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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s a great tour
“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.
No it’s not. See: Acme vs Coyote, Batgirl, and nearly 100 other things crushed by David Zaslav
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
I mean they have enough power to force people to deal with them don’t they?
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.
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.
If you feel that way, then you should pay to support them, just like the mcribbers
Netflix will get money from me when they unfuck their decision to cancel Mindhunter
Oh, I thought you meant independent artists when you said something about art
Oh, I mean I do support artists I like
Man you are getting downvoted over nothing.
You got a stalker?
Not to my knowledge. People just heap it on sometimes, it is what it is
I’m pretty sure Fincher stopped working on it. It wasn’t Netflix’ decision
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