The streaming service plague and why I am tired of playing by the rules.

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Badly segmented is just nature of the beast, There just isn't anyway to control content licensing in a fair way other than to allow the owners the right to decide where it is sold.

 

 

 

The bad segmentation is entirely because the US telecoms were allowed to buy up the US content providers. That should never have happened. The core problem.

 

Here's how things really should need to happen:

1) All content is divested into their IP holding companies. Everything without exception. Films, tv shows, music, video games, etc.

2) Anyone, cable company, streaming services, etc, etc can acquire non-exclusive licenses for any piece of content from any IP holding company, regardless of geographic region or language. The IP company's entire purpose is to pass royalties on to the people involved in the creation of that content. This comes in three versions

a) license to broadcast/stream or personally use (tv app, cable, satellite, critical youtube videos,etc), without license to merchandise. Renewed annually until mutually canceled.

b) license to merchandise without license to broadcast, got a great idea to make a game, apps, collector dishes, dvd's, blueray editions, etc, renewed annually until mutually canceled or until all physical merchandise inventory has been sold or disposed of.

c) non-exclusive license to do everything, renewed annually until mutually canceled 

3) exclusivity is for limited time when an IP license is new. Like we traditionally should have had with copyright. 10 years, or until the platform (eg app stores, game consoles) is no longer available.

4) If an IP holding company has no active licencees for 1 year, a countdown begins on the license value until the license value becomes zero. When it becomes zero, the creatives involved with producing the content get a notice that their work will fall into a royalty-free state, they may want to delegate a license to use (eg apple, amazon, etc) for their content to be perpetually available (to download/stream) on.

5) Regardless of 2, 3 or 4, no license may be revoked without refunding the royalties paid out, hence it's in the public interest to have the creators delegate a license holder that will be permitted to have perpetual "archive" access to keep the content searchable, or if the creators are no longer available or able to negotiate any license.

 

Games and TV shows in particular have a lot of lost content out there that can't be licensed because the copyright holders either don't know they own it, or have no assets/code/scripts/music sheets for which to remaster. If a holding company existed, anyone with enough free time could just re-create it from scratch. And here's the point: not get sued for it. If the choice comes down to letting Netflix or Disney license something for free to save it from obscurity, I'd rather they do something with it. But that doesn't mean they then get to then sit on the IP perpetually.

 

That's the problem with Disney, a LOT. They sit on their old content, never doing anything with it, letting people forget about it, and there's plenty of people who want to keep their TV shows alive, and not be buried by a new show re-running 8 times a day. Streaming removes the problem of reruns, by making the content immediately available, in order. 

 

Footnote: I bought a few Disney tv shows on iTunes... the titles were all in random order. For a show with continuity.

 

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

The bad segmentation is entirely because the US telecoms were allowed to buy up the US content providers. That should never have happened. The core problem.

 

I disagree.

 

24 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Here's how things really should need to happen:

1) All content is divested into their IP holding companies. Everything without exception. Films, tv shows, music, video games, etc.

2) Anyone, cable company, streaming services, etc, etc can acquire non-exclusive licenses for any piece of content from any IP holding company, regardless of geographic region or language. The IP company's entire purpose is to pass royalties on to the people involved in the creation of that content. This comes in three versions

a) license to broadcast/stream or personally use (tv app, cable, satellite, critical youtube videos,etc), without license to merchandise. Renewed annually until mutually canceled.

b) license to merchandise without license to broadcast, got a great idea to make a game, apps, collector dishes, dvd's, blueray editions, etc, renewed annually until mutually canceled or until all physical merchandise inventory has been sold or disposed of.

c) non-exclusive license to do everything, renewed annually until mutually canceled 

3) exclusivity is for limited time when an IP license is new. Like we traditionally should have had with copyright. 10 years, or until the platform (eg app stores, game consoles) is no longer available.

4) If an IP holding company has no active licencees for 1 year, a countdown begins on the license value until the license value becomes zero. When it becomes zero, the creatives involved with producing the content get a notice that their work will fall into a royalty-free state, they may want to delegate a license to use (eg apple, amazon, etc) for their content to be perpetually available (to download/stream) on.

5) Regardless of 2, 3 or 4, no license may be revoked without refunding the royalties paid out, hence it's in the public interest to have the creators delegate a license holder that will be permitted to have perpetual "archive" access to keep the content searchable, or if the creators are no longer available or able to negotiate any license.

 

Games and TV shows in particular have a lot of lost content out there that can't be licensed because the copyright holders either don't know they own it, or have no assets/code/scripts/music sheets for which to remaster. If a holding company existed, anyone with enough free time could just re-create it from scratch. And here's the point: not get sued for it. If the choice comes down to letting Netflix or Disney license something for free to save it from obscurity, I'd rather they do something with it. But that doesn't mean they then get to then sit on the IP perpetually.

 

That's the problem with Disney, a LOT. They sit on their old content, never doing anything with it, letting people forget about it, and there's plenty of people who want to keep their TV shows alive, and not be buried by a new show re-running 8 times a day. Streaming removes the problem of reruns, by making the content immediately available, in order. 

 

Footnote: I bought a few Disney tv shows on iTunes... the titles were all in random order. For a show with continuity.

 

This requires a system that takes control of content away from the owners.  There is no way any country will pass a law that says you must sell your product to a competitor.