
How much would unlimited access to movies, books, magazines, and music cost? - lominming
http://blog.minming.net/post/83447062229/unlimited-movies-music-books-magazines
======
beloch
Note that all those nice features of Amazon Prime only apply to the U.S.
version. The Canadian version is $79/year and only includes two-day shipping.
I wouldn't be surprised if most other international versions of Prime are
_only_ shipping at present.

Interestingly, after having had Prime for a year and not having renewed it,
I've noticed that Amazon.ca seems to have deliberately downgraded their free
super-saver shipping. It used to be that if you ordered something early Monday
you could receive it by Friday. Not every time, but most of the time. Now
super-saver orders arrive the following week reliably. They also make
"standard" non-free shipping the default selection where super-saver used to
be default if your order was large enough to qualify. I'm not a huge fan of
companies that make their premium offers more attractive by making the basic
offerings worse, and then make the worst possible option default.

As for all-you-can-consume media... As a canuck I doubt this will ever come
under one subscription within my lifetime. Media rights are a fustercluck up
here. Even Canadian Netflix is a pale, pathetic shadow of U.S. Netflix.

~~~
egeozcan
It's 50€/year in Germany with 2-day shipping and a mediocre quality, dubbed
movie selection.

Not being able to access the same content from anywhere in the world was
supposed to be the problem that the Internet was going to fix, right? (Region
restrictions are getting me depressed)

------
Tloewald
What's wrong with paying for what you use, assuming prices are reasonable? Why
have a cornucopia of crap?

In the US a fast net connection costs about $60. Once you've got that you can
watch, say, 3h of whatever you like for $6 every night -- assuming you pay
Apple or Amazon $2/h of content. Assuming 50% of your viewing is repeat
viewing, that drops to $3/night. Movies cost more, maybe as much as $20. But
you probably don't religiously watch 3h of TV per night. So let's say
$120/month at the high end. If you read, books are cheaper per hour than TV
unless you're a very fast reader. Magazines -- seriously who cares? Music is
$20/h but almost all of it is repeat listening.

That's pretty much the upper bound. In practice there's pointless friction and
inconvenience. Some shows aren't available. Some shows have long delays (HBO,
Showtime) before they can be (legally) downloaded. OTOH huge amounts of
content are available much more cheaply.

The only thing this model doesn't cover is watching TV as mindless background
noise -- paying $2/h for reality shows is probably going to drive you broke.

I think deliberately picking and paying for content is a better way to consume
content, sends the right signals to the right people, and also wastes less
time (don't watch stupid background noise shows, think carefully about what
you watch, and only watch good stuff with no ads).

~~~
icebraining
I agree, but on the other hand, people don't like having to be constantly
making the economical decision about whether to watch something; it's mentally
taxing, which is unwelcome when you're trying to relax by watching a movie or
a TV show.

It can also prevent one from discovering offbeat content, by making those bets
more costly. For example, I quite liked Super[1], but if I had to make to
choice to pay $20 beforehand, maybe I'd watch something worse but that I was
guaranteed to enjoy.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_(2010_American_film)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_\(2010_American_film\))

~~~
Tloewald
Actually discovery and serendipity are great features of services like Netflix
and Spotify, but it's also perfectly easy to put up free content (e.g. pilots
are often free) on iTunes or Amazon.

------
cortesoft
I already know the cost of unlimited access to books; A library card is free.

~~~
jerf
In all seriousness, this doesn't scale; if the number of Netflix users started
watching all their movies this way, there would be a huge and swift move
towards either changing the libraries an insanely large fee for content (on
top of their current structure) or some other legislative move to block it.
Libraries are shielded by their perceived social capital, but that only goes
so far.

~~~
tmarthal
Honestly, the only thing that a local well-funded library does not give you is
instant gratification like Netflix streaming. If you are willing to setup a
queue and allow most content 2-4 weeks for delivery, you should not have to
pay for any music, [hard|soft|comic] books, magazines, or movies on DVD.

Granted, this is also for non-current releases.

Also, you may be underestimating the legal protections that libraries have,
and also the voting power (and uncanny monetary resources) of the common
library patron.

I am not an expert in the subject, but it would be interesting to see recent
legislation for/against library systems (budget cuts notwithstanding).

------
largote
I personally only care about the shipping. I'd gladly ditch all of the other
tack-on services for $10 less a year.

~~~
stock_toaster

      > I personally only care about the shipping. 
    

I only care about the shipping as well.

    
    
      > I'd gladly ditch all of the other tack-on services for $10 less a month.
    

I would even ditch the other tack-on services and keep the existing price if I
could opt to "stop using OnTrac for anything"!

OnTrac regularly delivers late, not at all, or with the package arriving in a
condition that my friends and I have started to refer as "OnTrac condition".
Maybe you have to pay extra to not get the "looks like it was kicked down
several flights of stairs stairs and smells like it was rubbed down with
cigarette butts" treatment?

------
spaboleo
I carry this idea around since a couple of months as well.

And I would totally be willing to pay $100 per month for this, if it only
would include literally everything:

Paywalls of newssites, magazines, books, scientific papers, series, movies,
music, audiobooks. Everything. \- DRM / Region Code free. \- With curated
meta-data. \- Accessible wordlwide. \- Free choice of audio tracks,
independent of the customer's location. \- Available upon release (no delays).
\- Streaming and local download (well-established, non-proprietary file
formats!). \- All accessible from this one central "media hub".

Most of the services have lost me as a customer, due to ridiculous limitations
(Player), only streaming possible (no sufficient "download over wifi and
playback offline" options) etc.

What the content providers are missing...it is about convenience. I'd be
willing to pay $1200 a year to have this convenience, freedom and feeling of
not being "screwed over".

Right now I am paying for none of those services and lent my media on DVD or
BR from friends and colleagues. Or listen to free music streaming services and
podcasts. I get audiobooks on CDs from the local library. I get books from
friends or the library. I don't have cable or anything else.

The content providers are missing out. Because my yearly spendings for media
are below $100 and I pretty much can observe similar behavior amongst my
friends and colleagues.

It is a big opportunity, but it has to be done right.

------
GregorStocks
It seems like the hardest part of providing these services is getting the
content owners on board. I haven't seen much indication that Amazon is better
at cracking that nut than anybody else.

~~~
ebiester
That's because the pricepoint is ludicrous. If I buy two CDs a month, that's
more money that both creator and music business will see than a month of
Spotify. (Now, I happen to buy the CDs and use Spotify as a discovery service,
but most people think their moral obligation is satisfied when their legal
obligation is.)

Further, free/cheap alternatives reduce demand for premium services. Why would
content creators cannibalize their own revenue streams?

~~~
eikenberry
If you feel a moral obligation should come into play then you shouldn't be
buying CDs or Spotify. They both serve to prop up the copyright industry with
their perverted ambitions to retard human culture and development in exchange
for short term profit.

~~~
ebiester
We have a fundamental difference of ethical concerns here.

I'll be on board with your view once we reach post-scarcity, but right now
humans still need to eat, and high quality production still requires money to
produce.

Every hour that a quality musician can afford not to work is an hour they can
be working on refining their craft. It has already been shown that touring
pays less than minimum wage (yes, including those fucking t-shirts) for all
but the top acts, so the purchase of music is one of the few ways to stay
afloat.

The truth is, if we support the musicians that make the music which we want to
hear more, then we will get more of that music.

I'm an ardent supporter of Lessig et. al, but the proposed alternative revenue
models aren't working.

------
brownbat
There will never be one stop shopping for all copyrighted IP (absent some
scheme like compulsory licensing).

Once some service controls a significant user base, its priorities start to
shift. It's cheaper to make additional investments in advertising to gain
users (or convince existing users to consume content you already license)
rather than continue to add content. If you go from 1000 to 2000 titles, your
reputation for content increases proportionately. If you go from 1,000,000 to
1,001,000 titles, it's not clear anyone will notice. It becomes increasingly
expensive to enhance the value of your service by acquiring new content.

Sure, the most successful distributor can gain more bargaining power with some
content owners, but at the same time, holdout IP owners can threaten enormous
rents or go to other distributors out of a desire for a niche image. Upstart
competitors can risk more to gain niche exclusives, hoping for a breakaway hit
that will bring them into the game. If there's an oligopoly, like we sort of
have now, the two lead services will compete for exclusivity, making content
balkinized across services so no one can really get everything they want in
one place.

Neither Amazon Prime nor Netflix will ever provide everything people want to
watch, and it will always be a little easier for them to provide just a little
less than you want to try to build a broad common pool of cheaply satisfied
subscribers (while making the costs higher for services that might try to
cater to those with more eclectic tastes).

Compulsory licensing could fix this, it's what we use for terrestrial radio
stations and a few other arenas. Basically any radio station is allowed to
play any song, they just tabulate royalties and pay lump sums at the end of
the month.

If we had this for streaming services, the distributors would actually have to
compete on distribution, and we wouldn't have the quality of backroom deals
determining winners and losers in the streaming space. We'd actually get a
long tail, instead of ridiculously tiny fractions of critically acclaimed film
lists actually becoming available for the public to watch.

13 of the AFI Top 100:
[http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies/55041194/afi-100-movies...](http://www.hollywood.com/news/movies/55041194/afi-100-movies-
netflix-streaming) 40+ of 700+ Criterion films:
[http://criterioncast.com/netflix/](http://criterioncast.com/netflix/) 6 of
Spike Lee's "Essential 86": [http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/films-on-
spike-lees-...](http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/films-on-spike-lees-
list-of-essentials-that-are-streaming-on-netflix)

~~~
mehwoot
_Once some service controls a significant user base, its priorities start to
shift. It 's cheaper to make additional investments in advertising to gain
users (or convince existing users to consume content you already license)
rather than continue to add content. If you go from 1000 to 2000 titles, your
reputation for content increases proportionately. If you go from 1,000,000 to
1,001,000 titles, it's not clear anyone will notice. It becomes increasingly
expensive to enhance the value of your service by acquiring new content._

That depends on the licensing model. If you model it such that the content
owner gets a fixed % of the revenue for each view they get, then once you get
to 1,000,000 titles you wouldn't have to pay anything more for another 1,000
titles- the people who own those titles would organise themselves to put their
content on your service since otherwise they would miss out on a revenue
stream.

I think if a service like spotify or netflix gets a dominant position, and
presents a deal that seems fair to everybody, eventually you'll be able to
find pretty much every song/movie/etc on those services.

~~~
brownbat
I had originally hoped that fair terms and a desire not to leave money on the
table would have brought all content to all streaming services, but I mostly
revised that opinion after reading comments like those of Eric Kessler:

[http://techland.time.com/2011/12/01/hbo-boss-to-netflix-
youl...](http://techland.time.com/2011/12/01/hbo-boss-to-netflix-youll-never-
get-our-shows/)

There are unique hurdles in negotiating fair terms with every content owner
simultaneously. Transaction costs are abundant, and some people just don't
want to work with you.

------
ZenPro
This comment more than anything shows how divorced tech thinking can be from
reality.

>> _In all seriousness, this [the concept of libraries] doesn 't scale_

1\. It scaled perfectly well for 3 centuries with no reason not to continue
scaling with the requisite funding. It could be argued that the concept of a
library has scaled since 2600 BC. It scales for almost every town in the
Western world and every single University, College and School worldwide.
Beyond food/clean water sources and a medical centre the next municipal
institution offered to struggling African and Southern American communities is
often a School/Library with books.

In the West, demand is tempered by the need to physically go to a Library to
source the media for consumption. Some might see this as a barrier to entry
for certain customers; good. It is not a barrier to scaling though, it is a
net benefit that makes the customer flow manageable.

A similar argument can be made against Amazon. _You physically need to access
the internet? You need a computer or mobile device? You need a payment card?
You need an address?_ Ha. Too many barriers.

The only barrier to a library is physically arriving at the library and in
some cases mobile libraries will come to you with an RV packed with media for
free consumption.

Only a person blinded by the current SV-inspired business models can look at
something in existence, already scaling and say _according to me I do not
believe this idea scales_

2\. Since it is impossible for any individual to consume the sum total of
media at the same time the system has built in redundancy guaranteeing it
scales effectively. IE You cannot physically check out and consume every piece
of media therefore unlimited copies are not required to be stored. Data
analysis yields the optimum level of media storage further improved by
aggregating analysed lending habits.

3\. Libraries are not weakened by greater public interest, they are
strengthened by it. The demise of the social library has been largely brought
about by the ubiquitousness of online content (including piracy). If those
sources dried up overnight library use would explode in growth and Governments
would double their budgets.

The idea that if libraries suddenly gained _too many_ customers they would be
shut down is ludicrous with absolutely no credible reasoning.

 _Source_ : History.

------
sgeisenh
This is an interesting idea, but I suspect that most consumers are inclined to
pick and choose services. Maybe Amazon can fill a niche with this type of
offering.

Beyond viability, I find the implications of this post terrifying. The line
between licensing and ownership is becoming blurred. And the prospect of
having so few personal assets is disconserting.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> And the prospect of having so few personal assets is disconserting.

Disagree. I _want_ to live in a world where my major possessions are my
clothes, my laptop, my cellphone, and that's about it. Books? All cut off,
scanned in, and PDFs by 1dollarscan.com. CD's? All ripped and stored in S3.

Maybe its just my bent as a tech professional, but I'd rather have the bits
than the atoms.

~~~
nitrogen
Having the bits is fine as long as you actually have the bits, not a DRMed
stream.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Agreed. I strip the DRM off of all my bits. I paid for them, they're mine.

------
abalone
Strange definition of "unlimited". E.g. For movies it's just what Netflix &
Amazon offer. Sure, you can play those over and over as much as you want.
Reminds me of those software bundles from yesteryear that offered 1,000+
fonts. In the end, you get what you pay for.

------
bigbugbag
This is a poorly worded question as the op doesn't actually answer it. This is
not a matter of cost as this fully negates the cost of the whole required
infrastructure, but a matter of price tag.

More like "In the US how much one could be charged on top of internet access
to be granted access to a limited selection of limited online digital
libraries of stuff".

IMHO this is severely limited, us only, online only (mostly), broadband only
(mostly), limited libraries, etc. this is subpar compared to what
people2people file sharing can offer which is far from being unlimited
nevertheless.

------
WCityMike
Library.

------
webmaven
>> Even the most active readers with a full-time job get to read at most about
3-4 books per month.

It is to laugh. I usually manage to read (or in some cases, reread) 5-10
novels a month. I have on occasion read as many as 15 novels in a month
(admittedly older, and thus shorter, works).

~~~
ajkjk
But you are (sadly, maybe) relatively rare in reading that much.

I love reading and I still don't read more than 1-2 a month... and I read more
than many of my friends.

~~~
Dewie
> But you are (sadly, maybe) relatively rare in reading that much.

Why is reading considered such a virtue? Specifically reading stuff in book
format.

~~~
encoderer
Because reading books has been making people smarter for centuries?

~~~
billpollock
There is something to that. Sounds like a great tagline, too.

