I’ve been busy degoogling and thinking of replacing YouTube with these two streaming services. You can get them bundled for $50/yr. Anyone have experience with them, and are they worth it? Thank you!

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thats a good question. If these closed gardens provided a copy to internet archive (to be unlocked in the future, or in the event of bankruptcy) I think I wouldn’t have any objections.

    There are many monetization models in the world, this one is problematic for the reasons I brought up earlier.

    If we take a note from literature publishing, libraries can lend out a copy, and the library of congress gets one (two?) free copies of every book. Maybe the same could be done with digital content.

    The pateron model where subscribers get early content a few days, weeks, or month ahead of time is another option.

    I don’t know the best, or perfect solution, but making ephemeral work that disappears in a few years (the ultimate dark age of bit rot) worries me.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If these closed gardens provided a copy to internet archive (to be unlocked in the future, or in the event of bankruptcy) I think I wouldn’t have any objections.

      As far as I’m aware, Nebula / Curiosity Stream doesn’t have any exclusivity agreements with creators… they’re free to post their videos elsewhere, too. Why is it Nebula’s responsibility - or even their right - to archive creators’ content? Shouldn’t the creators be the ones to decide how and where their content is distributed?

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        For Nebula, it depends.

        If the creator made the work on their own dime, then it can be released anywhere.

        However, Nebula will give creators money to make content that creators could not self fund. In those cases, these videos could either be Nebula exclusive or Nebula first videos.

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s good info - I wasn’t aware of that being a thing. Does that exclusivity agreement survive the hypothetical dissolution of Nebula? If not, the creators would be free to distribute it as they saw fit in the situation you propose where Nebula goes out of business and archival is needed.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know and that hasn’t been made public. However, since Nebula is owned by the creators, I can’t imagine a scenario where the creators give up their copyright if the business fails.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think a major part of the problem is that Internet videos haven’t seemed to reach a point where it is viable to purchase them. Libraries were able to exist because they were protected to be able to lend purchased books due to first sale doctrine. We don’t have an equivalent to this for Internet videos as the market isn’t there.

      There seems to be a floor of around a dollar where a digital good will be sold in a marketplace where the good can be used outside of that marketplace. No one is going to sell a digital good for a cent or a fraction of a cent, so there isn’t the ability for a library to buy a video for archival purposes.

      I don’t know how that gets fixed.