I wouldn't mind like a store where you buy movies and music but you bring your own storage device, maybe 2 to get a safety backup in case something happens on the way home.
Do you realistically think anyone gives a fuck about hacking through a copier pc? What are you going to get from it?
Media is a bigger target. But even considering that, obtaining those things is so damn easy anyways, no one is hacking that kind of place to get media. Maybe to just cripple the business.
Yes, that particular costume was the cover picture the entire time before I watched it (Netflix). It switched to a couple other shots of that character as I progressed but I don't know if it was related. As a Halloween enthusiast, I have studied this picture a lot and I'm always excited to see it. In my opinion, it (and other moments with this costume) is just perfectly unsettling. I guess because of the very clean seams around the mask, perfectly masking the wearer's identity. The eyes are so perfectly black and the face so perfectly pointed at the viewer. It's probably also fueled by the sex appeal, tricking me into the danger zone. That's even before I found out how unsettling the scene actually is. It caused me concern in a daily activity for a couple weeks (no spoilers).
Anyway, as for the show, I really enjoyed it as well. It's a series of separate events being retold by daddy/grandpa Usher, leading up to the present. It's horror and fairly gruesome without toouch gore, but, imo, tells a damn good story. I greatly enjoyed the pacing of the reveals and the action. I would say it resembles American Horror Story as a genre, but without as much senseless violence and horror - or maybe it tells you it isn't so senseless. Maybe a little more sexually driven but certainly less gory.
It was also cool, as a Battlestar Galactica fan, see two BSG actors come up. Mary MacDonell as a titular series character, and Michael Trucco as an episode character. I enjoyed the music, both the soundtrack and score, so much that I was surprised it wasn't Bear McCreary.
Like I said, I'm just here to talk about The Fall of the House of Usher. I recommend it as an 8-episode self-contained series. I enjoyed the placement and delivery of all the actors in their roles.
I mean... no shit? Netflix's business is not making good films or TV shows. It is getting people to sign up to Netflix and then forget about it for a few years.
It sucks because I very much prefer my media on blu-ray (and then on my plex server). And we are increasingly seeing media that is very much dependent on HDR and gets demolished by encoding and bandwidth limitations. But... that is more a "problem" of the creators not realizing their medium (similar to how a Nolan mix is perfect if you have a center channel but... most TVs and cell phones don't have one).
Netflix has a lot of great shows and movies. But the point of those is to sell Netflix.
Mostly I am thinking of stuff like the final season of Game of Thrones that had a lot of "dark" scenes that looked like dogshit without HDR. Or even Andor which had a few striking shots that very much suffered from compression artifacts (and is why I am so glad there was a blu ray of that).
Yep. Would have gladly bought more than one season of Bojack Horseman, two seasons of Stranger Things, Hill House in 4K/HDR... but no. I'm glad there are preservationists keeping stuff like this from disappearing at the whim of corporate (all hail etc.).
Not only a dead format, but a unstable shelf life format. CDs and DVDs were always marketed as storage for good. But technically that was never possible, not the way it was actually manufactured. The used plastics and metal laminates had a rough expected life of 15 years or thereabouts, at best. Obviously a massive increase from magnetic tapes that started degrading as soon as the recording stopped and got slowly more damaged the more you played them. But still not a permanent solution. No organized data is stored forever, entropy won't allow this. Most if not all original compact discs are probably gone by now, and some end user burnables had even worse chemistry in their data layers than original prints.
Only actively making new copies of digital goods in new storage media regularly keeps those goods alive. We need new storage mediums that are resilient in the measure of centuries and not just a decade or so. We need commercial glass 3D optical storage now.
Why is this even a knock on Netflix? McDonald's doesn't serve steak and I don't think it's because McDonald's bad. Netflix is in the streaming business, not the physical media business. Look elsewhere if that's important to you?
Because they’re in the business of art and they’re perfectly happy to kill art if it doesn’t make business sense. There is a cultural cost to this stuff disappearing that isn’t comparable to the McRib going away.
Ok. But if they're footing the bill, that's their choice. The content creators don't need to go to Netflix for their funding, there are many other options.
Sure, and Netflix/HBO et all are still assholes for happily sending art to the glue factory when they think it makes financial sense. They deserve to be criticized for it.
"Sending art to the glue factory" is hyperbole, cmon. They're also not restricting anyone from releasing their own stuff their own way? If you want Netflix funding, you're going to be bound somewhat by their business, which is focused on streaming. Expecting a business to construct entire sectors to distribute art in the way you want is just... weird. Make your own fucking art with your own resources if you want to distribute it how you want.
So now we're talking about a completely different subject? Be mad at Netflix for canceling shows all you want, that's fine and righteous in a lot of cases. This article is about not producing physical media though, which is not sending art to the glue factory. You should stay on topic with the article instead of inflating your argument without even telling the people you're having a debate with to be about a subject none of us were even discussing?
I think the two are intertwined because without physical media there is no guarantee that media cannot just disappear like Spiderman at the end of Infinity War. Piracy is thankfully a safeguard to that but there’s still a conversation to be had about how easily media can just get black holed nowadays. Everyone’s busy talking about how they’re legally allowed to do that, I’m trying to say they’re morally wrong to disallow their content from physical releases. It’s also a bit ironic considering Netflix wouldn't exist if not for physical media.
Then explain that in your original response to me? Tie them together explicitly instead of assuming everyone is on the same page. We cannot see into your mind. Like cmon, we were arguing two entirely separate issues there for a second.
All that aside, that's a fair point. I do think there should be discussions and maybe even lawmaking had on preservation as it relates to streaming (and games and other digital media). At the end of the day though, Netflix is a funder and a distributor when it comes to art. Yeah, they produce some content also, but it's usually just a fancier version of their funding. Either way, I cannot get away from the idea that if an artist willingly uses Netflix to fund their project, Netflix inherently is going to have rights. It's the whole point. I just think in these cases, why should I not be upset with the artist themselves for attaching themselves to a company they know is not going to produce physical media?
I'm a developer. If I went to Google and said "Hey, can yall fund my app development?" I'm going to expect them to have requirements on their side, including primarily distributing through Google Play. I don't think that's a fault of Google, even if they are heinous for various other reasons (just like Netflix). And just like in the art scenario, I would be insane to complain at that point when I knowingly entered into a contract with a company I knew was going to restrict me.
I’m not always the best at connecting my ideas. You were right to dig the connection out of me, my bad.
You’re right this shouldn’t be a surprise to creators. I just worry that while streamers increasingly become the biggest players in media, the market for physical media will dwindle. Almost like the streamers taking all the air out of the room. Maybe the library of congress could do something for this, idk
That's fair, and I should probably give people a bit more grace. My apologies if I came off as belligerent.
You're right, this tendency is scary. As a person, I am also scared of the way almost all media has transformed in my lifetime. It's not all bad though. As I mentioned, I'm a dev, as I know a lot of folks on Lemmy are. I've been fortunate enough to work in the accessibility space a bit and have conversations with people who would not have been able to enjoy media, full stop, without digitization. Paraplegics can read books, deaf people can enjoy more visual media as we develop alternatives for sound, etc. It's easy to focus on the bad because we feel it so personally, but there is good too.
That aside, I'm with you. Preservation is going to become such an important topic. I don't think most of this is malicious. It's side effects of capitalism and such, for sure, but some of this is just the digital equivalent of books getting lost to time because they just weren't popular enough to preserve. That's sad too and has happened countless times in history, but we usually don't view it as malicious as much as just unfortunate. Technology is a bucking bronco we are all holding onto desperately and just trying our best as a society to adjust. You, me, and all the other folks passionate about art are going to have to organize and be the solution, whether that's through art collectives, local government, or even those pesky pirating websites nobody should use. (😉)
Netflix? How can Netflix have enough power to force artists to release through their service? I've enjoyed tons of movies and TV from other sources. They may not have the same reach, but that's a far cry from "forcing" you to do something. If you go with the megacorp with the most reach for your art, expect to make concessions. If you release on your own, it can be tough but you have full control. There are myriad points in the gradient between.
Netflix cancelled it due to high production costs from what I’ve read. From what I recall Fincher said he wouldn’t come back even if they were willing to make season three
They are in the business of streaming, and are making art to maintain a fresh library to stream. Just like broadcasters and movie theaters before them.
TV shows and movies on physical media was a huge change for those that required a shift in priorities that took decades and for phyiscal media to be profitable. Netflix is still making bank doing what they know how to do, which is streaming. Switching to physical media would need to be more reliably profitable for them than limiting it to streaming to encourage subs to make the switch.
I would prefer the physical media option too, but their reluctance is understandable.
Not to be that guy, but the McRib going away is a bit of a cultural thing because that's a food that only the USA could come up with and get people to eat. That being said, I fully understand and agree with your point.
Don't worry. Just because you can't pay for something doesn't mean it's gone away. Netflix (and basically all media companies) are just shooting themselves in the foot trying to lock everyone into a bunch of subscription services. If I could pay them a couple bucks to download a movie or show with no DRM I would. Instead they get $0 from me and I do it anyway.
Because there's no way to own that media that netflix has rights to. Currently, legally buying accessing any tv shows or movies digitally means the company who offered them to you can yank them away at any time, legally.
That's not ownership.
Physical media still isn't perfect, as it includes copy protection, but at least no one can legally take your BluRay away from you.
Okay. Don't consume that media? Artists are not forced into contracts with Netflix. They can do what thousands of artists did before Netflix ever existed. Will they hit the same level of audience that Netflix pulls? No. People like streaming and it's popular as hell. Why would they be entitled to that though? Artists, creators of any type really, have agency to do as they wish with their art. Consumers have a choice in the art they consume. If either chooses to engage with Netflix, why would it not be on the terms that Netflix has openly set and asked you whether you wanted to partake in?
I just do not understand this viewpoint and it's all over the thread. To be clear, Netflix does other stuff that sucks, like killing shows and underpaying artists. Be mad at them for that all you like, I'll be right there with ya. Insinuating Netflix is doing something ethically bad by pivoting to streaming, which the vast majority of the world's population would rather use than physical media, just does not make a lick of sense to me. Why should Netflix pay employees, rent factory space, set up an entire vertical they've gotten out of, just to produce CDs that history showed hardly anyone bought after the transition to streaming?
I think it boils down to how people view and value this medium of art. Some think that the creator owns the work and can do with it what they please. Some think that art belongs to everyone and they should have a say in what happens to it.
IMO, when all digital media by its very nature can be infinitely copied and distributed, trying to DRM everything is insanity. Trying to restrict people's access doesn't work; people still pirate, people still get over news paywalls, etc. It's the wrong approach. US copyright law is broken and bonkers. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is bad and insane. I don't know how to make this a fair system under capitalism, if it's even possible.
The current system labels me a criminal if pay for netflix, watch a netflix movie, and then circumvent the DRM in order to save that movie to my own computer. And netflix also won't allow me pay them more to save that movie. That's bonkers.
Agreed on all counts regarding pirating, DRM, copyright, etc. It's a messed up landscape and we need legislation and community action around it, for certain. Even aside from capitalism, technology is shifting rapidly and that causes its own issues as society struggle to keep up.
The idea that everyone owns all art is interesting, but I'm not sure that I agree. Seems similar, but a bit distinct from the death of the author idea. I have created things and I am not comfortable with the idea that I do not have ownership of the work. There is obviously nuance there and I don't expect to have full control over how my art is received or parodied or memed on or whatever, that's fine, but it is my choice as to how I distribute it, how I created it, how I choose to maintain it. Netflix cannot force me into a contract with them. Hulu can't. Disney can't. I can release my art right onto the internet or my own website. Every artist has that freedom. It has consequences, but that's not persecution or unethical, in my opinion.
Netflix. Its how their business started. DVD rentals via mail.
Nokia started as a paper mill company and sold toilet paper. With the release of the Nokia 9 PureView smartphone, nobody expected Nokia to release bog roll along with it.
Both, I think! Nintendo was originally a company that made generic playing cards. They're extremely old too. I haven't looked recently but I think they were around before ww2?
I'm not surprised at all, physical media is only good for the consumer. They want subscriptions so they can keep you paying constantly, there's no benefit for them
This is false. Firstly, because people don't subscribe to everything forever. But even in some Netflix utopia where everyone has a Netflix subscription, and they keep it forever, then what? Now you can't make any more money, you're making the maximum amount of money your business model can make. But you can keep people subscribed to your service by continuing to add new things, while also making extra money from those who would like to own physical copies.
Subscriptions detach income from titles, meaning all the service needs to do is exist and have things on it. There's no budget to actually create anything special. Physical offers a way to reconnect those, making something that is more expensive and in return making more money.
The ad-based plans everyone is introducing run on the same logic. Subscriptions aren't sustainable.
So say I buy The Matrix on DVD. I can watch it whenever I like..
If I stop paying for Netflix, then I can’t watch it anymore so I have to keep signing up again. What about when the matrix isn’t on a Netflix, I then have to go sign up for Apple TV.
Isn’t capitalism supposed to weed out the companies without a viable business? If you can’t keep improving your product or you’ve got saturation with users then that’s your ceiling. Down like it, close down.
Kinda weird take from you to be honest. Like why won’t we think about the poor struggling corporations. Perhaps they would be in a better position if they didn’t go so long with losses trying to capture the market with a view to rinse us all later down the line.
I have exactly one monthly subscription and that’s for AppleCare+ on my phone. Fuck death my a thousand paper cuts.
Ngl I’m a little confused right now as it seems your comment was edited from what it initially said, but I’d don’t have a clue.
Edit: To be clear I am on the side of massive tech companies not being encouraged to use massive amounts of investor funding to corner a market and then work to fleece their customers as much as humanely possible. This level of laissez faire capitalism is horrendous and only cares about the companies and not that users get a decent product in exchange for their money.
as long as it's on your computer/server and it's not dependent on an online service, I'm all for it. Vudu is a great example of what can happen with online purchases
I'm sorry to hear that, but yeah I rip my media and then stream it, it's more about obtaining my copy that they can't take away. I'm glad your backups made it!
That's allowed. You have many options for digital media. I don't like spicy food. Upsets my tum tum. But if corporations were actively keeping spicy food off the market, I wouldn't say "Well that's great, because I hate spicy food." That would just be ridiculous.
Same. I understand all of the reasons why people prefer physical media, but after buying the same movie across three generations of physical media between VHS / DVD / Blueray / 4K UHD and now Dolby, I’d just prefer to have it once and get access to the best copy modern technology allows.
It’s also supremely easier to download a purchased digital copy instead of buying physical media, rip it, find increasing storage, find a player like Plex, maintain my own Plex server and hardware, and then download it.
I’ve done Plex for years with physical media, downloading a digital copy is simply a better consumer experience.
