Son. This is the future. Netflix will die. Hulu will die.

>>87152065
nah free market will fix
people will start using platforms like patreon to support directors directly
the (((cornered animal))) fights the hardest when it knows it's days are numbered

DUDE SKYNET LMAO

>>87152175
I honestly hasn't thought of that. I could see someone like Soderbergh setting it up.

Why would anyone ever pay for any of those shit platforms?

>I'm going to pay for a single television show or film, EVER
Best laugh I've had, this week. Thanks, OP!

I don't even want to watch their garbage for free.

Back to the days of bootleg street movies. Sweet.

>>87152065
Piracy renaissance when?

>>87152175
NOPE

Sorry friend but the "free market" is not going to fix anything, have the free market fixed usa internet providers? of course not, it never will because they achieved monopoly.

Thats the main problem with capitalism, when left unmoderated some companies(and banks) grow too much and acquire many companies, they become a corporation that later on gets more influencial than countries, they can litterally buy the competition and dominate the market then by bribing the right people at the right places they can pass out rules that only a company of their size can attend thus removing the chance of a small competidor entering the business legally.

>>87154058
Welcome to the past.

>>87154732
if we followed your plan every TV channel would look like the BBC

So the future will be piracy.

Okay.

>>87154732
>have the free market fixed usa internet providers?

Uh, yea. Line ain't cheap or easy to lay, but its steadily rolling out in every municipality where the regional monopoly can be busted.

>>87152065
ISPs could literally kill the internet. It'll be extremely interesting in a bad way. Content providers will be fucked, but then again, businesses in politics generally don't lobby against other businesses when its in their own interest to do so. It's really weird, actually.

>>87156616
The only ISP that doesn't own or isn't owned by a media conglomerate is verizon. They (and every tech company that relies upon the internet) has enough money to buy enough politicians to keep network neutrality from being completely upended.

The current state of the internet is going to stick around for a long while.

>>87156728
Well that's good, as I tend to underestimate people sometimes I get it wrong. But if what you say is true, who is exactly pushing to end Net Neutrality? If ISP providers are owned by media conglomerates (which is an important point I forgot,) then naturally they could throttle content to support their own media enterprises at the expense of 'independent' content. Would still have the same effect of killing the internet but making a dollar. And I mean this, in a hypothetical way, but why not actually engage in 'grey' Racketeering? Force companies to pay additional money at the expense of internet speeds, like making Google or Facebook or Amazon load really slowly or threatening to cut off Netflix unless they pay me a percentage of revenue?

I've only looked at this problem initially, but I'm sure a great minds could figure out really creative rackets to fuck over 'independent' content producers. And since we both know ISPs are inherently structured as a regional monopoly, it isn't like the competition is something to fear. Just make sure to build the racket slowly, and gradually.

But I could be wrong for reasons I'm unaware of. I'm not an expert in Tech.

>>87157069
The media-conglomerate ISPs want to end network neutrality and institute systems all the post neutrality nightmares talk about. Verizon might also want to end it and then get into actual competition with the conglomerates, getting into a situation where everyone is paying them twice for everything.

Whats stopping the ISPs is a spending war with the entire rest of the tech industry that utterly depends upon network neutrality to function at all.

Since the citizens united ruling in 2010 the only legislation that is passed is what benefits corporate interest. Which basically means the average person only has whatever rights are granted him.

>>87157377
>Since the citizens united ruling in 2010 the only legislation that is passed is what benefits corporate interest. Which basically means the average person only has whatever rights are granted him.

It was like that before Citizens United, but Citizens United put the fireman to death. What isn't nearly as known, however, is that Mass-Based interest groups can be just as effective as business-based interest groups, but business-based interest groups outnumber mass-based interest groups therefore the people rarely get their way. But look at the NRA or Planned Parenthood as examples of two-mass based interest groups that thrive in this Corportocracy. So if the masses actually were organized, like in a way Sanders and his small donations, then they could overpower the Corporations at their own game. The OTHER thing that is ignored in politics, and the real insurmountable hurdle, is that most Congressmen are Millionaires, and so will never vote against their self-interest as a class. But that's another topic. Beating the businesses can be done, but beating the upper class is impossible. If you can understand the distinction.

I feel like the Tech Industry is going to lose because their identity politics prevents them from co-opting the Republican Party. Most successful businesses co-opt both parties to get what they want (like Finance,) but Tech is special and retarded in a SJW way. Had Tech Companies decided to back off on the SocJus agenda (which wouldn't hurt their bottom line,) they would've made inroads with Republicans, thus preventing themselves from being fucked over in the first place.

So I guess I disagree. Tech Companies won't be able to work with Republicans (and Trump) due to tangential issues, which means that unless the Democrats get back in power, they are fucked.

>disney pulled out of netflix
welp its dead now. have fun making adam sandler movies.

>>87154732
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>87157604
Any sort of political divide in the US is entirely and illusion. All politicians are up for sale and the ones that can't be bought are just replaced. The government is nothing but a handpuppet for corporate interest. Tech has "red" and "blue" politicians in their pockets because they, like any other gigantic corporate entity, need to be able to manipulate every vote.

>>87157879
All politicians are for sale by groups. Some of those groups are from the people, but most of those groups are from businesses. If Tech has "red" politicians in their pocket, I'm wrong, but the point I'm trying to make is that I don't believe they have "red" politicians in their pocket. Or at least, not yet.

But to call the divide in the US an illusion is overly-cynical. The Donor class, IE: Individuals, are highly divided on issues, even if businesses aren't. That's what colors the difference between parties. And the donations of the Donor Class adds up.

>>87158070
Well, in extremely general and basic terms, red is typically about jobs. Tech is all about jobs. Restructuring the internet so that tech can no longer be viable would tank a lot of jobs.

Not to mention there's a subversive corruption at work in every political career. For the increasingly few politicians who feel they're actually representing people's interests are in a position where they either play ball with corporate entities or they find themselves campaigning against puppets with oddly limitless funds.

So, yea, any corporate entity trying to get their hand up the puppet's ass will play all sides, because they can, easily.

>>87158070
<Cont>

Here is what I mean by 'Donors' as an example of how business interests of low-skill immigration can be usurped by a mass-based interest group.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-shatters-gop-records-with-small-donors-228338

If you don't have an understanding of late 19th century American politics, 21st century politics makes no sense. Because twenty years is too short a time to make accurate judgments of how political flows happen, and you get caught operating within the confines of the status-quo, thinking they are eternal constants, when things can be more unpredictable than what initially appears possible.

>>87158222
>So, yea, any corporate entity trying to get their hand up the puppet's ass will play all sides, because they can, easily.

If Tech is smart, they'll start playing with Republicans. And I guess there is nothing more to discuss. We shall see if this comes to pass. I have been wrong before.

>>87158262
... You know its illegal to campaign with your own money, right?

>>87158444
>[muffled SHUT IT DOWN in the distance]

File: L8A9XPFX.jpg (42KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 512x512px

>>87152065

ARRRGG! There be bits worth the pirating mateys!

>>87154732
But they can only pass these laws through a strong government, right?

You will die.

>>87156452
>every municipality where the regional monopoly can be busted
>regional monopoly

You're taking down your own argument from within

>>87162041
You just wanted to bump the thread, didn't you.

>>87152065
i swear this kid was one beautiful boy. like 1st season Bran beautiful
i wonder if he got his ass ravaged?

i dont care OP, im rich

i've inherited ~11.4 million dollars rofl

im a sub 100IQ autistic NEET too, stay mad

>>87152065
Netflix is as shitty as Amazon Prime.
I don't have a reason to support any of the two services.
Fuck stream TV for being even more terrible than cable.
I have to accept that in some years all forms of TV will be dead.

File: b18.png (297KB, 576x566px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 576x566px

>>87152175
>nah free market will fix

>>87155407
With shitty framerates and washed out colors?

>>87152368
He's on the right path but he hasn't gotten everything right yet. I made the decision to go see Logan Lucky instead of waiting because of how he got the money to make it and the fact that my ticket money went directly to him.

>>87157658
no his point is valid, youre a retard.
banks are too big to fail
same will be for google, isps other providers