Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think if this idea of equivalence between paid and pirated content is taken to it's logical extreme, the result will be less movies being produced.

Maybe it's preferable to keep it as is today: piracy as an option for some and as a force against too much control from the content industry.




Why shouldn't the cost of entertainment naturally drop as more high-quality content is produced? And if that's the case, aren't big-budget productions already living on borrowed time?

To explain, entertainment is fungible, and today we have an embarrassment of entertaining riches: books, hangouts, news, board games, video games, music, TV, social web, sporting events, etc. Almost all of these things can be distributed world-wide at minimal per-unit cost.

Since entertainment is fungible, the competition for for 12 Years a Slave isn't just Dallas Buyers Club, it's also 2048, reddit, Attack on Titan, the Olympics, and whatever piques my interest during a Steam Sale. That sounds like the increase in supply for entertainment is far outstripping the increase in demand.


> Since entertainment is fungible, the competition for for 12 Years a Slave isn't just Dallas Buyers Club, it's also 2048, reddit, Attack on Titan, the Olympics, and whatever piques my interest during a Steam Sale. That sounds like the increase in supply for entertainment is far outstripping the increase in demand.

That's only because the home video market allowed people the luxury to legally watch any existing movie anytime they want, once they have purchased it, without the possibility of the studio revoking permission.

Don't worry - studios are already trying to think of ways to "fix" that (stream-only content that is never released in DVD format is one example)


That's an interesting take on it. Even in a single entertainment category it can often feel like the supply far outstrips demand, especially if my morbidly obese Steam library is considered.


Hollywood studios (should) make their money in cinemas, before the DVD/BlueRay release. CAMRips are not really competitors.


Can you explain your reasoning behind

> Hollywood studios (should) make their money in cinemas

I'd be just as happy if all movies went straight to streaming, I'd even be ok with higher prices closer to the release if they did drop down to reasonable levels after a period of time. I personally have grown to hate going to the theater, I find it much more enjoyable to watch movies in the comfort of my home without people talking, babies crying, and teenage girls on their cell phones the whole time. Not to mention I refuse to pay for concessions which are extremely over priced.


Many of the movies people torrent are new releases so that they don't have to pay the high price of going to the cinema to see it.


What I'm saying is that the new movies are not available in DVDs so there are no quality pirate releases (only unwatchable camera rips) unless there is a leaked copy of the movie (very rare).


I have no idea what kind of money companies get from DVDs, but if we where to go to a world where I would have to go to cinema to see every movie I'm interested in then I'd just stay home and watch horrible Cam rips. I have no desire to go to cinema and pay ridiculous amounts of money for movie tickets and whatever shit they are passing as food these days, I want to stay home and enjoy the movie not listen as some kids giggle next to me.


New movies get DVDs for special screenings or for the Academy.


Or maybe it will push content providers to make movies and shows available for streaming from day one. So far piracy has only done good things for consumers, in the sense that it has forced Big Content to do what consumers wanted all along, ever since Napster came out.


How do you compete when the same content is readily available, instantly, for free, and in a usable interface?


By making it actually readily available, instantly, in a usable interface, close enough to free as customer doesn't care the cost.

For decades, I've seen endless such "but it's free/easy/instant" things be anything but, insofar as it takes resources (time, fiddling, knowledge, skill, tools, etc) costing on par with paid versions, isn't easy for >90% of the population, and falls down often enough that it's hardly 'instant'.

$99 + $8/mo works a whole lot better than most any "free/easy/instant" solution I've seen. Sure, you may be one of the fringe consumers who can handle such solutions, but most people can't. There's always some part which is so dull/annoying/unsatisfying, but must be done right to achieve persistent widespread acceptance, that you'll have to pay (and recoup) someone to do.


How does Netflix?


By offering better service, which Netflix and similar largely have.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: