I'll respond to this because I think you're missing the point. I'm saying that the "market makers" have made the "actual market" in a way that is self-defeating when technology no longer favors their historic distribution model. Like you say, the market is hobbled by artificial barriers, like geographic restrictions, that don't really exist on the internet. A significant factor in the inferior experience of streaming services is the content licensing hurdle, which makes the availability of content a moving target. You can complain day and night about the fact that technology no longer fits your business model, but that isn't going to solve the problem.
It's not about technology fitting the business model. People who complain about availability don't seem to realize that a lot of existing film properties are subject to long-term contracts that can't simply be torn up. I don't see anyone organizing film and TV lovers together to buy out the contract rights and make the film they want to watch available worldwide, do you? Nor do I see people putting their own money at risk for extended periods to provide financing to get the film made in the first place provided it's released globally, simultaneously, without DRM but with a cherry on top and so on.
The reality is that people really really want to consume the product, and then invent all sorts of reasons about why they shouldn't have to pay or wait for it. Copying doesn't deprive the owner of a film or other media property of the original, but it does deprive them of the right to sell the product they own at the time and place of their choosing, which is a basic economic right of producers, and by producers I mean anyone who makes something as opposed to the people who simply consume it.
You don't need to explain to me how the internet works, I was discussing the changing face of IP on people back on Usenet before there was such a thing as the WWW. You know why distributors are still around? Because they put capital at risk in return for licensing rights. It takes a lot of capital to make the original owrk, even if the marginal cost of distribution is zero or near zero. Internet solves the distribution side but does little or nothing to help the actual production process.
I'm very tired of this attitude of technological entitlement. every proposal I see for from film producers about how to monetize their product is deemed unacceptable in some way or other. I can't help drawing hte asme conclusion as the other poster who says that a large number of people are simply selfish and want something for nothing.
> invent all sorts of reasons about why they shouldn't have to pay or wait for it.
> a large number of people are simply selfish and want something for nothing.
I can tell you're solidly in the relevant industry, since you seem to ascribe quite a bit of malice toward your own consumers. If I can try to change your mind, one final time, it would be to say that this strong demand for your product arises because consumers greatly appreciate your product, but they don't appreciate your business strategies. (This could be said about many industries, but let's stick to this one for now.)
That is a mismatch, and in the presence of dramatic technological changes, it suddenly is very much about the business model fitting the technology (not vice versa, as you put it). Finding a way to renegotiate licenses for the new world is something the music industry has slowly found a way to do. Publishers are not there yet. Nor are films and TV. The result in music has been a fairly large-scale change in how that industry works that other content sectors are not ready to accept. In the meantime, consumers still have the demand and the technology clearly exists to fulfill it outside of your revenue model. I'm in no way justifying piracy; I'm simply explaining in a factual way why it's getting worse for you. I'll just leave it at that.
