• a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Why is this even a knock on Netflix? McDonald’s doesn’t serve steak and I don’t think it’s because McDonald’s bad. Netflix is in the streaming business, not the physical media business. Look elsewhere if that’s important to you?

    • fiercekitten@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Because there’s no way to own that media that netflix has rights to. Currently, legally buying accessing any tv shows or movies digitally means the company who offered them to you can yank them away at any time, legally.

      That’s not ownership.

      Physical media still isn’t perfect, as it includes copy protection, but at least no one can legally take your BluRay away from you.

      • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Okay. Don’t consume that media? Artists are not forced into contracts with Netflix. They can do what thousands of artists did before Netflix ever existed. Will they hit the same level of audience that Netflix pulls? No. People like streaming and it’s popular as hell. Why would they be entitled to that though? Artists, creators of any type really, have agency to do as they wish with their art. Consumers have a choice in the art they consume. If either chooses to engage with Netflix, why would it not be on the terms that Netflix has openly set and asked you whether you wanted to partake in?

        I just do not understand this viewpoint and it’s all over the thread. To be clear, Netflix does other stuff that sucks, like killing shows and underpaying artists. Be mad at them for that all you like, I’ll be right there with ya. Insinuating Netflix is doing something ethically bad by pivoting to streaming, which the vast majority of the world’s population would rather use than physical media, just does not make a lick of sense to me. Why should Netflix pay employees, rent factory space, set up an entire vertical they’ve gotten out of, just to produce CDs that history showed hardly anyone bought after the transition to streaming?

        • fiercekitten@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think it boils down to how people view and value this medium of art. Some think that the creator owns the work and can do with it what they please. Some think that art belongs to everyone and they should have a say in what happens to it.

          IMO, when all digital media by its very nature can be infinitely copied and distributed, trying to DRM everything is insanity. Trying to restrict people’s access doesn’t work; people still pirate, people still get over news paywalls, etc. It’s the wrong approach. US copyright law is broken and bonkers. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is bad and insane. I don’t know how to make this a fair system under capitalism, if it’s even possible.

          The current system labels me a criminal if pay for netflix, watch a netflix movie, and then circumvent the DRM in order to save that movie to my own computer. And netflix also won’t allow me pay them more to save that movie. That’s bonkers.

          • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Agreed on all counts regarding pirating, DRM, copyright, etc. It’s a messed up landscape and we need legislation and community action around it, for certain. Even aside from capitalism, technology is shifting rapidly and that causes its own issues as society struggle to keep up.

            The idea that everyone owns all art is interesting, but I’m not sure that I agree. Seems similar, but a bit distinct from the death of the author idea. I have created things and I am not comfortable with the idea that I do not have ownership of the work. There is obviously nuance there and I don’t expect to have full control over how my art is received or parodied or memed on or whatever, that’s fine, but it is my choice as to how I distribute it, how I created it, how I choose to maintain it. Netflix cannot force me into a contract with them. Hulu can’t. Disney can’t. I can release my art right onto the internet or my own website. Every artist has that freedom. It has consequences, but that’s not persecution or unethical, in my opinion.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Because they’re in the business of art and they’re perfectly happy to kill art if it doesn’t make business sense. There is a cultural cost to this stuff disappearing that isn’t comparable to the McRib going away.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Don’t worry. Just because you can’t pay for something doesn’t mean it’s gone away. Netflix (and basically all media companies) are just shooting themselves in the foot trying to lock everyone into a bunch of subscription services. If I could pay them a couple bucks to download a movie or show with no DRM I would. Instead they get $0 from me and I do it anyway.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        They are in the business of streaming, and are making art to maintain a fresh library to stream. Just like broadcasters and movie theaters before them.

        TV shows and movies on physical media was a huge change for those that required a shift in priorities that took decades and for phyiscal media to be profitable. Netflix is still making bank doing what they know how to do, which is streaming. Switching to physical media would need to be more reliably profitable for them than limiting it to streaming to encourage subs to make the switch.

        I would prefer the physical media option too, but their reluctance is understandable.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ok. But if they’re footing the bill, that’s their choice. The content creators don’t need to go to Netflix for their funding, there are many other options.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Netflix and the other streamers represent a growing majority of new IP investment

      If the trend continues, there would eventually be no new media produced in physical formats