Do you think streaming services need regulation?

[Watcher0363]

I feel that streaming services need to come under the authority of some governmental agency that has enforcement powers. Because as it stands now, the FCC has no jurisdiction over them, and far as I can tell no other government agency is policing them. The reason I am calling for this, is because the streaming services are turning into the greatest bait and switch artists the world has ever seen.


I believe the services should be forced to carry a page on their website that can be accessed without subscribing to the service, that details all the content they have. Not only should it detail their content, but how complete is the content and when it will leave their site. As it stands now, almost every streaming service requires you to subscribe 1st, before viewing their content. Even if you go the free trial route, think of how much information you are giving them, just to find out what they actually have. You are giving them your full name, a telephone number, a credit card or worst a debit card number and the all important email address. I find it appalling to have to give that much info just for their product listings.


Especially when their own listings may be misleading. Such as not having all seasons of a show with the added frustration that the seasons are all over the place. Or even worst when multiple seasons have episodes missing. The fact that so many outside sources claim to know what is on this service or that service, but in reality they are pretty clueless about the true content of any streaming service they are claiming to have knowledge of, upsets me also.


In short, I believe if content is being provided, then a consumer should have the right to know exactly what will be available to them and the quality of that content, before making any type of a commitment. To me even a trial subscription counts as a commitment, since you are giving them financial information, including access to balances on your credit card and or how much money you have in your checking account. END RANT.

 

[DQ]

I disagree on the regulation.

Anytime the government "regulates" it ends up being in a position where it gets to select the winners and losers giving it a power it should never have.

That is not to say there should not be laws in place protecting consumers from things like false advertising or bait and switch. The TOS of most of these online markets are criminal (IMHO) because they basically say you own nothing and have no rights.

The reality is however, even if such industries were regulated, since large companies own politics you would see nothing but favorable action towards the biggest companies. At least if the market is truly in control the consumer has some power which comes through competition (when it's not stomped out by the monopolies IE Google, PayPal etc).

This is just my opinion.

 

[zero269]

I believe the services should be forced to carry a page on their website that can be accessed without subscribing to the service, that details all the content they have. Not only should it detail their content, but how complete is the content and when it will leave their site.

The short answer to your Threads title, is No.
However, I think a class action law suit to require content providers to reveal CLEARLY and WHOLLY what they are selling is not out of the question.

 

[RedFox 1]

If I owned a company and you wanted to know everything I had for sale, every day and on weekends, I would laugh at you and ask you to leave my office. They have websites, they tell you what's special this month and what's leaving. That's plenty. Why would an entertainment company be under government scrutiny? Certain not for lack of competition. The government sticks its nose in too many things already. It's idiotic to think that a govt agency could rule something I own. Short answer, absolutely not. We are not living under socialism or communism. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.

 

[coopervid]

I feel that streaming services need to come under the authority of some governmental agency that has enforcement powers. Because as it stands now, the FCC has no jurisdiction over them, and far as I can tell no other government agency is policing them. The reason I am calling for this, is because the streaming services are turning into the greatest bait and switch artists the world has ever seen.


I believe the services should be forced to carry a page on their website that can be accessed without subscribing to the service, that details all the content they have. Not only should it detail their content, but how complete is the content and when it will leave their site. As it stands now, almost every streaming service requires you to subscribe 1st, before viewing their content. Even if you go the free trial route, think of how much information you are giving them, just to find out what they actually have. You are giving them your full name, a telephone number, a credit card or worst a debit card number and the all important email address. I find it appalling to have to give that much info just for their product listings.


Especially when their own listings may be misleading. Such as not having all seasons of a show with the added frustration that the seasons are all over the place. Or even worst when multiple seasons have episodes missing. The fact that so many outside sources claim to know what is on this service or that service, but in reality they are pretty clueless about the true content of any streaming service they are claiming to have knowledge of, upsets me also.


In short, I believe if content is being provided, then a consumer should have the right to know exactly what will be available to them and the quality of that content, before making any type of a commitment. To me even a trial subscription counts as a commitment, since you are giving them financial information, including access to balances on your credit card and or how much money you have in your checking account. END RANT.

Are you nuts????? This is not how the real world works.

 

[RedFox 1]

Are you nuts????? This is not how the real world works.

Amen, lets be sane here, these are just movies and TV shows, either you want to watch what they offer or you don't. Just google what some you want to stream and it will tell you who streams it and when. This thread has nothing to do with Anystream. Should I shut it down, of course not, it's a discussion, freedom of speech, like all our other freedoms that we take for granted? Putting govt restrictions on business is wrong. Unless that business is a monopoly, these streaming video providers are 1000s strong, there are no monopolistic tendencies in any of them.

 

[DrXenos]

Amen, lets be sane here, these are just movies and TV shows, either you want to watch what they offer or you don't. Just google what some you want to stream and it will tell you who streams it and when. This thread has nothing to do with Anystream. Should I shut it down, of course not, it's a discussion, freedom of speech, like all our other freedoms that we take for granted? Putting govt restrictions on business is wrong. Unless that business is a monopoly, these streaming video providers are 1000s strong, there are no monopolistic tendencies in any of them.

Well said.

 

[Tanquen]

Amen, lets be sane here, these are just movies and TV shows, either you want to watch what they offer or you don't. Just google what some you want to stream and it will tell you who streams it and when. This thread has nothing to do with Anystream. Should I shut it down, of course not, it's a discussion, freedom of speech, like all our other freedoms that we take for granted? Putting govt restrictions on business is wrong. Unless that business is a monopoly, these streaming video providers are 1000s strong, there are no monopolistic tendencies in any of them.

Depends on how you look at it I guess. They in some cases spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars procuring and or producing content they know / think / hope that you'll want to see and making sure they're the only ones that have it. There are times when only a movement and or a government can bring various companies and/or types of companies in line. People like to say if you don't like what they're selling go across the street and buy what the other guy is selling but if they're all screwing you over in the same way where do you go? Some of my biggest issues with the streaming services are things that they can easily provide and know that their users would want but they know that it's counter to them making a or as much a profit.

 

[SomeRandoDude]

I feel that streaming services need to come under the authority of some governmental agency that has enforcement powers. Because as it stands now, the FCC has no jurisdiction over them, and far as I can tell no other government agency is policing them. The reason I am calling for this, is because the streaming services are turning into the greatest bait and switch artists the world has ever seen.


I believe the services should be forced to carry a page on their website that can be accessed without subscribing to the service, that details all the content they have. Not only should it detail their content, but how complete is the content and when it will leave their site. As it stands now, almost every streaming service requires you to subscribe 1st, before viewing their content. Even if you go the free trial route, think of how much information you are giving them, just to find out what they actually have. You are giving them your full name, a telephone number, a credit card or worst a debit card number and the all important email address. I find it appalling to have to give that much info just for their product listings.


Especially when their own listings may be misleading. Such as not having all seasons of a show with the added frustration that the seasons are all over the place. Or even worst when multiple seasons have episodes missing. The fact that so many outside sources claim to know what is on this service or that service, but in reality they are pretty clueless about the true content of any streaming service they are claiming to have knowledge of, upsets me also.


In short, I believe if content is being provided, then a consumer should have the right to know exactly what will be available to them and the quality of that content, before making any type of a commitment. To me even a trial subscription counts as a commitment, since you are giving them financial information, including access to balances on your credit card and or how much money you have in your checking account. END RANT.

The less government regulation, the better. The fact of the matter is consumers hold all the power. They simply lack the will to wield it. The fastest way to encourage change is to vote with your wallet. Businesses react when their bottom line is affected.

 

[koziolku]

I think the streaming services need regulations for consumers, but I'm not certain if consumers themselves have such power to force these companies to deploy mechanisms I mean, by using only force of their wallets and legs. For example, I think that it's better for both sides to openly share catalogue and, after consumer pays, access to its' content in two ways: full-featured in the app, and basic, possibly over API.

Let me explain these two ways using a cable TV analogy. Since years, even decades, cable TV operators provide two ways of providing paid TV to make it compatible with users' hardware: a kind of tuner box connected to a TV (over antenna in analogue times or HDMI nowadays), or direct connection to a TV, maybe with CAM module today. This basically fits two kind of consumers: those who want an out-of-the-box experience, and those who have sufficient devices, want to customize their configuration and can tinker a bit in order to get it working.

This implies a question how users want to access their data, as the VoD big players never allows users legally customize way of accessing their libraries. For example, Apple wanted every provider's content to appear in Apple TV app, some content aggregator like Plex or Kodi. The idea failed of course, because some companies did not want to participate (and I actually understand why it might happen, considering business profits), but I like the idea that you roll thru content, select an item and choose provider at the very end. In this regard I think that an open catalogue access (including available audio/video configuration AND origin) would be a good idea for both sides.

And let me argue it with another TV example. Not long ago, I read that some decisive person at French-based TV network, CANAL+, moaned about digital TV encryption. He argued that it was better in analogue times if user had access to scrambled picture rather than nothing, as he was more likely to buy a subscription if he saw that the station emits football meeting or particular show, even if behind deconstructed picture (some stations decided to broadcast unencrypted sound, some - like CANAL+, scrambled sound as well).

So, I guess, opening some features in more standardized way would encourage more people (including me) to look at the offerings. And by "some features in standardized way" I mean firstly accessing the library in one place without disorientation and swapping apps, secondly having a good metadata of version (details of audio track provided, including info about who translated and who read the voice over), and last but not least - include audio description and closed captions in every language possible.

And pity that there are folks who say that they:

would laugh at you and ask you to leave my office

...because even if I hypothetically took it too personal, such persons apparently sometimes see no other than owns of theirs, on the other side - which they can, because it's office of theirs after all. But regarding big companies who, I assume, making an audio description or open catalogue would not be business problem for, and who I assume we're speaking here, how do we have to regard, if they ignore 15% of potential viewers and possible comfort of existing ones? Do you see analogy with Apple's idea now?

So yes, I am along regulations to some extent, if they would help viewers and providers are not about to deploy them. Many big operators provide preferred audio track in my language for almost every title offered in my country (APV varies, but NF and HBO have almost complete fulfilment in this regard, AFAIK), but as far as I know, there's no audio description along it available, which both would not cost them more than making single dubbed track for some western European countries. If some decisive person does not understand how valuable it may be, I'm along such solutions being enforced by law, as it possibly would be profitable for all sides, after all.

That's my personal point of view, of course.

 

[RedFox 1]

I think the streaming services need regulations for consumers, but I'm not certain if consumers themselves have such power to force these companies to deploy mechanisms I mean, by using only force of their wallets and legs. For example, I think that it's better for both sides to openly share catalogue and, after consumer pays, access to its' content in two ways: full-featured in the app, and basic, possibly over API.

Let me explain these two ways using a cable TV analogy. Since years, even decades, cable TV operators provide two ways of providing paid TV to make it compatible with users' hardware: a kind of tuner box connected to a TV (over antenna in analogue times or HDMI nowadays), or direct connection to a TV, maybe with CAM module today. This basically fits two kind of consumers: those who want an out-of-the-box experience, and those who have sufficient devices, want to customize their configuration and can tinker a bit in order to get it working.

This implies a question how users want to access their data, as the VoD big players never allows users legally customize way of accessing their libraries. For example, Apple wanted every provider's content to appear in Apple TV app, some content aggregator like Plex or Kodi. The idea failed of course, because some companies did not want to participate (and I actually understand why it might happen, considering business profits), but I like the idea that you roll thru content, select an item and choose provider at the very end. In this regard I think that an open catalogue access (including available audio/video configuration AND origin) would be a good idea for both sides.

And let me argue it with another TV example. Not long ago, I read that some decisive person at French-based TV network, CANAL+, moaned about digital TV encryption. He argued that it was better in analogue times if user had access to scrambled picture rather than nothing, as he was more likely to buy a subscription if he saw that the station emits football meeting or particular show, even if behind deconstructed picture (some stations decided to broadcast unencrypted sound, some - like CANAL+, scrambled sound as well).

So, I guess, opening some features in more standardized way would encourage more people (including me) to look at the offerings. And by "some features in standardized way" I mean firstly accessing the library in one place without disorientation and swapping apps, secondly having a good metadata of version (details of audio track provided, including info about who translated and who read the voice over), and last but not least - include audio description and closed captions in every language possible.

And pity that there are folks who say that they:



...because even if I hypothetically took it too personal, such persons apparently sometimes see no other than owns of theirs, on the other side - which they can, because it's office of theirs after all. But regarding big companies who, I assume, making an audio description or open catalogue would not be business problem for, and who I assume we're speaking here, how do we have to regard, if they ignore 15% of potential viewers and possible comfort of existing ones? Do you see analogy with Apple's idea now?

So yes, I am along regulations to some extent, if they would help viewers and providers are not about to deploy them. Many big operators provide preferred audio track in my language for almost every title offered in my country (APV varies, but NF and HBO have almost complete fulfilment in this regard, AFAIK), but as far as I know, there's no audio description along it available, which both would not cost them more than making single dubbed track for some western European countries. If some decisive person does not understand how valuable it may be, I'm along such solutions being enforced by law, as it possibly would be profitable for all sides, after all.

That's my personal point of view, of course.

I don't think dubbed tracks would be a big hit.

 

[Ch3vr0n]

I don't think dubbed tracks would be a big hit.

Ugh i hate dubbed audio. Foreign movies i (think german, amasia) i watch in the original language. I hate it when audio doesn't match up in the slightest with lip movements.

 

[coopervid]

Ugh i hate dubbed audio. Foreign movies i (think german, amasia) i watch in the original language. I hate it when audio doesn't match up in the slightest with lip movements.

I agree

 

[RedFox 1]

I agree

I dont know one person that would sit through a dubbed track movie unless they had a very limited selection of film, and even then I would absolutely fall asleep. Any regulation in a business that has as much competition as Streaming video has is a communist attack on my rights as a consumer. There is plenty of competition in the streaming world, I see no reason to add any, and I mean any regulation. That's what the, well you know who do. With all the money they spend on advertising, they shouldn't have to answer one damn question. Just my opinion of course. Google will tell you all you need to know, and if you can't find it there, you don't need to know it.

 

[Ch3vr0n]

Unless I'm mistaking, about 90% of movies and tv-shows in Germany and France are dubbed by default. No doubtedly many people believe the dubbed voices are in fact the original.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[RedFox 1]

Unless I'm mistaking, about 90% of movies and tv-shows in Germany and France are dubbed by default. No doubtedly many people people believe the dubbed voices are in fact the original.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I never watch a foreign film unless it is from the USA and none of it is dubbed, or at least none that I have seen.

 

[BRCS]

We are not living under socialism

They way things are looking i might rethink that I hope not.

 

[RedFox 1]

They way things are looking i might rethink that I hope not.

I said that in a completely different context, " I meant we are not living under socialism, or communism under any circumstance," Meaning I will not do it.

 

[koziolku]

Any regulation in a business that has as much competition as Streaming video has is a communist attack on my rights as a consumer

While I understand your argument in small numbers, by saing this in regards of big companies you're telling me that you even wouldn't really care, if you are a entrepreneur. I recall a dish TV network which pissed lots of users by significantly raising prices in our country - consumers massively cancelled their contracts, because the bloody communist law allowed them to do so in order to guard against such sudden situations. The only reaction of some representative was "Poles are not ready to watch premium TV yet". You're saying something, mabye not similar, but something which fits in here - "We know what the premium service is and nobody is telling us how to fit".

So to better explain my point, because I might be not clear enough. From what you wrote, and assumming good intentions, I'm assumming you're arguing regarding American market (not EU, anyway, or at least you're using English-spoken library, maybe along with your native language) - and, considering it, you're right: I've seen many titles with English audio-description on NF, there's no reason to moan.

But here in Europe we have many different languages and different approaches in translating movies. Besides dubbing, which is rather unusual in non-animated movies, we use voice-over (at least here in my country - France, Spain, Germany and few other markets put dubbing in many TV series or even moview). While many persons don't care who's translating and who's reading the lines (and that's understandable), there's more important thing on the way. I have seen literally no simple way of accessing the library for users with different needs. And I mean no whims, but needs. For you and me, accessing the service using webpage or dedicated app is simple (or doable, at least), but imagine someone who's not sighted and has to access several apps. That's why an Apple idea would be nice, if done properly. But let's put this aside, because what's more important: I have seen audio description in my native language for no more than few percent of content in libraries available in my country.

That is what I'm moaning about. Service operators are offering only certain options which fit ~80% customers, but they're not going to improve anything above it on their own, even if they can cover its' costs. I don't mean to force anybody to make the service perfect for everybody, but less envolving solution is to maintain some kind of properly restricted and monitored API (like Spotify does, for instance). The same, if not bigger problem is with lack of other accessibility feature, an audio description - you can see everything on the screen, but blind users would like to have an option of consuming content in accessible way, in their native language - and again, it's way cheaper than making a dubbing. So if NF is providing an audio track, they should also take care about additional audio description synchronized with the main track - in every language they provide audio for. I understand that it may be a mixed habit of providers in small countries, but I see no excuse if there are experienced entities who happily do as subcontractors and fill up this gap for a price which could nicely fit in dubbing budget and make the whole investment look good in PR terms, even if not in mainstream.

So I get your point, RedFox 1, especially if we're speaking about small team of programmers - but I don't get it if we're speaking about big players. "I'm #1, so why try harder", you might say, and my answer is: because there's still quite a bunch of users who might be wanting to participate in social interests on provided content, but they're not able to do so, while it's rather relatively easy to make them possible to gather a proper access to it. And if, for example, Netflix's approach against ideas similar to Apple's one (to unify content browsing) isn't rude, it's at least shallow and narrow.

 

[George++]

Ugh i hate dubbed audio. Foreign movies i (think german, amasia) i watch in the original language. I hate it when audio doesn't match up in the slightest with lip movements.

Badly dubbed movies, like Chinese Martial Arts or Japanese Samurai flicks, can be entertaining because of the horrendous lip sync and more often than not inaccurate translations.

I can think of only one movie off the top of my head where the dubbing in English was almost near perfect, only a few instances was there some slight discrepancies. Das Boot.

Listening to the original German is still a better experience. Same goes for Japanese with Kurosawa movies like Seven Samurai.