Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
I think you might have a case when residuals are payed out from streaming services but that isn’t the case so whether or not subscriptions are kept, rotated or dropped factors very little into the compensation creatives receive.
Right now, residuals from streaming are basically nothing, which is unlike more traditional distribution methods like broadcast syndication and home video sales. This is what the strikes are seeking to change, and I have no doubt they will eventually succeed. But I do doubt that the piracy advocates around here will suddenly start paying for their content.
Where piracy does affect creative compensation today is how viewership numbers factor into renewal negotiations. Creatives have a lot more leverage when their show is a significant source of revenue for the studio. They usually get much more favorable compensation with a third season, because that is when new contracts are typically signed.
Part of why companies like Netflix are fighting streaming residuals is because it will require them to be a lot more transparent about what their customers are watching, so the streaming industry could end up looking very interesting in a few years.
I think the biggest problem is fragmentation. Piracy is a service problem. Before all streaming split from Netflix I barely pirated anymore. Now it’s the most convenient option.
The problem there is you probably don’t want Netflix to be $90/mo. In order for every thing to be on one service, either the amount of content needs to go way down or the price needs to go way up.
This stuff is expensive to make, and it will get more so once the strikes are over and writers and actors start actually getting compensated fairly for content made for streaming.
Convenience means more subscribers means more money coming in. Your rationale of 90 dollars overvalued. Just look at the music business these days. Or ebooks/audiobooks for that matter. There’s no other reason to make everything exclusive to one streaming site other than greed.
Take a page from the games industry. Make new shit exclusive on your platform and then rake in the money via all streaming sites. The same way syndication works in the old days.
Ah yes, residuals, famously something that streaming services provide. Paying for a sub service isn’t supporting creators, it’s exclusively supporting an army of middlemen and marketers. If you want to support creatives, buy physical media (I own some blu rays even though no device in my home is capable of playing them) or merchandise.
It’s funny how people on this site want creatives to get paid but also think their work should be handed out for free.
These people live off residuals. It’s a big sticking point in the ongoing WGA and SAG strikes.
I think you might have a case when residuals are payed out from streaming services but that isn’t the case so whether or not subscriptions are kept, rotated or dropped factors very little into the compensation creatives receive.
Right now, residuals from streaming are basically nothing, which is unlike more traditional distribution methods like broadcast syndication and home video sales. This is what the strikes are seeking to change, and I have no doubt they will eventually succeed. But I do doubt that the piracy advocates around here will suddenly start paying for their content.
Where piracy does affect creative compensation today is how viewership numbers factor into renewal negotiations. Creatives have a lot more leverage when their show is a significant source of revenue for the studio. They usually get much more favorable compensation with a third season, because that is when new contracts are typically signed.
Part of why companies like Netflix are fighting streaming residuals is because it will require them to be a lot more transparent about what their customers are watching, so the streaming industry could end up looking very interesting in a few years.
I think the biggest problem is fragmentation. Piracy is a service problem. Before all streaming split from Netflix I barely pirated anymore. Now it’s the most convenient option.
The problem there is you probably don’t want Netflix to be $90/mo. In order for every thing to be on one service, either the amount of content needs to go way down or the price needs to go way up.
This stuff is expensive to make, and it will get more so once the strikes are over and writers and actors start actually getting compensated fairly for content made for streaming.
Convenience means more subscribers means more money coming in. Your rationale of 90 dollars overvalued. Just look at the music business these days. Or ebooks/audiobooks for that matter. There’s no other reason to make everything exclusive to one streaming site other than greed.
Take a page from the games industry. Make new shit exclusive on your platform and then rake in the money via all streaming sites. The same way syndication works in the old days.
Ah yes, residuals, famously something that streaming services provide. Paying for a sub service isn’t supporting creators, it’s exclusively supporting an army of middlemen and marketers. If you want to support creatives, buy physical media (I own some blu rays even though no device in my home is capable of playing them) or merchandise.