Explanation of New Shift in Streaming

[TikiSoo]

When I first began streaming, I noticed some uploads were in the wrong aspect ratio or grainy. I noticed beloved movies come & go from the line up. And whenever I searched for a relatively common movie, it's was always on a "pay/subscribe" site, never free.

While never being a huge DVD collector, I've hung onto my DVDs, especially beloved TV shows like The Mary Tyler Moore Show and some classic film rarities.

I knew the tide would change and we're just beginning to see it. No wonder the writers/actors are in uproar over residuals income. Listening to this story yesterday on NPR helped clarify corporate (money) thinking:

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/17/11641467 ... ke-hbo-max

[jimimac71]

When I first began streaming, I noticed some uploads were in the wrong aspect ratio or grainy. I noticed beloved movies come & go from the line up. And whenever I searched for a relatively common movie, it's was always on a "pay/subscribe" site, never free.

While never being a huge DVD collector, I've hung onto my DVDs, especially beloved TV shows like The Mary Tyler Moore Show and some classic film rarities.

I knew the tide would change and we're just beginning to see it. No wonder the writers/actors are in uproar over residuals income. Listening to this story yesterday on NPR helped clarify corporate (money) thinking:

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/17/11641467 ... ke-hbo-max

I'm still cable only.
I could not switch to streaming and save enough money to warrant doing so.
TCM requires a big streaming package. MeTV requires a smaller streaming package.
That would put my TV at over $100/month, just barely a savings.

[speedracer5]

I have a large physical media collection solely for access, which is especially important since my primary interests are classic hollywood and classic television. As someone who grew up watching Nick at Nite in the 90s, I fell in love with I Love Lucy, Mary Tyler Moore, The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Bob Newhart Show, The Brady Bunch, I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched... so many of the shows were accessible on Hulu but then moved to their respective networks' streaming service. There are so many streaming services now that the market is oversaturated and losing money. People are lamenting that their favorite show was removed from such and such streaming service before they were done watching it. I feel smug that I have my DVD/Blu Rays of all my favorite shows and can still watch them.

I do have some streaming services--Hulu & Disney+ (bundled together. I watch The Golden Girls, Frasier, Cheers and King of the Hill on Hulu and The Simpsons on Disney+), Max (came free with my phone service), Netflix (specifically right now to watch The Great British Baking Show) and Criterion Channel (an excellent source for Classic Hollywood to supplement my collection). I also have satellite to watch TCM and have access to my 2TB DVR. I used to have ME-TV, but it was removed from Dish a year or so ago. It's fine though, ME-TV was a pale imitation of 90s Nick at Nite, and I swear they sped up the episodes to fit in more commercials.

However, I think the streaming market has become oversaturated, not only in the number of streaming services, but the glut of programming. I don't even watch any of the new shows (except for the annual 10 episodes of Great British Baking Show) because there are too many of them. It also seems that new shows don't even get a chance to find/grow their audience because they're removed the moment they aren't showing a large enough profit. I don't blame actors for being upset that their work is seemingly lost forever (thus no residuals) because it was dropped by the streaming service that distributed their show. I don't even know if shows are released on physical media anymore--maybe the super popular ones might.

Unless you're only interested in what is current and can binge watch the entire series before it's removed on a whim, streaming services aren't a reliable means for maintaining an entertainment library.

[BagelOnAPlate]

This topic was touched on in another thread here, where an SSO member posted about an original series they liked suddenly being removed from a streaming platform with only a few days' notice.

The series was Grease: Rise Of The Pink Ladies, whic had been streaming on Paramount+.
It was one of the series that Paramount+ permanently took down from the platform in order for Paramount Global to take a $1.5 billion content write-down as part of Parmount+ and Showtime merger. Other Paramount+ series impacted were Star Trek: Prodigy and The Game.

As mentioned in the NPR story that TikiSoo posted, Grease: Rise Of The Pink Ladies and the other removed series are now assets that
Paramount has the option to sell a rival streaming service or broadcaster.
Also, by removing the series from the platform, Paramount+ no longer has to pay residuals to the writers, the actors and the creators.

[TikiSoo]

As mentioned in the NPR story Grease: Rise Of The Pink Ladies and the other removed series are now assets that
Paramount has the option to sell a rival streaming service or broadcaster.
Also, by removing the series from the platform, Paramount+ no longer has to pay residuals to the writers, the actors and the creators.

Right- so if a channel like FreeVee leases the show from the owner, who then pays the actors/writers/creators residuals?
The owners or the channel leasing it?

This, along with the unknown AI element seems to be what the current strike is really about. It's very hard to predict how talent will be exploited in the future.
Seems as though the entire business is changing and everyone's scrambling to navigate a purely digital world.

The similar music industry's dilemma between talent/corporate management seems to be organically shifting with technology. You can upload your own personal content & hope you gain a following, looking for "viral" recognition to boost your career. A world of garage bands.
Realistically, the musical talent can benefit from corporate management- promotion, tour coordination, distribution, etc.

Now THAT'S a premise for an apocolypse movie: no one knows how to do anything any more, everyone becomes isolated in an impersonal yet overcrowded world. I'd love if there was a major grid failure, the world goes dark and those with real working skills survive (closet survivalist)

[Masha]

Right- so if a channel like FreeVee leases the show from the owner, who then pays the actors/writers/creators residuals?
The owners or the channel leasing it?

I have no specific information of broadcast/streaming contracts but I would assume from practices with similar situations in other industries that the owner pays all royalties/residuals. It would be an accounting nightmare for the lessee company to pay such costs because each member of the creative team did not work on every episode. It is common to have a change of producers between seasons, most programmes have a variety of directors and then you enter the question of guest stars and location crews. The owner has all the information of who is owed what for each episode in a database which interfaces with their payment system. It is questionable whether any lessee company would have software which seamlessly interfaces with that dataset.

It is also that the lessee company might see cause to not make such payments. They may fold or decide to not retain some episodes of a programme in their offerings because of celebrity scandal, controversial content or other factors. The owner would legally owe such residuals/royalties because they collected some money under the lease. It would be an accounting, legal and PR nightmare if such payments were not made. Not making proper payments to union members carries also a particular risk.

I feel that the entire streaming industry is simply going through the growing pains experienced by any new technology. Fortunes are made and fortunes are lost while companies stumble around attempting to find the best methodology to maximize profits while reducing risk. Trains, automobiles, radio, television, transistors and home computers all went through periods of instability until the proper business formula was codified. Robotics, biotechnology and AI are now suffering also from fits and starts as those who can manufacture/market products for widespread use know that they are in possession of glorious world-changing technology but are unable to find a way to make a reasonable amount of money from it.

[txfilmfan]

The strike ended this morning, even though the full union membership needs to vote on the new deal. The new contract includes a "streaming participation bonus"

Every time technology changes, the unions go through this. It seems they can't future-proof their contracts.

When commercial television arose after WWII, it was treated as an extension of radio (AFTRA = American Federation of Television and Radio Artists), being mostly a live medium. In the early days, filmed TV productions were deemed too expensive, so residuals were a concept that didn't arise until filmed (and later, videotaped) production capabilities were economically viable and reruns entered the picture. TV actors (separate union from film actors in those days) could receive residual payments for TV reruns, but film actors did not receive them when their films aired on TV.

This disconnect led to a 1960 SAG strike that resulted in a compromise. Actors in films made in 1960 or later could receive residuals when the films aired on TV, but those made before 1960 would not.

When home video technology became popular in the late 70s and early 80s, SAG and AFTRA again went on strike to get residuals from videocassettes and pay cable networks.

So there's a long history of technology-related strikes for both SAG, AFTRA, and the merged union. I believe, however, the AI component was the more worrisome issue for this strike. Producers now have the capability to have an AI generated image and sound likeness of an actor, potentially eliminating the need for any human involvement at all. We saw an early example of this in the Star Wars features made after Carrie Fisher's passing.

[txfilmfan]

This topic was touched on in another thread here, where an SSO member posted about an original series they liked suddenly being removed from a streaming platform with only a few days' notice.

The series was Grease: Rise Of The Pink Ladies, whic had been streaming on Paramount+.
It was one of the series that Paramount+ permanently took down from the platform in order for Paramount Global to take a $1.5 billion content write-down as part of Parmount+ and Showtime merger. Other Paramount+ series impacted were Star Trek: Prodigy and The Game.

As mentioned in the NPR story that TikiSoo posted, Grease: Rise Of The Pink Ladies and the other removed series are now assets that
Paramount has the option to sell a rival streaming service or broadcaster.
Also, by removing the series from the platform, Paramount+ no longer has to pay residuals to the writers, the actors and the creators.

Yes, that was me!

I was pretty lucky in the sense I'd already watched the whole series. But I feel bad for the people who might otherwise have discovered that show when it was on P+, maybe the streamer just didn't promote it enough, or viewers just didn't feel it was close enough to the original film/stage show.

In any case, we can just hope that shows and movies don't just disappear quietly into the night, never to be seen again (at least not legally!) but that there will be a space for everything, so that people can still find them if they're willing to try out different streamers (sometimes when they are offering trial subscriptions).

Also, in regards to the article in the OP, it's from back in March, so it doesn't have a lot of new information for those of us who've been following the issue all along. Hopefully there will be good news once the SAG strike has ended and maybe they'll have won in the areas where they haven't been getting residuals from streaming.

Unfortunately, stuff will disappear or at least be forgotten. For every I Love Lucy, there's a dozen I Married Joans. There's just so much content being pushed out to various platforms. According to Statista, in 2009 there were 210 original scripted TV series in the US. By 2022, it had nearly tripled to 599. That's an average of 11 or 12 new series or new seasons premiering every week of the year. The rerun/syndication market won't be able to absorb all of those with a traditional broadcast schedule. The only way that some of these will survive through the years is either sitting in a streaming repository, or some type of direct-to-consumer media (physical or otherwise).

[dianedebuda]

Unfortunately, a more realistic scenario (imho) is that this will encourage people to seek out the grey market.

I really wonder if even that'll happen. Old coots like me will find/watch movies & series, but if my grandkids are typical, those of HS & college age don't seem to be interested in scripted content. Not seeing much difference in the 20-somethings either. Different culture. Wonder if my grandparents, who grew up with movies but not TV, felt the same about my generation's connection to The Tube.

[I Love Melvin]

What I'm curious about is the concept of "ownership" in terms of series and films which streaming platforms offer to either rent or "buy". How does that hold up over time when platforms are so much in flux? The fees to "buy" a new movie aren't cheap either, usually around $20. It seems to me that there's no guarantee that your "purchase" would be honored indefintely and then you'd be out of your investment. I remember a friend telling me in earlier days that he had "purchased" a season of a favorite show from a cable provider but that the owner of the rights to the show had withdrawn it and he was left with nothing and no way to claim "ownership". I'm an old curmudgeon when it comes to technology, so I'll stick to DVD's and CD's for maintaining a library. What happened to all the $$ people paid to download music to their I-Pods, only to have the technology change and I-Pods go bye-bye? I'm so glad I still have (or did until I started downsizing) physical media (LP's, etc.) I've collected since high school. There's going to be a whole generation now which will only have access to the movie and musical memories of their youth by paying for it all over again (and again and again) instead of having a library pf their own.

[txfilmfan]

What I'm curious about is the concept of "ownership" in terms of series and films which streaming platforms offer to either rent or "buy". How does that hold up over time when platforms are so much in flux? The fees to "buy" a new movie aren't cheap either, usually around $20. It seems to me that there's no guarantee that your "purchase" would be honored indefintely and then you'd be out of your investment. I remember a friend telling me in earlier days that he had "purchased" a season of a favorite show from a cable provider but that the owner of the rights to the show had withdrawn it and he was left with nothing and no way to claim "ownership". I'm an old curmudgeon when it comes to technology, so I'll stick to DVD's and CD's for maintaining a library. What happened to all the $$ people paid to download music to their I-Pods, only to have the technology change and I-Pods go bye-bye? I'm so glad I still have (or did until I started downsizing) physical media (LP's, etc.) I've collected since high school. There's going to be a whole generation now which will only have access to the movie and musical memories of their youth by paying for it all over again (and again and again) instead of having a library at their fingertips.

It doesn't hold up. You're up to the mercy of the financial health of whoever provides the title. If they go out of business, you're probably out of luck. If they decide to change the direction of their business and drop your titles, you're probably out of luck.

One personal example: The only digital movie I ever bought was The Night of the Iguana, from Amazon, in the very, very early days of digital downloads. You downloaded the title to your computer, but you needed their special player, because it was in some proprietary format. I bought a copy because it was difficult to find the movie elsewhere at that time. Fast forward 2 or 3 years, and Amazon changed their technology, and they dropped their proprietary player support. So I had a $20 collection of bits and bytes on my hard drive that was useless. Soured me on the whole concept, and Amazon as a whole. I refuse to buy stuff from Amazon or any of their associated businesses. I know I'm not making a bit of different in their bottom line, but it keeps me happy!

[Masha]

What I'm curious about is the concept of "ownership" in terms of series and films which streaming platforms offer to either rent or "buy". How does that hold up over time when platforms are so much in flux? The fees to "buy" a new movie aren't cheap either, usually around $20. It seems to me that there's no guarantee that your "purchase" would be honored indefintely and then you'd be out of your investment. [...]

I do not know of other streaming services but: Amazon Prime Video allows you to download purchased movies onto a hard disk. I have noticed that they do advise not downloading to a USB drive. I must wonder if this is because USB drives are slower and so there is a greater chance of corruption or interruption and Prime allows only one download attempt per purchase.

We have some purchased movies on our: Amazon Prime Video account. This is due solely to their offer of a small credit for digital purchases when you select a delivery option other than next-day for items which you purchase. This often suits us because the delivery delay allows them to combine items so that we receive fewer boxes. You may allow the credits to accrue but there is a time limit for their use. All of our movie purchases were use-it-or-lose-it digital credits.