this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
837 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

60106 readers
1874 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world 546 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Proving Netflix could be replaced by five hard working people.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 195 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Proving Netflix could be ~~replaced~~ outdone by five hard working people.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 92 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Proving Netflix should ~~could~~ be ~~replaced~~ outdone by five hard working people.

[–] AnxiousDuck@feddit.it 36 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

~~Proving~~ Netflix ~~should~~ ~~could~~ be ~~replaced~~ ~~out~~done ~~by five hard working people~~.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 10 points 6 months ago

Things are easier if you can steal stuff. And operate on a small scale.

[–] anlumo@lemmy.world 120 points 6 months ago (6 children)

They didn’t need the army of lawyers to get license deals, so that’s not a fair comparison.

[–] FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml 89 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Its almost like its unecessary shit made up in order to keep profits away from working people artificially

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 73 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah its almost like if we didn't keep extending copyright protections a bunch of stuff would be in the public domain and any streaming service could offer it without having to deal with licensing.

[–] Brickhead92@lemmy.world 38 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I mean that's all well and good, but then how would the very deserving shareholders get dividends?

Won't somebody think of the shareholders!?

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
  1. Take over a failing company
  2. Hold a shareholder meeting
  3. Show the line going down
  4. Turn the chart upside down
  5. Become a hero to the shareholders

maybe if they actually invested some money somewhere they would make some money for once.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's true that Hollywood is corrupt and csuite pay is absurd, but those deals are the only mechanism by which ANY money makes it to the writers, actors and staff who deserve it

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's the exclusivity bullshit that gets me.

It could be: New movie is released! Anyone who pays the price tag gets to stream it!

But no, we must bidding war gouge.

On top of that, X Y and Z services exist in America, but not in other countries, so in this other country, everything is on Netflix, while I had to jump between three different services at one point just to watch Stargate

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hey, you're just salty that you didn't get in on the ground floor when Stargate was being exclusively streamed in a dedicated Stargate streaming service

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

Stargate+ Maxx Ultraviolet

[–] wagoner@infosec.pub 11 points 6 months ago

Or fund new content

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Their scale was also an insignificant fraction of what Netflix has, making the point even more irrelevant.

The best figure I could find on Jetflicks user count was 37k, where as Netflix has 269 million users.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Prices should go down with scale not up though.

There's initial investment on the initial servers (and the software), and afterwards it should be a linear increase of server costs per user, with some bumps along the way to interconnect those servers.

The cost also scales per content. Because that means more caching servers per user and bigger databases, and licenses.

So this service has less users and more content, it should be way more expensive. The only reason they are cheaper is because they don't pay those licenses.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

The cost of storage in this case is more or less irrelevant - traffic is what matters here. You're also not getting any mentionable bulk discount on the servers for that matter.

The key is that you can engineer things in completely different way when you have trivial amounts of traffic hitting your systems - you can do things that will not scale in any way, shape or form.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If we get rid of the licensing we get rid of the lawyers.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (17 children)

If you get rid of licensing you get rid of the content

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 17 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Certain types of content. But YouTube's own existence started because people made content without licensing rights.

[–] evidences@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Technically YouTube exists because three horny nerds wanted a dating site with video integration. It only turned into a video sharing site when they realized they couldn't find the clip of the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction and they decided they wanted to build that platform instead.

[–] x4740N@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I wonder what youribe would have been like if they didn't sell to google

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Not really. I can undersgand licensing but at this point it's become a distopian practice completely separated from the basic need to monetize the content an make a profit. That's why those companies become such gargantuans monsters.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 77 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The only reason all companies prices go up these days is for CEO pay packages

[–] 6gybf@sh.itjust.works 33 points 6 months ago

I think it’s more for major shareholders (which includes CEOs, of course)

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Like Boeing's CEO making 300 million.... imagine 300 people who worked their ass off could make million. Or 1500 hard workers could be making 200k. But nah, let's just drag these huge bags of money into this one asshole's account. Oh there were a couple of crashes right? 👍 Our thoughts and prayers 🙏. But not our money wagons.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Regulate monopolies and eat the rich.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] iopq@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Does Netflix make shows? Or does it slam its name onto filmmakers it pays to make content? If so, one of those things simply requires throwing cash at people, which I think is a skill that most people can learn.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (8 children)

Did the pirate site pay anyone to make new shows?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Does Netflix? Or do they pay production companies for content?

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They use the subscription money to pay production studios. What did the pirate site use the subscription money for?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Servers, electricity, bandwidth, blackjack and hookers.