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?
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.
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.
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.
Sure, and Netflix/HBO et all are still assholes for happily sending art to the glue factory when they think it makes financial sense. They deserve to be criticized for it.
“Sending art to the glue factory” is hyperbole, cmon. They’re also not restricting anyone from releasing their own stuff their own way? If you want Netflix funding, you’re going to be bound somewhat by their business, which is focused on streaming. Expecting a business to construct entire sectors to distribute art in the way you want is just… weird. Make your own fucking art with your own resources if you want to distribute it how you want.
So now we’re talking about a completely different subject? Be mad at Netflix for canceling shows all you want, that’s fine and righteous in a lot of cases. This article is about not producing physical media though, which is not sending art to the glue factory. You should stay on topic with the article instead of inflating your argument without even telling the people you’re having a debate with to be about a subject none of us were even discussing?
I think the two are intertwined because without physical media there is no guarantee that media cannot just disappear like Spiderman at the end of Infinity War. Piracy is thankfully a safeguard to that but there’s still a conversation to be had about how easily media can just get black holed nowadays. Everyone’s busy talking about how they’re legally allowed to do that, I’m trying to say they’re morally wrong to disallow their content from physical releases. It’s also a bit ironic considering Netflix wouldn’t exist if not for physical media.
Then explain that in your original response to me? Tie them together explicitly instead of assuming everyone is on the same page. We cannot see into your mind. Like cmon, we were arguing two entirely separate issues there for a second.
All that aside, that’s a fair point. I do think there should be discussions and maybe even lawmaking had on preservation as it relates to streaming (and games and other digital media). At the end of the day though, Netflix is a funder and a distributor when it comes to art. Yeah, they produce some content also, but it’s usually just a fancier version of their funding. Either way, I cannot get away from the idea that if an artist willingly uses Netflix to fund their project, Netflix inherently is going to have rights. It’s the whole point. I just think in these cases, why should I not be upset with the artist themselves for attaching themselves to a company they know is not going to produce physical media?
I’m a developer. If I went to Google and said “Hey, can yall fund my app development?” I’m going to expect them to have requirements on their side, including primarily distributing through Google Play. I don’t think that’s a fault of Google, even if they are heinous for various other reasons (just like Netflix). And just like in the art scenario, I would be insane to complain at that point when I knowingly entered into a contract with a company I knew was going to restrict me.
Netflix? How can Netflix have enough power to force artists to release through their service? I’ve enjoyed tons of movies and TV from other sources. They may not have the same reach, but that’s a far cry from “forcing” you to do something. If you go with the megacorp with the most reach for your art, expect to make concessions. If you release on your own, it can be tough but you have full control. There are myriad points in the gradient between.
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.
Not to be that guy, but the McRib going away is a bit of a cultural thing because that’s a food that only the USA could come up with and get people to eat. That being said, I fully understand and agree with your point.
Netflix cancelled it due to high production costs from what I’ve read. From what I recall Fincher said he wouldn’t come back even if they were willing to make season three
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sure, and Netflix/HBO et all are still assholes for happily sending art to the glue factory when they think it makes financial sense. They deserve to be criticized for it.
That’s a great tour
“Sending art to the glue factory” is hyperbole, cmon. They’re also not restricting anyone from releasing their own stuff their own way? If you want Netflix funding, you’re going to be bound somewhat by their business, which is focused on streaming. Expecting a business to construct entire sectors to distribute art in the way you want is just… weird. Make your own fucking art with your own resources if you want to distribute it how you want.
No it’s not. See: Acme vs Coyote, Batgirl, and nearly 100 other things crushed by David Zaslav
So now we’re talking about a completely different subject? Be mad at Netflix for canceling shows all you want, that’s fine and righteous in a lot of cases. This article is about not producing physical media though, which is not sending art to the glue factory. You should stay on topic with the article instead of inflating your argument without even telling the people you’re having a debate with to be about a subject none of us were even discussing?
I think the two are intertwined because without physical media there is no guarantee that media cannot just disappear like Spiderman at the end of Infinity War. Piracy is thankfully a safeguard to that but there’s still a conversation to be had about how easily media can just get black holed nowadays. Everyone’s busy talking about how they’re legally allowed to do that, I’m trying to say they’re morally wrong to disallow their content from physical releases. It’s also a bit ironic considering Netflix wouldn’t exist if not for physical media.
Then explain that in your original response to me? Tie them together explicitly instead of assuming everyone is on the same page. We cannot see into your mind. Like cmon, we were arguing two entirely separate issues there for a second.
All that aside, that’s a fair point. I do think there should be discussions and maybe even lawmaking had on preservation as it relates to streaming (and games and other digital media). At the end of the day though, Netflix is a funder and a distributor when it comes to art. Yeah, they produce some content also, but it’s usually just a fancier version of their funding. Either way, I cannot get away from the idea that if an artist willingly uses Netflix to fund their project, Netflix inherently is going to have rights. It’s the whole point. I just think in these cases, why should I not be upset with the artist themselves for attaching themselves to a company they know is not going to produce physical media?
I’m a developer. If I went to Google and said “Hey, can yall fund my app development?” I’m going to expect them to have requirements on their side, including primarily distributing through Google Play. I don’t think that’s a fault of Google, even if they are heinous for various other reasons (just like Netflix). And just like in the art scenario, I would be insane to complain at that point when I knowingly entered into a contract with a company I knew was going to restrict me.
I mean they have enough power to force people to deal with them don’t they?
Netflix? How can Netflix have enough power to force artists to release through their service? I’ve enjoyed tons of movies and TV from other sources. They may not have the same reach, but that’s a far cry from “forcing” you to do something. If you go with the megacorp with the most reach for your art, expect to make concessions. If you release on your own, it can be tough but you have full control. There are myriad points in the gradient between.
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.
Not to be that guy, but the McRib going away is a bit of a cultural thing because that’s a food that only the USA could come up with and get people to eat. That being said, I fully understand and agree with your point.
If you feel that way, then you should pay to support them, just like the mcribbers
Netflix will get money from me when they unfuck their decision to cancel Mindhunter
Oh, I thought you meant independent artists when you said something about art
Oh, I mean I do support artists I like
Man you are getting downvoted over nothing.
You got a stalker?
Not to my knowledge. People just heap it on sometimes, it is what it is
I’m pretty sure Fincher stopped working on it. It wasn’t Netflix’ decision
Netflix cancelled it due to high production costs from what I’ve read. From what I recall Fincher said he wouldn’t come back even if they were willing to make season three
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
Because there’s no way to own that media that netflix has rights to. Currently, legally
buyingaccessing 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.
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?
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.
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.
I mean, for as long as physical media even is a thing. Given where the control and money is I don’t see physical media being a thing for much longer.
And Netflix isn’t the one killing it, they’re just following trends. We are killing physical media because we don’t use or buy it.