Cord Cutter Complaint: Hello, Karen?

[BarkingGhostar]

Probably one of the biggest problems I have with Intellectual Property rights owners is when they are acquired by someone they screw over their own customers to license it to their competition. I complained about this earlier in the year after HBO Max launched with the Harry Potter movies only to see them removed a handful of months later to go to their competition Peacock (NBC/Universal), who in turn had issues with JK's rantings about LGBTQ#@%& and decided they would no longer show them! This essentially locked up the eight movies so no one could stream them unless you a) rented them for streaming, or b) bought them for streaming. This was only the first example.

When Disney+ service launched it was void of the X-Men films.Why? because they were still under license to another provider that competed directly with Walt effing Disney. But then they got them, and then they lost most of them. Currently if you wanted to watch all of the X-Men films you would need a minimum of FIVE streaming services and you would still missing one film. I wondered about this because this evening I wanted to watch Xm First Class and it wasn't on Disney+, I really wanted to watch it in 4K/HDR on my new TV but instead I had to watch it on HBM Max in non-4K/non-HDR because Disney+ decicded its customers can go eff themselves instead.

But wait, if you react now there a free gift in it for you. Disney bought Fox and has its R-rated content locked up because hell be damned baby boomers and Gen-Zers and even those effing Millennials can handle the swearing in those movies. The killing is all good and fine, but the swearing ain;'t.How much do I have to pay and to whom in order not to be parented at my age? How about this ... instead of parenting adults, how about doing your job as a parent and correct your own shitty kids misgivings and let the rest watch the movies unadulterated (e.g. without diapers).

 

[13Gigatons]

The streaming wars have brought us low prices but bad property rights. I guess you could really rent/own them if your a huge fan of any such series.

 

[zinfamous]

I've never considered my monthly streaming subscription to be any thing like "owning content" ...that's a weird way to think about it.


....I can see, maybe, if you only started streaming when Netflix (the first I think?) actually released the first piece of content from their own studio, then you know--you understand that you will have permanent access to that content. But, really, nothing has ever changed with IP, in generations. You own it or you don't. Netflix was a ~neutrally convenient manner of renting stuff. Just like a video store. I'm still of the mind that the only time I own something is when I buy that thing. With Prime, you can essentially buy access to any movie. Just like purchasing a physical copy from the store and receiving it in the mail. Well, in terms of ownership, right? There is a contract assumed with digital rights like that, (which I think I has only rarely been tested, but still seems to lean consumer side, afaik), so I'd still consider that analogous enough to assumed ownership when purchasing a physical copy (this also is what makes steam not the same as a "rental service" --the assumption remains, even unlikely, that whatever happens to steam, or whatever service, you will be able to seek regress from developers, and gain access to an install file, based on proof of ownership...or something).

Anyway, I can sorta understand why you'd think of it that way, but you are considering not-distributer owned properties as if they should be owned by that distributer. They aren't, and it's never been that way.

cutting the cord and thinking you could replace it with cheaper streaming was always going to lead this problem of what happens when you loose bundling prices of regular cable subscriptions, and those networks just decide to start claiming their own IP for their own independent service.

You wanted to stream right? You declared it a revolution, right? well, this is exactly what these people will do when you tell them this is how you want them to do it, lol. Why else do you think Netflix and Amazon and Hulu knew years before they rolled out their own studios that they needed to start producing their own content, or their services would be buried.

But that was always kinda the point of cord-cutting anyway, for those that did it early, or just learned to live without "TV" (by this, I guess I mean the standard broadcast system that controlled the previous 6 or so decades) The licensing goes in cycles, so it may pop on one service and then another. It's not like humans have ever really had constant access to every single thing they wanted at any moment in time, and we still do OK.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Well, it isn't so much to be 'like owning' although I do know some that treat it like that. But I'll be effing damned if I'm going to let effing Disney+ place a spot on their streaming app called X-Men Collection and then have only four movies in it. That's just and out and out lie. And politics needs to get the hell out of my viewing way. If Peacock doesn't want to air JK content because of her views, on anything, then they should forfeit their current licensing so somebody else can benefit from airing the content.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Well, it isn't so much to be 'like owning' although I do know some that treat it like that. But I'll be effing damned if I'm going to let effing Disney+ place a spot on their streaming app called X-Men Collection and then have only four movies in it. That's just and out and out lie. And politics needs to get the hell out of my viewing way. If Peacock doesn't want to air JK content because of her views, on anything, then they should forfeit their current licensing so somebody else can benefit from airing the content.

In regards to X-Men, I forgot exactly how it worked, but Disney really didn't make all of them. Remember when there was like 10 different spiderman movies? Some were made by Fox I believe.

Though I guess technically Spiderman isn't even an X-men?

 

[snoopy7548]

If you want to own something, buy the movies on a physical disk. You never owned the content through cable, just the right to view it.

 

[sdifox]

Buy UHDBR, problem solved.

 

[WelshBloke]

I can see a lot more people flying the Jolly Rodger if they carry on making it more and more complicated to get media through legitimate means.
Its getting tedious having to Google search to find out what service certain media is on in your country, particularly if its not new content.

I was trying to get the original muppet show series for my daughter but I guess that isn't happening!

 

[nakedfrog]

If I really care about content, I buy it :shrug:
That's why I don't pay money for any audio streaming service, at those prices, I'd rather spend that money on owning music.
Video is a little different since most video content I don't watch more than once.

In regards to X-Men, I forgot exactly how it worked, but Disney really didn't make all of them. Remember when there was like 10 different spiderman movies? Some were made by Fox I believe.

Though I guess technically Spiderman isn't even an X-men?

Spiderman is owned by Sony, I think.
And no, he's definitely not one of the X-Men

 

[quikah]

If I really care about content, I buy it :shrug:
That's why I don't pay money for any audio streaming service, at those prices, I'd rather spend that money on owning music.
Video is a little different since most video content I don't watch more than once.

Spiderman is owned by Sony, I think.
And no, he's definitely not one of the X-Men

Spider-man the character is owned by Marvel/Disney. Spider-man movies are owned by Sony. Not sure where a TV show if it is ever made would fall. Marvel has complicated licensing because they sold a bunch of stuff when they were on the verge of bankruptcy in the '80s/'90s.

 

[MtnMan]

It's all marketing ploys to get more of your $$$.

How it will shake out remains to be seen, but look back at the early days of broadband. DSL and cable were the only games in town, if you lived where you had options. Each kept trying to out do each other in speed, but only in small increments. Cable was 1Mb, so DSL jumped to 1.5Mb, then cable jumped to 2Mb, so DSL 6, then cable 10... until DSL could no longer keep up.

At the same time I had 1Mb cable service, the best I could get, the average South Korean home had 50Mb, Japan 11Mb, etc. It is just corporate greed with very little oversight.

 

[bbhaag]

Spider-man the character is owned by Marvel/Disney. Spider-man movies are owned by Sony. Not sure where a TV show if it is ever made would fall. Marvel has complicated licensing because they sold a bunch of stuff when they were on the verge of bankruptcy in the '80s/'90s.

Yeah all the licensing stuff makes it incredibly hard to cut through the crap not only for consumers but for the rights holders as well. Just look at the NFL game on right now. Fox is broadcasting nationally but only in certain markets....why? because it interferes with a deal worked out with DirecTV to broadcast the NFL's ip.
It's incredibly convoluted not only for the few specific instances mentioned here but across the industry as a whole.

 

[nakedfrog]

It's called "maximizing shareholder value", commies.

 

[Red Squirrel]

That's the biggest issue with streaming services now they all want exclusive rights over content so you can't just get access to everything on one service, it's going full circle. I don't watch enough TV to justify the cost of a subscription service especially knowing the direction it's heading so I've never bothered myself tbh but just watching what the ecosystem is like I have a pretty good idea. Lot of the services are also finnicky to try to get to work on Linux because of the DRM so just can't be bothered.

 

[Exterous]

I agree OP. If you have the rights just let us watch the damn show. It took the music industry a long time to realize people will pay to stream all the content and be happy with not owning anything. The TV and movie industry keeps fucking things up though.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It's called "maximizing shareholder value", commies.

 

[bbhaag]

Yeah but what's the alternative? Be more like China were if you have an original idea it doesn't really matter because everyone under the goddamn sun can copy it and undercut you on price? In what world does that make sense? Where's the drive to innovate and create something new if you know once you do it isn't yours.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yeah but what's the alternative? Be more like China were if you have an original idea it doesn't really matter because everyone under the goddamn sun can copy it and undercut you on price? In what world does that make sense? Where's the drive to innovate and create something new if you know once you do it isn't yours.

Everything is all about an equal balance. IP protection makes sense for a REASONABLE (small) timeframe to deter companies that just look for already-developed products and try to mimic it. At the same time, it's entirely pointless if you allow importing of a product that was a mimic from outside your country.

On the other hand, there are things that are entirely useless and serve no purpose other than driving up costs - such as occupational licensing. You don't need a license to do things like - for example - cut hair. If you suck balls at cutting hair, no one is going to hire you to begin with except a select few that realize "This person sucks, I'm never going to them again and won't recommend them to my friends". The same has been proven for cab drivers with the rise of uber/lyft - Some of the shittiest driving I've seen has been by cab drivers. It's just a way to corner the market and drive up costs.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Buy UHDBR, problem solved.

I just started doing this.

It's called "maximizing shareholder value", commies.

It is called deceitful advertising at best. There are a dozen movies or so in the X-Men collection. For the IP holder to claim to be offering that collection and offer 1/3 at most of said collect could be construed as deliberate false advertising.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The streaming wars have brought us low prices but bad property rights. I guess you could really rent/own them if your a huge fan of any such series.

That is the salient point imo.

This thread is very 1st world problems. Not a BFD if I have to sign up for a free trial or month of service, to view the content a particular provider offers. It is completely painless to cancel, and I sometimes cancel as soon as the payment posts so I don't forget. But regardless of which services I carry during any given month, it is always less than I paid for cable with premium channels plus having to go to Blockbuster or wait for Netflix to mail me Blurays, which came broken far too many times. Requiring return and sometimes, extended wait time, to get another due to demand. Sometimes the discs were nasty too, coated in pizza grease, popcorn butter, or worse. I had a routine for cleaning them when extracting from the sleeve, because of how frequent that happened.

I always buy the bluray if it is something I know we will view again over the years. Physical content is great for when a hurricane KOs power and internet too.

And I will join in on the 1st world salt. As being a long time cord cutter: no way I can sit through commercials anymore. I tried Pluto TV in VR for a hot second and it felt like this

I was never a fan of needing to DVR in the old days of cable, and constantly FF through them either <---- Now that is some 1st world complaining right there!

I like the current media consumption model to any other that has existed in my lifetime. The fact that the streaming services are producing their own content is the cherry on top. Shows like The Tick, all of the marvel shows except Iron Fist, F is for family (I'll put you through that fuckin' wall!) and many more.

Complain all you like, but I'm good with it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

And while we are doing the cord cutter complaints, what really grinds my gears, is how nostalgia is making streaming worse. The Boys going week by week is bullshit. I would see mouth breathers lamenting how binging takes something away from the experience. How they miss the suspense of season finales, and other drivel. Go piss up a rope. Having every epi of a season drop so I can view it on whatever schedule I desire, is one of the best things about streaming.

 

[snoopy7548]

And while we are doing the cord cutter complaints, what really grinds my gears, is how nostalgia is making streaming worse. The Boys going week by week is bullshit. I would see mouth breathers lamenting how binging takes something away from the experience. How they miss the suspense of season finales, and other drivel. Go piss up a rope. Having every epi of a season drop so I can view it on whatever schedule I desire, is one of the best things about streaming.

Same here. Just give me all episodes at once and I can either binge-watch or make my own weekly cliffhangers; I hate when shows like The Walking Dead put out half the season in weekly episodes, then take a few months off before finishing the rest.

 

[ultimatebob]

What annoys me is that all the "good" shows are now spread over half a dozen different streaming services.

It's almost like we need another service to aggregate and bundle them with a discount. You know, like the cable company used to do for us

I'd be willing to pay $35 a month for a mega Netflix/Hulu/HBO/Amazon/Disney+/TV+/CBS All Access bundle... won't you?