Comment

Comment by anigbrowl

It's almost like film consumers don't realize there are transaction and frictional costs to the licensing and distribution of a film, even for streaming, and many films are not popular enough to earn back those costs in the foreseeable future.

I don't think people realize how expensive it is to manufacture a film. I don't mean in terms of hiring big-name actors or in terms of striking prints and pressing DVDs, although those can be very expensive indeed. But even if you stay digital all the way it can be very expensive. Look at this distribution contract, in particular the list of deliverables on pps 19-20: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_bui...

Every time you have a rights transfer (eg to a new licensee) there's a agreement and a bunch of deliverables along those lines, which have to be negotiated and QCed. It's not a matter of just taking what people have an uploading it to (say) Netflix's servers; if there's something wrong with the digital copy or it isn't conformant to (ever changing) standards, then dissatisfied viewers are going to blame Netflix. The absolute bare minimum to get a piece of content through a distribution pipeline is about $5000.

People will put up with bad torrents of something because, well, it's free. But if they've paid for something (even though a subscription service) and it doesn't play back properly, that becomes a PR problem.

parent anigbrowl 12 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton