Netflix And Virtue Signalling

[Xerographica]

If the demand for anime is greater than the demand for documentaries... and Netflix increases the supply of anime and decreases the supply of documentaries... then yeah.... it could very lose the subscribers who only joined to watch documentaries. But it should be obvious that this really can't be the entire story. If Netflix loses subscribers because it decreases its supply of documentaries... then obviously it will gain subscribers because it increases its supply of anime.

Your system doesn't reflect demand. It rewards voting blocs.

Does the amount of money given to the Red Cross reflect demand?

Why does Walmart have more customers than a store that sells nothing but Model T parts?

People are diverse and so are their demands. I don't know why think that this would be any different on Netflix.

[The Two Jerseys]

Your system doesn't reflect demand. It rewards voting blocs.

Does the amount of money given to the Red Cross reflect demand?

The Red Cross isn't a business. It doesn't sell goods or services to customers. Demand is irrelevant.

Why does Walmart have more customers than a store that sells nothing but Model T parts?

People are diverse and so are their demands. I don't know why think that this would be any different on Netflix.

It's not. Which is why Netflix provides the greatest variety of programming as possible, to appeal to as many customers as possible. And thus make the most money.

[Xerographica]

Does the amount of money given to the Red Cross reflect demand?

The Red Cross isn't a business. It doesn't sell goods or services to customers. Demand is irrelevant.

Is it irrelevant how much money people are willing to give to the Red Cross?

People are diverse and so are their demands. I don't know why think that this would be any different on Netflix.

It's not. Which is why Netflix provides the greatest variety of programming as possible, to appeal to as many customers as possible. And thus make the most money.

So Netflix should supply equal amounts of everything? There should be just as many shows about epiphytes as there are about animals?

[Galloism]

It's not. Which is why Netflix provides the greatest variety of programming as possible, to appeal to as many customers as possible. And thus make the most money.

So Netflix should supply equal amounts of everything? There should be just as many shows about epiphytes as there are about animals?

Wouldn't that be "plants and animals"?

Otherwise it's like "equal shows about automobile air conditioning compressors" and "planes".

[The Two Jerseys]

The Red Cross isn't a business. It doesn't sell goods or services to customers. Demand is irrelevant.

Is it irrelevant how much money people are willing to give to the Red Cross?

Since you're conflating money with demand, yes it is irrelevant.

It's not. Which is why Netflix provides the greatest variety of programming as possible, to appeal to as many customers as possible. And thus make the most money.

So Netflix should supply equal amounts of everything? There should be just as many shows about epiphytes as there are about animals?

If by some miracle the History Channel went back to showing history documentaries, should they show programs about all historical periods, or should they just revert back to being the Hitler Channel and show nothing but WWII programming?

Again, Netflix is a library. They're not like a TV network where they can only show a finite amount of programming within a certain time period and have to pick and choose accordingly. Which is why they go out and try to acquire the rights to as many movies and TV shows as possible, so that they can attract as many subscribers as possible.

[Xerographica]

So Netflix should supply equal amounts of everything? There should be just as many shows about epiphytes as there are about animals?

Wouldn't that be "plants and animals"?

Otherwise it's like "equal shows about automobile air conditioning compressors" and "planes".

An epiphyte is a type of plant just like a bicycle is a type of transportation. There are many different types of plants and there are many different types of transportation.

However things are categorize, Netflix should obviously not supply equal amounts of everything. People are not equally interested in everything. People aren't as interested in epiphytes as they are in sharks. Netflix's division of shows should perfectly reflect its subscribers' division of interest. But the only way that Netflix can know its subscribers' division of interest is to allow them to spend their limited money on their favorite content.

And again, for the millionth time I'm simply describing the point and purpose of the Invisible Hand...

It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society. — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

The whole society is incredibly complex. How am I supposed to know whether anybody in Nebraska is more or less interested in sharks today than they were yesterday. Do I even know anybody in Nebraska?

The idea that Netflix can adequately divine how interests are changing in society is just as stupid as believing that the world is flat. However, unlike believing in a flat world, believing in the omniscience of Netflix or any organization is the most harmful belief possible. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a belief more harmful than, "It's really not necessary for people to use their money to communicate their interests."

When the people are prevented from substantially participating in the prioritization process... then of course the priorities are going to be wrong. Of course the world is going to be messed up. Of course there's going to be a big disparity between the world we live in and the world we want to live in. The terrible irony is how many people blame this disparity on those places and spaces where people are allowed to substantially participate in the prioritization process.

[Saint Jade IV]

Wouldn't that be "plants and animals"?

Otherwise it's like "equal shows about automobile air conditioning compressors" and "planes".

An epiphyte is a type of plant just like a bicycle is a type of transportation. There are many different types of plants and there are many different types of transportation.

However things are categorize, Netflix should obviously not supply equal amounts of everything. People are not equally interested in everything. People aren't as interested in epiphytes as they are in sharks. Netflix's division of shows should perfectly reflect its subscribers' division of interest. But the only way that Netflix can know its subscribers' division of interest is to allow them to spend their limited money on their favorite content.

And again, for the millionth time I'm simply describing the point and purpose of the Invisible Hand...

It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society. — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

The whole society is incredibly complex. How am I supposed to know whether anybody in Nebraska is more or less interested in sharks today than they were yesterday. Do I even know anybody in Nebraska?

The idea that Netflix can adequately divine how interests are changing in society is just as stupid as believing that the world is flat. However, unlike believing in a flat world, believing in the omniscience of Netflix or any organization is the most harmful belief possible. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a belief more harmful than, "It's really not necessary for people to use their money to communicate their interests."

When the people are prevented from substantially participating in the prioritization process... then of course the priorities are going to be wrong. Of course the world is going to be messed up. Of course there's going to be a big disparity between the world we live in and the world we want to live in. The terrible irony is how many people blame this disparity on those places and spaces where people are allowed to substantially participate in the prioritization process.

But people do already communicate their interests to Netflix. They do that through the shows they watch, the ones they like, the ones they add to their list and a thousand other ways that provide datasets that are far more powerful, detailed and actionable than how much money they spend.

And your whole notion rests on the very strange idea that Netflix should allow you access to their entire catalogue, but use your money only for a narrow range of shows and content. You're asking them to provide you a product for free. Which is just, absurd.

[Galloism]

An epiphyte is a type of plant just like a bicycle is a type of transportation. There are many different types of plants and there are many different types of transportation.

It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society. — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Which is why your system would crash Netflix into the ground like a meteor travelling at 50,000mph.

In the copyright holders private interest, is it better to give away your product for free and hope for donations, or take it somewhere else where you know you'll get paid?

[Xerographica]

But people do already communicate their interests to Netflix. They do that through the shows they watch, the ones they like, the ones they add to their list and a thousand other ways that provide datasets that are far more powerful, detailed and actionable than how much money they spend.

Let's say that Netflix did give its subscribers the option to spend their fees on their favorite content. Here's how you divide your time/money...

1. chick flicks: 80% time / 0% money
2. documentaries: 20% time / 100% money

Which info do you want Netflix to disregard?

A. how you spend your time
B. how you spend your money

And your whole notion rests on the very strange idea that Netflix should allow you access to their entire catalogue, but use your money only for a narrow range of shows and content. You're asking them to provide you a product for free. Which is just, absurd.

Am I really asking Netflix to provide me with free content? Actually, I'm really asking Netflix to provide me with the most valuable content in the world. However, since Netflix doesn't know my preferences better than I do... I am the only one who can decide how valuable any content is. But before I can decide how valuable any content is, I first need to watch it. Once I watch it, then, and only then, can I decide how valuable it is. If it's really valuable then I might as well spend lots of my fees on it.

The only alternative is for there to be a disparity between my payment and my valuation. In other words, the only alternative is to mislead/misinform/deceive producers.

Your bff loves to sing. She wants you to tell her whether she should quit her job. Do you mislead/misinform/deceive her? If she sings like an angel do you tell her to keep her day job? If she sings like a demon do you tell her to quit her day job?

If she sings like a demon then you're probably not going to want to hurt her feelings. So in order to spare her feelings you tell her to quit her day job?

Then again, maybe you have really unique taste in singing. Maybe you shouldn't be the only person who judges her singing abilities. It would probably help for your bff to get a second, and third, and fourth opinion.

With Netflix the producers and creators of shows and movies can have their work judged by millions and millions and millions of strangers. Somebody I don't know produces a documentary about epiphytes. On a scale from $0 dollars (you should have kept your day job) to $10 dollars (Thank god you quit your day job)... I get to judge their work. I have the opportunity to provide them with substantial feedback on their work. All the millions of subscribers have the same opportunity.

With this system we help encourage the most valuable producers/creators to continue what they are doing. And we encourage the least valuable producers/creators to find something more valuable to do.

In no way, shape or form is it beneficial to deceive, mislead, misinform producers about the value of their work. Society really does not benefit from the misallocation of talent. Society is harmed by the misallocation of talent. As long as people are prevented from substantially participating in the prioritization process... then talent is going to be seriously misallocated and society is going to be seriously harmed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But people do already communicate their interests to Netflix. They do that through the shows they watch, the ones they like, the ones they add to their list and a thousand other ways that provide datasets that are far more powerful, detailed and actionable than how much money they spend.

Let's say that Netflix did give its subscribers the option to spend their fees on their favorite content. Here's how you divide your time/money...

1. chick flicks: 80% time / 0% money
2. documentaries: 20% time / 100% money

Which info do you want Netflix to disregard?

A. how you spend your time
B. how you spend your money.

If I am paying for a subscription-based service, then, obviously, I want them to regard my time.

They already have my money, so as long as they keep their word on giving me a good service and exactly the service I am paying for, then I am okay with it.

[Saint Jade IV]

But people do already communicate their interests to Netflix. They do that through the shows they watch, the ones they like, the ones they add to their list and a thousand other ways that provide datasets that are far more powerful, detailed and actionable than how much money they spend.

Let's say that Netflix did give its subscribers the option to spend their fees on their favorite content. Here's how you divide your time/money...

1. chick flicks: 80% time / 0% money
2. documentaries: 20% time / 100% money

Which info do you want Netflix to disregard?

A. how you spend your time
B. how you spend your money

Seriously, that is an abysmal business model. Firstly, Netflix would never get the rights to anything. Secondly, my entire purpose in using Netflix is to have a broad range of content at my fingertips. If I wanted to only buy what I felt like watching, I would use iTunes or any number of similar services.

And your whole notion rests on the very strange idea that Netflix should allow you access to their entire catalogue, but use your money only for a narrow range of shows and content. You're asking them to provide you a product for free. Which is just, absurd.

Am I really asking Netflix to provide me with free content? Actually, I'm really asking Netflix to provide me with the most valuable content in the world. However, since Netflix doesn't know my preferences better than I do... I am the only one who can decide how valuable any content is.

They do know. By what you watch.

But before I can decide how valuable any content is, I first need to watch it. Once I watch it, then, and only then, can I decide how valuable it is.

Which is asking them to give you something for nothing. When you go to a restaurant, do you refuse to pay if you didn't like the meal?

Also, its called previews. That's like, their entire purpose.

If it's really valuable then I might as well spend lots of my fees on it.

I will again refer you to iTunes.

With Netflix the producers and creators of shows and movies can have their work judged by millions and millions and millions of strangers.

That already happens. By the number of views, the number of rewatches, the number of times a show is added to your queue, the number of stars users give it and a thousand, thousand other ways.

Somebody I don't know produces a documentary about epiphytes. On a scale from $0 dollars (you should have kept your day job) to $10 dollars (Thank god you quit your day job)... I get to judge their work. I have the opportunity to provide them with substantial feedback on their work. All the millions of subscribers have the same opportunity.

That is not substantial feedback in any way, shape or form. Also, iTunes already does this.

With this system we help encourage the most valuable producers/creators to continue what they are doing. And we encourage the least valuable producers/creators to find something more valuable to do.

How does it differ from the current system? Why do you think Netflix is making so many more Netflix originals? Why do you think they are making so many Marvel TV shows, for example?

In no way, shape or form is it beneficial to deceive, mislead, misinform producers about the value of their work. Society really does not benefit from the misallocation of talent. Society is harmed by the misallocation of talent. As long as people are prevented from substantially participating in the prioritization process... then talent is going to be seriously misallocated and society is going to be seriously harmed.

You make the mistake of assuming that placing a monetary value on work is the only method of valuation. You also seriously misunderstand the concept and business model of Netflix, and how the market works.

[Galloism]

But people do already communicate their interests to Netflix. They do that through the shows they watch, the ones they like, the ones they add to their list and a thousand other ways that provide datasets that are far more powerful, detailed and actionable than how much money they spend.

Let's say that Netflix did give its subscribers the option to spend their fees on their favorite content. Here's how you divide your time/money...

1. chick flicks: 80% time / 0% money
2. documentaries: 20% time / 100% money

Which info do you want Netflix to disregard?

A. how you spend your time
B. how you spend your money

Time.

$10 for netflix is less than 10 minutes of my billable time. Any time I spend more than 10mins is a more significant signal indicator than the $10 I'm paying them.

[Xerographica]

In the copyright holders private interest, is it better to give away your product for free and hope for donations, or take it somewhere else where you know you'll get paid?

I don't see why subscribers shouldn't be able to rollover any unspent fees. If some copyright holders take their hats out of the ring... and this results in more fees being rolled over... then the "prize" money is just going to keep getting bigger and bigger. How many copyright holders are going to snub their nose at $1 billion dollars just sitting on the table? What about $10 billion dollars? What about $50 billion dollars? The larger the prize money, the more copyright holders that are going to toss their hats into the ring. They are going to put their content on Netflix and let it compete with all the other content for the huge pot of money.

We're not talking about donations... we're talking about prize money. It's prize money that subscribers cannot put back into their pockets. If they stop subscribing its not like they get any of their money back. So it's prize money that is there for the taking. Of course it's entirely up to each and subscriber to decide whether any of the content is worth their unspent fees.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

In the copyright holders private interest, is it better to give away your product for free and hope for donations, or take it somewhere else where you know you'll get paid?

I don't see why subscribers shouldn't be able to rollover any unspent fees. If some copyright holders take their hats out of the ring... and this results in more fees being rolled over... then the "prize" money is just going to keep getting bigger and bigger. How many copyright holders are going to snub their nose at $1 billion dollars just sitting on the table? What about $10 billion dollars? What about $50 billion dollars? The larger the prize money, the more copyright holders that are going to toss their hats into the ring. They are going to put their content on Netflix and let it compete with all the other content for the huge pot of money.

We're not talking about donations... we're talking about prize money. It's prize money that subscribers cannot put back into their pockets. If they stop subscribing its not like they get any of their money back. So it's prize money that is there for the taking. Of course it's entirely up to each and subscriber to decide whether any of the content is worth their unspent fees.

Same shit. You're making it sound like it's not the same thing, but it is.

[Xerographica]

Let's say that Netflix did give its subscribers the option to spend their fees on their favorite content. Here's how you divide your time/money...

1. chick flicks: 80% time / 0% money
2. documentaries: 20% time / 100% money

Which info do you want Netflix to disregard?

A. how you spend your time
B. how you spend your money

Seriously, that is an abysmal business model. Firstly, Netflix would never get the rights to anything. Secondly, my entire purpose in using Netflix is to have a broad range of content at my fingertips. If I wanted to only buy what I felt like watching, I would use iTunes or any number of similar services.

In 2016 Netflix's revenue was $8.83 billion dollars. Subscribers are going to be able to allocate billions of dollars. Subscribers are going to decide how to divide billions of dollars among all of the copyright holders. Let's say that, before the subscribers are given the opportunity to do so, a copyright holder cancels its contract with Netflix. What would this broadcast to the world?

"Hey WORLD! We are betting that the amount of money that Netflix had been paying us is a lot less than our content is truly worth to subscribers!!!! We are really sure that we've been ripping off Netflix and ALL its subscribers!!!!!!!!!"

When they loudly broadcast this message to all the world... then what happens when they go to Hulu or Amazon Prime?

[Galloism]

Seriously, that is an abysmal business model. Firstly, Netflix would never get the rights to anything. Secondly, my entire purpose in using Netflix is to have a broad range of content at my fingertips. If I wanted to only buy what I felt like watching, I would use iTunes or any number of similar services.

In 2016 Netflix's revenue was $8.83 billion dollars. Subscribers are going to be able to allocate billions of dollars. Subscribers are going to decide how to divide billions of dollars among all of the copyright holders. Let's say that, before the subscribers are given the opportunity to do so, a copyright holder cancels its contract with Netflix. What would this broadcast to the world?

"We're responsible corporate officers that have a duty to our shareholders."

When they loudly broadcast this message to all the world... then what happens when they go to Hulu or Amazon Prime?

"Welp, guess we're going to Hulu."

[Galloism]

In the copyright holders private interest, is it better to give away your product for free and hope for donations, or take it somewhere else where you know you'll get paid?

I don't see why subscribers shouldn't be able to rollover any unspent fees. If some copyright holders take their hats out of the ring... and this results in more fees being rolled over... then the "prize" money is just going to keep getting bigger and bigger.

Shit, this gets worse and worse. So not only are people consuming their intellectual property without paying for it, people might be paying NOBODY.

They'll abandon even faster, especially since there's no sacrifice to any of this, so a lot of people will probably just forget or not bother.

We're not talking about donations... we're talking about prize money. It's prize money that subscribers cannot put back into their pockets. If they stop subscribing its not like they get any of their money back. So it's prize money that is there for the taking. Of course it's entirely up to each and subscriber to decide whether any of the content is worth their unspent fees.

How many corporations do you see playing the lottery?

[Xerographica]

In 2016 Netflix's revenue was $8.83 billion dollars. Subscribers are going to be able to allocate billions of dollars. Subscribers are going to decide how to divide billions of dollars among all of the copyright holders. Let's say that, before the subscribers are given the opportunity to do so, a copyright holder cancels its contract with Netflix. What would this broadcast to the world?

"We're responsible corporate officers that have a duty to our shareholders."

When they loudly broadcast this message to all the world... then what happens when they go to Hulu or Amazon Prime?

"Welp, guess we're going to Hulu."

Let say that I sell my epiphytes to you for $10/each. Then I stop selling to you. In doing so I publicly acknowledge to all the world that my epiphytes are worth a LOT less than $10 dollars/each. What happens when I try to sell my epiphytes to Two Jerseys? How much is he going to be willing to pay for my epiphytes? A LOT less than $10/each.

I know for a fact that if I stop selling to you that I'm going to lose a LOT of money. But if I continue selling to you there's the chance that I could...

A. lose a LOT of money
B. lose a little money
C. continue making the same amount of money
D. make a little more money
E. make a LOT more money

[Saint Jade IV]

Seriously, that is an abysmal business model. Firstly, Netflix would never get the rights to anything. Secondly, my entire purpose in using Netflix is to have a broad range of content at my fingertips. If I wanted to only buy what I felt like watching, I would use iTunes or any number of similar services.

In 2016 Netflix's revenue was $8.83 billion dollars. Subscribers are going to be able to allocate billions of dollars. Subscribers are going to decide how to divide billions of dollars among all of the copyright holders. Let's say that, before the subscribers are given the opportunity to do so, a copyright holder cancels its contract with Netflix. What would this broadcast to the world?

"Hey WORLD! We are betting that the amount of money that Netflix had been paying us is a lot less than our content is truly worth to subscribers!!!! We are really sure that we've been ripping off Netflix and ALL its subscribers!!!!!!!!!"

When they loudly broadcast this message to all the world... then what happens when they go to Hulu or Amazon Prime?

That's not the message. All that will happen under your model is that no companies will take risks on new content, since there is a risk of failure, and no possibility of even recouping the minimums.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Seriously, that is an abysmal business model. Firstly, Netflix would never get the rights to anything. Secondly, my entire purpose in using Netflix is to have a broad range of content at my fingertips. If I wanted to only buy what I felt like watching, I would use iTunes or any number of similar services.

In 2016 Netflix's revenue was $8.83 billion dollars. Subscribers are going to be able to allocate billions of dollars. Subscribers are going to decide how to divide billions of dollars among all of the copyright holders. Let's say that, before the subscribers are given the opportunity to do so, a copyright holder cancels its contract with Netflix. What would this broadcast to the world?

"Hey WORLD! We are betting that the amount of money that Netflix had been paying us is a [u]lot less than our content is truly worth to subscribers!!!! We are really sure that we've been ripping off Netflix and ALL its subscribers!!!!!!!!!"
[/u]
When they loudly broadcast this message to all the world... then what happens when they go to Hulu or Amazon Prime?

If you're running a business for zero profits, heh, let's just say you should be working for someone else rather than running your own business.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"We're responsible corporate officers that have a duty to our shareholders."


"Welp, guess we're going to Hulu."

Let say that I sell my epiphytes to you for $10/each. Then I stop selling to you. In doing so I publicly acknowledge to all the world that my epiphytes are worth a LOT less than $10 dollars/each. What happens when I try to sell my epiphytes to Two Jerseys? How much is he going to be willing to pay for my epiphytes? A LOT less than $10/each.

I know for a fact that if I stop selling to you that I'm going to lose a LOT of money. But if I continue selling to you there's the chance that I could...

A. lose a LOT of money
B. lose a little money
C. continue making the same amount of money
D. make a little more money
E. make a LOT more money

This depends on how much you're spending to produce said epiphytes.

If you are selling them at 10/each, and you stop selling them, it doesn't necessarily mean they are worth less than 10 dollars. It just might mean whatever else but that they're worth less now than they did before.

If you stop selling your epiphytes all that happens is that you're left with stock and you may lose everything you have invested in selling those epiphytes if they rot. You already spent that money. You wouldn't be losing something you already have invested into them unless they do rot. You may keep them for yourself, or sell them at a lesser price, but then that is to recoup part of your losses.

The way you're thinking about business sales is entirely the wrong way, and I say that confidently as someone who has sold shit.

[Galloism]

"We're responsible corporate officers that have a duty to our shareholders."


"Welp, guess we're going to Hulu."

Let say that I sell my epiphytes to you for $10/each. Then I stop selling to you.

Ok. I'm not sure why I'm buying them, but sure.

In doing so I publicly acknowledge to all the world that my epiphytes are worth a LOT less than $10 dollars/each.

They won't publicly acknowledge this because it's not in any way true or a reasonable interpretation. False comparison relies on a false premise. 10 yard penalty, fourth down.

[Galloism]

In 2016 Netflix's revenue was $8.83 billion dollars. Subscribers are going to be able to allocate billions of dollars. Subscribers are going to decide how to divide billions of dollars among all of the copyright holders. Let's say that, before the subscribers are given the opportunity to do so, a copyright holder cancels its contract with Netflix. What would this broadcast to the world?

"Hey WORLD! We are betting that the amount of money that Netflix had been paying us is a lot less than our content is truly worth to subscribers!!!! We are really sure that we've been ripping off Netflix and ALL its subscribers!!!!!!!!!"

When they loudly broadcast this message to all the world... then what happens when they go to Hulu or Amazon Prime?

That's not the message. All that will happen under your model is that no companies will take risks on new content, since there is a risk of failure, and no possibility of even recouping the minimums.

Well, and keep in mind, the copyright holder is often not the producer. Sometimes producers get royalties, but in many cases, they sell their copyright or lease it to an IP holder for a flat fee.

The IP holder doesn't make shit. They just buy shit. Therefore paying a copyright holder "more" doesn't incentivize them to produce more because they don't produce at all. Paying them "less" on the other hand will cause them to seek out more lucrative markets: i.e. Hulu.

[Xerographica]

In 2016 Netflix's revenue was $8.83 billion dollars. Subscribers are going to be able to allocate billions of dollars. Subscribers are going to decide how to divide billions of dollars among all of the copyright holders. Let's say that, before the subscribers are given the opportunity to do so, a copyright holder cancels its contract with Netflix. What would this broadcast to the world?

"Hey WORLD! We are betting that the amount of money that Netflix had been paying us is a lot less than our content is truly worth to subscribers!!!! We are really sure that we've been ripping off Netflix and ALL its subscribers!!!!!!!!!"

When they loudly broadcast this message to all the world... then what happens when they go to Hulu or Amazon Prime?

That's not the message. All that will happen under your model is that no companies will take risks on new content, since there is a risk of failure, and no possibility of even recouping the minimums.

There's a problem when new content doesn't have a risk of failure. Every endeavor should have a risk of failure.

The issue is whether consumers can directly decide for themselves with their own money whether a new show is a success or a failure.

I think this thread is a success. If you agree that it's a success then you should pay me for it. If you disagree... then you shouldn't pay me.

Of course... clearly you don't want to pay me. So even if you think this thread is a success... you have an incentive to lie and say that it isn't.

You're welcome... I just taught you why taxation is compulsory rather than voluntary.

But if you're already subscribing to this forum... and can choose which threads you spend your fees on... then you have absolutely no incentive to lie.

You're welcome... I just shared the solution to the world's biggest problem.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's not the message. All that will happen under your model is that no companies will take risks on new content, since there is a risk of failure, and no possibility of even recouping the minimums.

There's a problem when new content doesn't have a risk of failure. Every endeavor should have a risk of failure.

The issue is whether consumers can directly decide for themselves with their own money whether a new show is a success or a failure.

I think this thread is a success. If you agree that it's a success then you should pay me for it. If you disagree... then you shouldn't pay me.

Of course... clearly you don't want to pay me. So even if you think this thread is a success... you have an incentive to lie and say that it isn't.

You're welcome... I just taught you why taxation is compulsory rather than voluntary.

But if you're already subscribing to this forum... and can choose which threads you spend your fees on... then you have absolutely no incentive to lie.

You're welcome... I just shared the solution to the world's biggest problem.

Yes she does.

And I do.

And Gallo does.

And everyone else does as well.

At least, under your model.

Your model presupposes that we're going to pay what we value from a product from a business. We're going to lie and give you just one dollar in compensation because if we can get away with paying 1 dollar, we will. Hell, if we can only give you one cent for it, we will.

People are cheap.