Spotify is always my example. Spotify (and Apple Music I assume) is far more convenient, for a modest price, than pirating music.

It’s a shame the TV and movie people can’t seem to learn this. Most music is available on Spotify and Apple and probably other places as well.

They toyed with exclusivity for a while and I’m sure there’s still some stuff that’s exclusive to one or the other, but any time I hear a song and look it up, it’s on Spotify. Done.

Such a contrast to the stupid game of figuring out which streaming service has the show I want.

▲

auggierose an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Music is very different to TV and movies. You only watch a show or a movie once, maybe twice. And it costs much more to produce it.

	▲	th0raway 32 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The biggest difference there isn't production costs, but the physical costs of maintaining the giant library, in a way that is reasonable streamable at a good cost from any device, with many dubbings, and even video differences per version. Go see how many little differences are there in a random Pixar movie due to localization. The infrastructure per hour watched is relevant, and there's a lot of differences between one is willing to spend on something that is being watched hundreds of thousands of times today, and some 30 year old episode of a series nobody followed. It's a much different production than sending music files over. Even with licensing costs at zero, the infra of Youtube, the closest thing to Spotify for video, is a very different beast. And I'd argue youtube doesn't go far enough.
	▲	hack1312 38 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

somewhatgoated 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most of the music i listen to doesnt exist on Spotify and I think their business model is very predatory against artists. most artists cant pay their bills with Spotify fees, they just need to be on there to get visibility for their actual revenue streams.

I think a better example is bandcamp - it’s actually sustainable for artists and just as convenient as pirating. Plus you get to actually own what you pay for as opposed to Spotify controlling what you can / cant listen to.

▲

davsti4 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Except that Spotify is now becoming enshittified (battery and UI). When I have to think too much to attempt to use a UI, its time to find alternatives.

	▲	jasomill 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		As opposed to streaming video services, which, aside from the content they provide, have been shit from day one. While the web UIs suck compared to local media players, they work well enough that I can cope. But most services restrict 4K web playback, even on Windows with a GPU that supports hardware DRM and an HDCP display. My desktop display is a recent 55" LG OLED smart TV, and the streaming service apps on the TV work fine when my attention is devoted to whatever I'm watching, even if they tend to be slightly shittier than the already mediocre web UIs. But when task switching or multitasking, my only options are reduced video quality, borrowing or purchasing a physical copy if available, or piracy. Given how quickly everything shows up on public torrent trackers, I struggle to understand why the 4K limitations remain in place, as it obviously doesn't stop whoever uploads the torrents, and there has to be a vanishingly small number of paying customers who'd prefer to crack DRM locally or record HDMI instead of simply downloading the torrent. Do streaming services get kickbacks from smart device vendors?