Piracy Is Surging Again Because Streaming Execs Ignored The Lessons Of The Past

from the doomed-to-repeat dept

Back in 2019 we noted how the streaming sector risked driving consumers back to piracy if they didn’t heed the lessons of the past. We explored how the rush to raise rates, nickel-and-dime users, implement arbitrary restrictions, and force users toward hunting and pecking their way through a confusing platter of exclusives and availability windows risked driving befuddled users back to piracy.

And lo and behold, that’s exactly what’s happening.

After several decades of kicking and screaming, studio and music execs somewhere around 2010 finally realized they needed to offer users affordable access to easy-to-use online content resources. They finally realized they needed to compete with piracy and focus on consumer satisfaction whether they liked the concept or not. And unsurprisingly, once they learned that lesson piracy began to dramatically decrease.

That was until 2021, when piracy rates began to climb slowly upward again in the U.S. and EU. As the Daily Beast notes, users have grown increasingly frustrated at having to hunt and peck through a universe of different, often terrible streaming services just to find a single film or television program.

As every last broadcaster, cable company, broadband provider, and tech company got into streaming they began to lock down “must watch” content behind an ever-shifting number of exclusivity silos, across an ocean of sometimes substandard “me too” services. Initially competition worked, but as the market saturated and the most powerful companies started to silo content, those benefits have been muted.

Now users have to hunt and peck between Disney+, Netflix, Starz, Max, Apple+, Acorn, Paramount+, Hulu, Peacock, Amazon Prime, and countless other services in the hopes that a service has the rights to a particular film or program. When you already pay for five different services, you’re not keen to sign up to fucking Starz just to watch a single 90s film. And availability is constantly shifting, confusing things further.

We warned that was going to be a problem back in 2019, and it’s happening exactly as predicted, creating widespread consumer confusion and a growing desire for simplicity:

“The streaming industry has to converge towards a system where consumers can watch pretty much everything they like for an affordable price,” TorrentFreak editor Ernesto Van der Sar said. “That sounds straightforward, but in an industry that’s built around licensing silos with billions in revenue at stake, that’s easier said than done.”

The Daily Beast article focuses heavily on the annoyance of international licensing restrictions, and fails to meaningfully address the numerous other reasons piracy is on the rise again.

Mindless megamergers have made many streaming services shittier, more expensive, and harder to use (Max is the poster child for this phenomenon). In a bid to please Wall Street, streaming giants have shifted away from trying to make users happy, and toward obnoxious nickel-and-diming efforts, whether it’s Netflix’s password sharing crackdown or Amazon’s decision to charge users paying $140 a year even more money every month just to avoid ads that didn’t exist previously.

As every corporation does eventually, they’ve shifted from innovative, consumer-friendly efforts to lure in new users, to obnoxious turf protection efforts focused on steadily exploiting existing users.

The underlying problem, as usual, is Wall Street’s unyielding, often myopic desire for improved quarterly returns at any cost. It’s not enough to provide a high quality, profitable service that people like. The need for improved quarterly returns ultimately results in companies cannibalizing their own products and brands in order to appease this need for relentless growth. Even if it harms longer term company health.

The end result is higher prices, layoffs, shittier product quality, worse customer service, weird restrictions, and no limit of new annoyances. It also contributes to an unyielding desire among executives for mindless consolidation in a bid to hack this broken system, nab some tax breaks, and create the illusion of meaningful “synergistic” growth and progress (again, see Max).

Cory Doctorow’s recently popularized term for this age-old phenomenon is “enshittification,” and it’s everywhere you look.

It’s possible to disrupt this downward cycle but it involves doing all the sorts of things large corporations don’t want to do, like reducing insane executive compensation, accepting antitrust reform, prioritizing customer service, paying creatives, not wasting your money on dumb shit like Netflix-themed restaurants, and (gasp) taking a small financial hit in order to retain users and maintain product quality.

So there’s very little indication any of these problems are going to slow down. Consumers are going to be forced to pay higher and higher rates for increasingly deteriorating services, to the point where piracy is going to become an increasingly alluring value proposition. And when that happens, you can be absolutely, indisputably assured that executives will blame absolutely everything but themselves.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Piracy Is Surging Again Because Streaming Execs Ignored The Lessons Of The Past”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
125 Comments
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

I think Disney is handling Streaming fine.

In the US, there’s an ad-tier Hulu and Disney+ bundle for $10/month that I think is extremely reasonable. The ads have countdown clocks in a corner so we could mute the commercials until it’s time to watch the show again. I think that’s a better deal that the relentless advertisements I got on Cable TV.

So no, I don’t think I get a shittier deal than Cable on video streaming services. At least not yet.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

How’s the bath water, frog?

The cable ads weren’t always relentless. Broadcast TV ads were not always “every 12 minutes”.

The only way that Amazon (and apparently Hulu/Disney+) can get away with the ads they are currently is that the alternatives have gotten even worse.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The cable ads weren’t always relentless. Broadcast TV ads were not always “every 12 minutes”.

12 minutes? I guess you haven’t even watched broadcast or cable TV lately. There are animated ads running at the edges of the screen, on top of shows now.

But the total length of ad breaks has hardly increased since 1990. Like, the original Star Trek from 1966 had episode lengths of 50:20, TNG in 1987 was around 45:30, and several “one-hour” shows from 2010-2020 appear to be in the 43-to-44-minute range. (Maybe the number of breaks has increased, and definitely the channels have synchronized the breaks so people can’t change channels to escape the ads.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Is there even an ad-free way to watch sports?

Given that professional sports are generally played in stadiums with advertisements all over the damn place, I guess you’d have to somehow blur or remove those. Maybe something could be automated via computer vision; I don’t know whether anyone’s published such a project, but it could be a fun learning experience.

Then I guess you’d have to download a TV-rip after the fact—any good release-group will remove commercial breaks, but I don’t think many groups do sports—and run this ad-blocker on the video.

Or, watch sports that are too unpopular to have advertisements. Maybe go down to your local park and watch people play frisbee or quiddich. That’s probably not what you’re after….

kath3 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Sports without ads

Some sports but you are paying for use of the service. For example Tennis Channel Plus, F1TV. Some ESPN+ showings of Tennis and Soccer don’t show ads. Otherwise, Football/Soccer matches don’t have ads because each half is an uninterrupted 45 minutes. Anything else that shows on ESPN, MSG or a broadcast network is filled with ads everywhere and it is worse because of sports betting.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

F1TV … don’t show ads.

Um… did they stop plastering ads all over the cars, do they filter those out now, or did you just forget about it? Similarly, the football images I’ve seen have ads all over the place, even if the broadcasters are not stopping for commercial breaks. Maybe not at very amateur levels, but probably for anything that makes it onto TV.

The Dude says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Have you watched US football anytime in the last, oh, 10 million years? Injury, timeout, debate over a call, end of a quarter, … Absolutely every second they can break from the game, THEY DO! And they do this with every sport… golf (witch is almost never actually live), tennis, F1/NASCAR/BTCC/etc. Soccer and hockey are harder to insert ads because the action never stops, but they still manage.

As for the signs plastered all over venues, I don’t count those as they’re just static background. They don’t interfere with, or block any of the action.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Is there even an ad-free way to watch sports?

Sounds kinda petulant. Given that many major sports have TV timeouts baked into the event, when the action on the ice pauses for 2-3min while TV shows ads, what are you going to be watching even if you’re somehow magically blocking all the ads? Even ESPN+’s hockey broadcasts are impacted by this, since when the terrestrial channels pause for ad breaks, ESPN+ just loops a maddening promo.

Via Reddit:

For the Love of God ESPN+ PLEASE play something different during commercial breaks

pixelpusher220 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Amazon's ad strategy

With cable, I record games and watch on delay. Easily skip commercials with the Tivo.

With streaming only, it’s a little dicier, some allow later viewing. the local Washington Caps ‘Monumental Sports Network’ technically does but stupendously shows you the friggin score before you can get to the game! And of course the Xfinity cross-authentication to Monumental rarely works so that’s fun too.

And you have to impose your own media blackout as well.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

reasonable. The ads have countdown clocks in a corner so we could mute the commercials until it’s time to watch the show again.

You don’t see anything weird about that? Disney’s basically saying “we know you hate these and won’t actually watch, but it’s not quite enough to make you cancel”, while presumably telling advertisers about how many people will be “watching”. What clearer sign of an adversarial relationship could we get?

Tim says:

Re: Disney is not handling streaming fine

We noticed the last Indiana Jones movie came out on Disney+ and instead of watching that horrible movie we decided to watch the good Indian Jones movie: Raiders of the Lost Ark. But the version Disney+ presented was grainy and barely watchable on a large screen TV set. It got so bad we pulled out the DVD we had to watch it.

Clearly Disney is cutting costs.

(and note it has nothing to do with our infrastructure – we have fiber internet at 5 Gbp speeds and physical connections between device and router)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Beatings will continue until profits improve

Treat your customers badly enough for long enough and so long as there are alternatives eventually people will start looking into them, and if your response to that is to treat what customers remain even worse to compensate all you’re doing is speeding up your company’s death spiral.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

^^ This!

It’s been painfully obvious for decades that this one tenet is not, and quite likely never has been taught in business school. If it were a requirement to have this tattooed on each and every MBA student’s forehead, backwards so it can be read in the mirror every morning, I think we’d see a much better overall economy. If nothing else, the pollsters would have a much more difficult time trying to learn which company has the lowest customer satisfaction rating.

And that would be a good thing.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mechanical Rhizome (profile) says:

Piracy roller coaster

First, I was a pirate because Napster allowed me to get the single mp3 I wanted without paying $10-15 dollars for the cd.

Later, Netflix, Steam and Pandora turned me legit with the high value of their services.

Now, I pirate again because I’m not playing $4 to rent Terry Gilliam’s Brazil (1985) for 48 hours. I don’t have a DVD player, and fuck letting Amazon, Google or Apple sell me a copy which they hold hostage on their platform.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Second-hand is definitely better, but the ability to re-sell used goods can influence “first-hand” purchasing. I don’t know how important that is to general DVD or Blu-ray buyers, but certainly many buyers of brand-new bicycles and cars (for example) would act differently if they knew there was no secondary market. And you would still have to buy a DVD or Blu-ray player that’s designed to screw you—with DRM, whose fees go to the MAFIAA.

Well, I hope people aren’t buying second-hand just ’cause they’re buying into some MAFIAA theory of ethical behavior, anyway.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
TasMot (profile) says:

The Result of Ever Changing 'Contracts' and Terms of Service

…Amazon’s decision to charge users paying $140 a year even more money every month just to avoid ads that didn’t exist previously.

While Amazon’s change is disturbing to me because it decided to charge more for the same service I was getting, this is part of a more disturbing trend.

The ‘contract’ with Amazon and pretty much every big company has a very one sided clause that says they can change the terms of the contract at any time. Very seldom are the changes to the terms made to benefit the consumer, they almost always benefit the huge corporation. The only change the consumer can make is to drop that service.

The business, maybe, tries to make the changes small enough that consumers won’t just cancel the service. However; as we’ve seen with cable, that means that the additional fee starts small, then increases year over year.

So, a service I started because it was being paid for, that was ad free, all of a sudden becomes a source of more ads just because they can change the contract at any time.

It’s like the contracts are only a contract for the consumer since they can’t change the contract. The business just keeps changing the contract to whatever they can get away with until they can see the drop-off in subscribers.

Based on my business classes from way back when, it seems like streaming business should look at customer retention as a metric, not just number of subscribers. If, for a while, the number of subscribers goes up because of exclusive content and a price increase, then falls because the exclusive content disappears, the number of subscribers goes down again.

AWS an Amazon company does a lot of statistics for the NFL. Why don’t they do some statistics for themselves and learn more about customer churn and how to retain customers instead of sacrificing current customers for new ones all the time?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

this is part of a more disturbing trend.
The ‘contract’ with Amazon and pretty much every big company has a very one sided clause that says they can change the terms of the contract at any time.

What trend? Contracts have always been that way. Cable TV contracts were like that 50 years ago. If you’re paying month-to-month for an unnecessary service, I don’t see any major problem with a provider changing it with a month’s notice. I’d hold “necessary” services like phone and internet to higher standards, and think governments should be regulating prices or requiring networks be open to third-party providers at fair terms.

What disturbs me is how “everything” now seems to require a contract, even for “purchases”. Can one continue to use a purchased iPhone if one disagrees with Apple’s new terms? We know that people are arbitrarily losing access to “purchased” movies. And online shopping requires agreement to complex one-sided contracts and privacy policies, where in-person shopping hardly ever did (excepting Costco) and still doesn’t.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The AWS agreement is actually much better than most “cloud service” or “cloud backup” agreements, in that they’ll give you 30 days of notice before deleting your data for breaching the terms, and I think a bit more notice if they’re artitrarily booting you or discontinuing a service entirely. I don’t believe the Prime agreement is so generous, and I did look into and reject some “cloud backup” providers because they could delete all my data with no notice, no refund, no reason. It boggles my mind that people actually suggest relying one these companies for one’s business.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Those execs will be dragged kicking and streaming into the 21st century.

No, they won’t. In the spirit of “failing upward”, they’ll get millions of dollars each from their “golden parachutes”, then get a better job elsewhere.

When streaming services fail, the Hollywood Accountants will find some way to deduct it from Babylon 5’s royalty stream, and will convince investors to do the same thing all over again (maybe by buying some company whose numbers have been made to look good by Hollywood Accountants). If some service ever really enters the 21st century (in terms of licensing etc.), it’ll come with execs who never saw an earlier century; like maybe NBC will buy TikTok or something. But, so far, it’s the streaming services being dragged into the 20th century when they all join the MAFIAA.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Your content is not as valuable as you think it is.

An old chestnut from yesteryear:

Value is always determined by the purchaser, never by the seller.

That’s still being taught in Business School, believe it or don’t. The problem with that tenet is that too many freshly minted MBA’s take this as a personal challenge to prove it wrong. That’s why we’re in a world of shit, economy-wise and customer relations-wise.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

While we’re on the subject of movies, one of the great mysteries for me is that a studio will hire a promising or even proven director, then micromanage them into oblivion forcing a mediocre product that nobody wants to buy. I get wanting to keep a movie within budget or certain market sectors, but the number of movies where you read the behind the scenes and they basically say “we signed on to make X movie, but producers blocked things, it flopped and audiences say they wanted X” is depressingly large.

Same goes with the streaming market. Netflix led the way and the lesson was basically “people will pay to access content easier than piracy”, and the response was to make it more cumbersome, expensive and difficult?

Paul B says:

Re:

There are enough ways from pirate streaming to going through a proxy that the ISP level is no big deal anymore. In addition only the new big stuff is really being tracked anymore, stuff on Torrent with 1 seed is highly likly not being tracked at all and in that case one could make the argument that the person filing the suit had the authority to distribute the work in question (not that I will try this, but an arguemnt could be made)

AmySox (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Except they do enforce copyright law, because the Music And Film Industry Association of America (MAFIAA) bullies them into doing so.

I don’t know what kind of monitoring Comcast does on their Internet services. But, if they kill my connection, I’m screwed, as I need it for work. (Not to mention my roommate needs it to play her games.) And that’s true even though I pay the premium for top-speed service with unlimited usage; for all I know, those are the customers they monitor most strictly, as they might think they’re the ones most likely to engage in piracy!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Except they do enforce copyright law, because the Music And Film Industry Association of America (MAFIAA) bullies them into doing so.

In North America, I doubt there’s much bullying. The MAFIAA and their distributors are the big ISPs: Comcast (NBC), AT&T (DirecTV), BellMedia, Rogers, and probably others.

AmySox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Stipulated. Jamie Zawinski has recently mentioned the same problem:

[…] the real problem here is that the Content Mafia has bullied the tech industry […] into making the process of asserting copyright infringement trivial, fast, and easy to automate; while making the process of making an appeal on the grounds of Fair Use, or any other reason, damned near impossible.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

A big part of that is due to how hilariously one-sided the law is, where treating every accusation as valid only screws over the person who posted the content but ignoring even one valid complaint can have disastrous consequences for the company/platform that receives it, meaning the safer option will always be to treat every claim as valid unless there’s enough public outcry about a bogus one for them to risk it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

A very good point, if they were just enforcing actual copyright law I doubt most people would have that much of a problem with their actions other than how insane the law is, what really ramps things up is how they treat and want everyone else to treat accusations of infringement as equivalent to legal findings of guilt of infringement, turning the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ completely on it’s head and into ‘innocent until accused of being guilty’

Dave says:

Another significant cause of online video or movie piracy is geo-blocking. I live in Canada, where Hulu simply does not exist, and there are some media companies who claim to have scored the rights to certain movie or television titles in both the US and Canada, but then proceed to put those titles only on Hulu or some other service only available in the US. That will most certainly lead to those titles getting extensively pirated in Canada, and those media companies should not pretend to be shocked when they see that happening.

nerdrage (profile) says:

Re: streaming still hasn't settled into its final form

Max still isn’t available in the UK either due to some contract with Sky (owned by Comcast, a competitor). Disney now has full control of Hulu (again, Comcast was in the way) so as they merge Disney+ and Hulu in the US, I’d expect it to be the same in Canada. They wholly own both, so why not? They didn’t want to expand Hulu till now because it would have increased what they had to pay Comcast for their share of Hulu.

It’s amazing how long this transition is taking.

Dave says:

Re: Re:

Disney now has full control of Hulu (again, Comcast was in the way) so as they merge Disney+ and Hulu in the US, I’d expect it to be the same in Canada.

Given how, like I just mentioned, Hulu does not exist in Canada to begin with, that statement makes no sense.

And the reason Hulu does not exist in Canada is because more than 99 percent of its catalogue is American fare that is too lucrative for our own private domestic broadcasters, i.e., Bell Media, Corus and Rogers, to not licence and carry on their own services instead.

Thomas Raven says:

so-called filmed content is dying

The underlying factor of all of this is the skyrocketing cost of making so-so content these days. It’s similar to the music industry in the 70s-90s where the production of an album could incur costs of $500,000-$1,000,000 (way beyond anything rational) just so the two percenters in the chain would get their slice. CAA and their ilk are a major factor driving up costs of all filmed content because they package deals and take a hefty share off the top. The film industry has repeatedly been shown how they can cut production costs and still deliver premium content and yet those costs continue to go up due to the studios’ demands that their product be bigger+better+shinier than anyone else’s. It’s total bullshit because what most consumers actually want is interesting narratives with intriguing characters. I feel strongly that that can still be offered at a reasonable price but the arbiters continue to push for more of the ridiculous bombast that has driven most of the recent superhero flops.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

The underlying factor of all of this is the skyrocketing cost of making so-so content these days.

That phrasing makes it sound like a natural evolution, which isn’t really the case. The reason so much content has exploded on cost over just the past five years is the increased reliance on VFX with no control and no supervision: “We’ll fix it in post”.

A tightly controlled use of VFX reduces cost significantly. That’s how a movie like Godzilla – Minus One was made for less than $15 million.

Anonymous Coward says:

Over $200 US/month for Comcast, and we get 100+ channels that we’ve never watched, but can’t get the local university’s basketball games without signing up (and paying) for a third-party service. We don’t watch movies via Comcast any more because not only are they cut to pieces (for time and content) but the channels carrying them run ads on the screen while they’re playing. And increasingly, the channels we actually watch are being filled with beyond-idiotic reality/game shows that are clearly designed to cater to morons. (Which I suppose makes sense from a profitability viewpoint.)

So of course we pirate everything we can. We WOULD pay for it, if it were affordable and convenient and easy, but it’s not. Not even close. And the only reason that we still have Comcast is that we need an Internet connection and if we drop TV, they’ll raise the price.

nerdrage (profile) says:

nobody pirates Netflix

There’s a simple solution to piracy: the content makers can stop making content that appeals to pirates and focus on content for those who never pirate anything.

This list of top pirated shows is intriguing because Netflix dominates the streaming nelsens list yet there are no Netflix titles here. Why?

https://torrentfreak.com/the-last-of-us-is-the-most-pirated-tv-show-of-2023-231225/

The article doesn’t state the answer that I think is true: because Netflix has evolved to be female-skewing and most pirates are male. So if you want to end piracy, make content for the ladies.

https://deadline.com/2023/12/netflix-viewership-ginny-georgia-female-young-adult-interest-1235680015/

PS why did Netflix evolve to skew female? Probably because they’ve never bothered with sports (greedy leagues, that’s a whole other story).

Anyway we’re on track to the status quo I’ve predicted for years: 4 or 5 major streamers and the rest get consolidated out of existence. The big future trend will be the migration of sports finally to streaming, but that’s going to be dominated by the huge tech companies – Apple, Amazon, Google – who can afford to outbid others for overpriced sports rights.

Disney might try to hang on with ESPN but I think they should just transition out of sports now. Realistically they can’t battle the tech giants.

Piracy will continue thru this whole process of course. Piracy predates Netflix after all. But the contest will be decided by which services appeal to the most paying customers and if that means they all need to skew female because those are the paying customers, then that might be the end result. Get ready for a lot more Bridgerton type shows.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

That’s an interesting theory, but I don’t think it’s true. I see Netflix rips pop up all the time (a randomly-selected sample: Hells.Kitchen.US.S21E07.Wok.This.Way.720p.NF.WEB-DL.DDP5.1.H.264-NTb Rescued.by.Ruby.2022.2160p.NF.WEB-DL.DDP5.1.Atmos.HEVC-XEBEC Undead.Unluck.S01E07.1080p.NF.WEB-DL.DDP2.0.H.264-VARYG Wu.Assassins.S01.1080p.NF.WEB-DL.DDP5.1.x264-NTG).

And I know several people who are female and watch such rips. Admittedly, not all of them download the rips personally, but they have their ways. Does it matter that these things are not in the top 10?

AmySox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Also, some women are trans, and I know so many trans women who are good in electronics that it’s practically a meme.

Yep, that’s me. 🙂 I just don’t know how to download the rips right now. I could probably learn, though, if I wanted to and there were a way for me to do so safely without endangering my Internet connection (see my other subthread).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Or maybe males have realized that their evolutionary niche no longer serves any meaningful purpose and have chosen to join the winning team. You ever think about that? Of course not. You’d rather go down with your rapidly sinking ship, and good fucking riddance.

The day that the Y-chromosome finally self-destructs cannot come soon enough.

AmySox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I wouldn’t go that far. Being transgender is still a pretty rare thing.

And I didn’t exactly realize that my “evolutionary niche no longer serves any meaningful purpose” and choose “to join the winning team”. I could derail this thread for days with the full story behind my transition, but I’ll simply proffer one observation: I chose to transition because, in the end, doing so hurt less than not doing so. Ponder that, if you will.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Pages upon pages of genderbend Rule 34 beg to differ.

More content will be created to fill our demand. We’re sick and tired of these limited cismale shells. We will transcend into the next evolutionary level, the next tier of being. And no boring ass men who believe in an imaginary sky friend are going to stop us.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

“This list of top pirated shows is intriguing because Netflix dominates the streaming nelsens list yet there are no Netflix titles here. Why?”

Most likely because Netflix is still a “default” service where most people subscribe to it, whereas HBO/Max and Apple+ aren’t. Or, because they don’t have exclusive major franchises like Disney does, at least not ones as popular as the ones listed on that article (I suspect Squid Game, Stranger Things, etc. would have been more prominent on previous lists).

marurun (profile) says:

Yes, but also no

I really struggle with this on an intellectual level. On the one hand, all these streaming services are effectively competition, but they’re not functioning that way. Competition should be driving costs down for content. So I’m not sure what’s going on there (oligopoly effects?). On the other hand, having a single streaming services with All The Content would also be a problem, because that nests all the control with a single provider.

I’m reminded of cable services and how they are actually different from these streaming services. Cable services are, in most areas, a local monopoly. And you had to pay for all those bundled channels. For ages consumers (like me, at times) repeatedly asked for ala carte on channels but the cable companies argued it didn’t make economic sense, because the media producers wanted to bundle. But isn’t that a little what we have now? We can buy streaming services and specific premium channels and even have access to ad-driven options like Tubi and FreeVerse (an Amazon offering, so perhaps not actually competition) and customize our own options.

So the question is, what do we ACTUALLY want? Do we want a single streaming service to rule them all (and also us all as consumers)? That would be cable monopolies all over again. Do we want ala carte options and competitions? What we have is perhaps more of an oligopoly and thus not as competitive as we would like, but arguably better than cable. Like, what’s the actual answer, here? Pay-per-view in the internet age? What solution fixes the current complaints AND past complaints?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
mick says:

Re:

The fairly obvious solution is for Congress to extend the same licensing rules for video that we have for audio. There are TONS of online music services that all have the same content. They differentiate themselves on price and service quality and add-on services (like podcasts).

There’s zero reason that video can’t be treated in exactly the same way, avoiding the issues you raise here.

Sadly, I haven’t heard of anyone (including Techdirt) pushing for licensing changes to fix the issues we all like to complain about.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The fairly obvious solution is for Congress to extend the same licensing rules for video that we have for audio.

What licensing rules for audio? As far as I’m aware, the only general-purpose compulsory audio licensing in the USA is for compositions, not recordings. By that analogy, I guess Congress could grant everyone a right to re-record a TV show, with new actors, if they paid a royalty. Which might be useful but really has nothing to do with this story.

John85851 (profile) says:

Why piracy?

People are saying that piracy is rising because of the fractured streaming services. But why not endorse buying DVD’S and Blu-ray? That way, you have a legal copy that you own, that won’t be deleted from a streaming service, and won’t move to another service while you’re halfway through.
And best of all, since it’s yours forever, you don’t have to worry about a service pulling it because they don’t think its worth showing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

But why not endorse buying DVD’S and Blu-ray?

In my case, it’s because I don’t want to fund the assholes pushing DRM, region-coding, anti-library policies, etc.

Whereas the so-called “pirates” are providing a valuable service to the public; that term would be better applied to the Hollywood Accountants trying to figure out how to weasel out of “required” payments.

ECA (profile) says:

lets look at it

ONE OF THE BIGGEST EARNERS OF THE CENTURY, Until recently.
‘Gone with the wind’
Understand when it was made, That the cost to see it was abit high for the time, it almost Flopped. It hit the big time once it hit TV and Video distribution.

THe MOVIE FINALLY in 2020??, hit the public domain. THE BOOKS wont be there until 2031.

Timothyven says:

There is shrinkflation to deal with too

Sheinkflation isn’t just confined to consumer goods. Back in the day we had 20 plus episodes in any series. Enter streaming. Episodes per season shrunk to 13. Then 10. Now we see total episodes shrinking to 6. Or 5. Or 3. And we wait years for the next season. Where we had new seasons every year, now we wait 2…3 years.
Where once we had entire seasons released all at once, streamers are going back to the weekly episode release of old.
Streamers are going against what worked for them in the beginning and it’s gonna bite them in their hind parts

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Where once we had entire seasons released all at once, streamers are going back to the weekly episode release of old.

You say that like it’s a bad thing. One of the things Disney got right with its weekly schedules for shows like WandaVision and The Mandalorian is how such schedules leave room for fans to guess and theorize and discuss shows over a longer stretch of time than a single weekend. Compare that to the most recent season of Stranger Things, which entered and left the pop culture zeitgeist over the course of a week at best because Netflix dropped the whole season in one batch. I mean, which character has a larger pop culture footprint right now: Eleven or Baby Yoda?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I think both are kind of bad. Stretching stuff out feels too “artificial”, whereas a TV season being a one- or two-day event brings its own problems.

I’m not sure that “recent TV as ‘water-cooler’ conversation” can ever really come back. Maybe you’re talking about discussions on web forums, and I guess that can kind of work. But even then, that feels like fans just being used by giant corporations as free advertising. At least in the past, we weren’t paying to watch the shows we were “advertising”.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“One of the things Disney got right with its weekly schedules for shows like WandaVision and The Mandalorian is how such schedules leave room for fans to guess and theorize and discuss shows over a longer stretch of time than a single weekend.”

Counterpoint: I didn’t bother with Wandavision because of that when it first came out, and it eventually took me over a year to get around to binging it, in which time I also didn’t bother with the movies because I knew there was crossover and I wanted to see the shows first. I can name several other shows on other platforms where I waited for the whole season to release before watching, and then didn’t bother after all because they’d been cancelled before I got the chance.

Fair play if you prefer the drip feed method, but I’m going to wait.

Anonymous Coward says:

As I’ve said before, I love piracy.

I use IPT and Myanonamouse.

Can anyone recommend some other trackers? I really haven’t failed to find what I need via those two services but always welcome more options.

Likewise, I use HDToday and flixtor. For these I would love to have some back-ups.

And for sports, Streameast and nhl66.

Anonymous Coward says:

I’ve been a happy streaming customer since 2010, streaming a combination of YouTube, Prime, NetFlix, Disney+ and Apple+, with some add-on packages from time to time as well.

Obviously, I haven’t been a paying subscriber to all those services at one time.

I was paying for YouTube content on a per-episode basis to support the creators, until Google changed their format to force me to either subscribe or stop watching. I stopped watching.

I get Prime Video with my existing Prime subscription, and I don’t subscribe for the Video section, that’s just a bonus.

I only subscribe to Netflix when they have a great deal; last time I used it I paid $7.99 for three months’ access. I think that may have been in 2019.

Apple+ gets a subscription every time I buy a new Apple device; I’m not willing to pay for that one separately, as it doesn’t have enough content for me on a continual basis that I’d be willing to pay for.

That leaves Disney+, which I’ve done a month’s subscription for about once a year since it popped up. It’s probably worth it to do that again sometime this year.

The frustrating thing I’ve repeatedly come up against is watching a TV series. I’ll start in on a series, only to find that after season 3, I need to pay for an add-on subscription to get the next season. But then when I look at whether that add-on has ALL the following seasons, I find it doesn’t, and that some of those seasons are being provided by a different streaming service altogether.

But wait… by the time I get around to dumping one service and subscribing to the other, just to watch the end of that TV series… that provider no longer provides it; it’s now moved somewhere else.

And that situation has finally led me back to what I call “soft piracy” where I’ll stream content and strip the DRM, and store it on my local media server for later viewing when I want to view it. Because I no longer trust that it will still be available from the service I paid to gain access to it.

Am I willing to pay for content? Definitely. Am I willing to waste the few hours I have available per week to WATCH the content trying to sort out who I have to pay and where the content is located? Definitely not.

So now I make local copies of stuff I may want to watch in the future when I have access to it, and then watch it at my own leisure. And I can’t bother deleting it, so it’ll still be there the next time I want to watch it, without having to figure out who I have to pay THIS time for the privelege.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
AC720 (profile) says:

Blame everybody but themselves

Blaming piracy will surely be the scapegoat to explain why business plan after plan failed to become a hit revenue generator.

They won’t call out the stupid business plans and anti-consumer licensing practices, nor the way every single blasted service wants its own $10 a month, no wait $12 a month, no wait, $15 a month and none of them seem to understand nobody wants to pay for all that crap. It’s not worth the cost or the hassle. The TV producers are lucky anybody still cares enough to pirate the shows.

Anonymous Coward says:

Enshittification, also known as platform decay,[1] is the pattern of decreasing quality of online platforms that act as two-sided markets. Enshittification can be seen as a form of rent-seeking.[2] Examples of alleged enshittification have included Amazon, Bandcamp, Facebook, Google Search, Quora, Reddit, and Twitter.

From wikipedia

Streaming being more expensive is not enshittification, though I agree it a good term, it’s just more expensive.

Netflix has always had shows come and go this isn’t anything new.

I think the thing that is new is that there are a bunch of services that make some content available whereas before it wasn’t available, so realistically it’s actually easier to consume stuff legally that it was before, though still a hassle, who wants to sign up to

FWIW, I would love to have a single service for £15-20 a la spotify where you can get pretty much anything, who knows it might happen.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

terop (profile) says:

They finally realized they needed to compete with piracy and focus on consumer satisfaction whether they liked the concept or not.

You haven’t got the memo though. The memo says that competing with piracy is not possible. The reason is that there are fundamental physical limitations in moving money around, which piracy does not need to implement at all. Then negotiating with content owners about licenses is burdensome operation that costs a little bit of real money to implement. Piracy again does not need to do that at all.

But given that our product is pure software, the piracy area receives its full behaviour, even if they don’t move money around or do license negotiations.

And money alone has value in the system, so that if you don’t need to purchase the licenses to our software, you can use the same money to purchase something else. This means piracy area is using the same money twice. This double-dipping the system is what gives pirates their ultimate power to onslaught legimative businesses. It’s no different from gray market where taxes are not being paid.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The reason is that there are fundamental physical limitations in moving money around, which piracy does not need to implement at all. Then negotiating with content owners about licenses is burdensome operation that costs a little bit of real money to implement. Piracy again does not need to do that at all.

Ah, Tero. Somehow even after fifty years of existence on this planet you still can’t help but completely fucking butcher the English language. But congratulations on finally joining the rest of the class in actually starting to debate what’s at the core of the problem: people have money, you want that money but nobody gives you money for Meshpage. (Which… wasn’t your entire point that Meshpage was immune to piracy? So what’s the issue? Haven’t you by your own software design competed against piracy?)

If you put enough obstacles in front of people, including costs that they’ve decided they’re not going to afford, or can’t afford to start with, that’s still not going to magically give you their money. Piracy could literally disappear tomorrow and it would still not equal money in your pocket. People will just go for something that costs just as little money. They’ll borrow entertainment from someone else. They’ll all crowd around a television and watch what someone else is already paying for.

This isn’t news. This is literally the source of the industry’s anger that they cannot get over. And the same goes for you. No one in their right mind is going to use Meshpage, never mind pay for it.

This double-dipping the system is what gives pirates their ultimate power to onslaught legimative businesses

Or the pirates end up paying for more purchases that they wouldn’t otherwise have paid. You ever look up the countless studies that proves pirates actually spend more money overall?

It’s no different from gray market where taxes are not being paid.

Yeah, it turns out when shit like the Panama papers show that rich people have been using every trick in the book to dodge taxes despite being the wealthiest people on the planet, it convinces average people like you and me that paying for overpriced entertainment is for suckers.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Haven’t you by your own software design competed against piracy?

I think you have read it slightly wrong. I mean “successfully competed and able to win the competition”. When the competition isn’t fair to participants, I don’t consider it a competition at all. And thus we can apply anti-trust laws to fix the problem. Pirates should really be sued for anti-trust legislation, not copyrights.

House always wins is not acceptable when competing in marketplace.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I think you have read it slightly wrong. I mean “successfully competed and able to win the competition”.

Oh, you want a guaranteed success. Sorry, life sure has hell doesn’t work that way.

You spending decades of your time working on code you appropriated from your time in Nokia doesn’t guarantee you success in the 3D graphics engine and web development market. It makes for a quasi-passable eBook story written by a third-rate hack trying to pass off shameless PR fluff as unbiased non-fiction, maybe, but it doesn’t legally bind the government of Finland to make you filthy rich and suck your cock.

When the competition isn’t fair to participants, I don’t consider it a competition at all.

That might be one of the least inaccurate things you’ve ever said. And why so many people of our generation are resigning, not getting married or having kids, giving up their dreams of home ownership, and so on.

Market monopolies are a huge bitch. Piracy could disappear tomorrow, and it still wouldn’t make the monopolies disappear, nor would it make the competition fairer.

And thus we can apply anti-trust laws to fix the problem. Pirates should really be sued for anti-trust legislation, not copyrights.

Your proposal is to sue individuals with a body of law that’s designed exclusively for suing companies? It’s a bold strategy, Cotton, but that’s not how “pirate” entities are run.

And frankly, you would not give up the privilege of suing people under copyrights, because then you’d have to actually provide stronger evidence than the sewage water you submit under copyright law. Not only that, but the monetary penalties you could threaten would likely be much, much lower. And that’s something no copyright holder would ever give up.

terop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Oh, you want a guaranteed success. Sorry, life sure has hell doesn’t work that way.

Nope. It doesn’t mean guaranteed success. I’m thinking more about ability to win using your own merits.

Piracy has some obstacles that legit product vendor is unable to win: i.e. the fact that pirates can use your product (and everyone elses products) to compete against you, while legit companies are only allowed to use the products they pay for or obtain valid licenses.

This causes problems with balancing the scores, and government’s solution to the balancing problem is to declare piracy illegal, so not only pirates need to make good product, but they need to fight against copyright owners and police forces.

Piracy could disappear tomorrow, and it still wouldn’t make the monopolies disappear, nor would it make the competition fairer.

When customers of piracy sites find their pirate platform close doors and turn legal and losing all the customers, they might run to the next illegal platform. But when they see that one again fall over and requiring users to start fresh, some of them might have a lightbulb moment and turn to legal. This is when my meshpage.org has a chance to gain a customer.

NoLifeDGenerate (user link) says:

Screwing the physical media collectors will only make it worse

I don’t subscribe to any streaming service and never plan to. I only buy discs. If I can’t get it on disc, I’ll torrent it. Between Netflix refusing to release it’s movies/shows on disc (Polar, Punisher), studios releasing less, and studios skimping on the releases they are doing (new movies being BD but no 4K), piracy is going to increase. I still can’t believe Warner released 9 seasons of Shameless on BD but refuse to release the last 2 or a complete box. I won’t buy any until I can buy all 11 in HD.

PaulT (profile) says:

The sad thing is that most people might be willing to pay a subscription that guarantees access to things, or tiers that give access to older content with ads, etc. But, once you start breaking things up and asking for a toll in dozens of places, people will reach a limit. The original selling point of Netflix, Spotify, etc. was that it was easier than piracy. That’s no longer the case.

What’s also sad is that things get lost in the mix. My ISP just started a promo giving access to some content that’s normally on Sky Showtime and HBO Max. Among them is at least one TV show I would have watched before but didn’t know existed (Let The Right One In), and it’s already been cancelled… I also didn’t realise the D&D movie was exclusive to the other platform before, I just thought it was taking a while to go to streaming.

LostInLoDOS (profile) says:

Now users have to hunt and peck

One should note 8 of the 10 services are offered under one banner.

The problem isn’t so much the “nickels and dimes” as much as lack of awareness.
Services like Just Watch and Reelgood are vital and should be more widely preached.

Amazon plays a vital role in the streaming world, bringing many services under one quality platform.

whether it’s Netflix’s password sharing crackdown

On activities that violate its tos.

Amazon’s decision to charge users

Industry surveys and polls show that’s not as big a deal as tech writers make it out to be for the general public.

Amazon already has advertising on multiple channels. Nobody (outside of reporters and a handful of freeloaders) was complaining. Imdb, freebe, etc.
Prime has gone up roughly $20 in 10 years. below the 28.7% inflationary rate. $60 since 2005. 6% over inflation. In that time they have added free film, tv, music, games, apps. Groceries, billing, cloud services, and discount travel.

Btw, those 7 subscriptions, cost less via Amazon than standalone.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...