertainment industry means less total content production and less impetus for funding riskier productions.
If you look back at American TV in the 20th century, so much of it was samey and bland because there were only 3-4 programs to choose from at any given time. It was hard to get networks to greenlight anything that didn't fit an already proven formula.
This started to change with cable and streaming. Consumers suddenly had a lot more options, and were also spending a lot more money. You had a lot more networks trying to stand out, and they put out riskier shows that rejected decades of TV norms.
Now that the industry is consolidating again, networks and studios are back to being much more risk averse, and that is hurting the quality of their output.
Personally, I don't think the answer is more all-you-can-eat subscriptions, it's frustrating for consumers and even moreso for creators. I wonder if some kind of usage-based compensation would work, where users can choose between watching a show with ads, or paying 25 or 50 cents per episode to watch ad-free.
Short film SF production house / curated YouTube channel DUST has been around for years, and appear to have a business model that works for them. And while I do not know anything about their finances, and I doubt they make blockbuster money, their content is typically more enjoyable to watch than most stuff I see streaming elsewhere.
Why would I pay for anything when I can make an exact copy without taking away the original?
If you want to argue about copyright infringement, do, but don't equate it to theft. That's an old and tired argument that isn't useful for setting policy.
Because you're an adult who understands that software, films, music, art, books, etc all have (significant) financial costs to produce and the people who make them have a right to the fruit of their labor as long as those fruits are required for them to continue eating. And because it's obvious you are not making an exact copy, because the original is legally licensed and the copy is not.
I'm sure you'd feel this way about someone stealing your identity, right? After all, your SSN can be copied exactly without taking away the original. Just ignore all externalities to the specific act of copying.
Plagiarism is another thing that's super cool under this strictly "immediate and physical" worldview of morality. There's no reason anyone would ever want to stop it, since it isn't tangibly destructive and we don't think of secondary effects when setting policy.
I know it's because you personally get something out of it, but I cannot even fathom trying to say this trite with a straight face. At least be a grown up and just say you want free stuff and don't care if it hurts upstream, like the rest of us. I really can't stand this new-age moral grandstanding piracy where you pretend you aren't a petty thief.
I think you've missed the point of my comment entirely. The point was, don't equate copyright infringement to theft; they're separate activities. If you want to argue that copyright infringement is unethical, argue that, but don't make a trite analogy to "shoplifting" and drop the mic.
As for the rest: I have consistently argued that copyright should not exist, and I will continue to do so. I think it's a net loss.
When these companies make their services so painful and inconvenient, of course people are going to go to (less ethical but more convenient) alternatives.
Certainly there's some, though I would gladly pay for downloadable drm free copies. I have no problem paying, but I do have a problem renting, which is all the digital purchases today are, despite marketing propaganda
Obscure musicians never made a lot of money. That's not Spotify's fault. It's just a. Industry where the majority doesn't make it. Gigs are still the main way to earn money for them.
And for video it wouldn't have to be $15. People easily pay $50-80 for cable channel packages. A comprehensive streaming service could cost similar. The willingness to pay is there. I'm just really sick of this shit paying for tons of different services.
When Netflix was the only game in town I subscribed to it. And prime later. But now I've dropped all my subs and gone back to the jolly roger. As have many people I know.
We have a saying in Holland: he who looks too deep in the can gets the lid on his nose. It's a bit akin to the American saying of having your cake and eat it. But the thing is there's lucky so many profits you can extract especially if you're competing with free but more hassle.
