The best outcome would be for all of the bids to fail, all the streaming services would bleed money due to people sick of the siloing, and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog.

The second best outcome would be the cartoon villain Larry not getting what he wants.

▲

account42 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog.

That's a weird way to write "and for us to go back to owning copies of movies instead of just renting them."

	▲	LunaSea 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		More and more content can't be bought at all due to streaming platforms. That's a real problem.

▲

raw_anon_1111 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They will all go back to just licensing to Netflix.

Meet the new boss…

▲

nubinetwork 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I honestly don't think cbs paramount would be any better, if anything, wb content would be further paywalled and tiered off

▲

Spivak 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is why the model that would actually be good for consumers and the model that absolutely no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Let a bunch of companies compete over being the best streaming platform and then let those companies all compete for licensing deals for content.

I think a big copyright holders in a strange way actually don't want a repeat of cable. They want all content to be exclusive by default to their own streaming service.

▲

raw_anon_1111 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen.

Sony does that now

▲

andsoitis 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

When you make something (eg TV shows), you might also want a direct relationship with your customer (eg viewer). Consequently, A platform where you get to choose how to present and celebrate the stories seems like a reasonable thing.

▲

ndiddy 16 hours ago | parent [-]

In the US, the film industry originally worked like the streaming industry does today. Besides just creating films, the major studios distributed them through the theaters they owned. If you wanted to see a Paramount film you had to go to a Paramount owned theater, if you wanted to see an MGM film you had to go to an MGM owned theater, and so on. In 1948, this distribution scheme was ruled to be in violation of antitrust law and the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theaters. Now you can see major films in any studio and the theaters have to compete on price and amenities. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to streaming services.

▲

raw_anon_1111 11 hours ago | parent [-]

So you want to pass a law that no one can produce content and put it on their own website?

	▲	magicalhippo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Here in Norway we have a law for mobile carriers which is intended to prevent moats. It states that carriers must provide access for a "reasonable price" to other phone companies. It seems to have worked fairly well. One could imagine something similar, that sure you can put your own movie or TV show on your own website, but you must also sell it to companies who asks on reasonable terms. So Netflix can make a movie but couldn't say no to say Plex if they wanted to buy the rights to show it on Plex.tv.