←back to thread

641 points shortformblog | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lxgr ◴[] No.42950057[source]
Old movies have been available on various "free ad-supported streaming television" for a while now, so I'm actually more surprised it took copyright holders that long to realize that Youtube also shows ads and doesn't require people to install some wonky app that might or might not be available for their platform.

Of course, region-specific copyright deals are incredibly complex etc. etc., so I could imagine it was just a matter of waiting out until the last person putting up a veto retired or moved on to other things.

replies(12): >>42950694 #>>42950872 #>>42950880 #>>42951141 #>>42951145 #>>42951447 #>>42951871 #>>42952649 #>>42956486 #>>42956621 #>>42960083 #>>42962040 #
paulddraper ◴[] No.42952649[source]
It takes a lot of YouTube views to add up to a Apple/Amazon/etc rental.
replies(1): >>42952699 #
ldoughty ◴[] No.42952699[source]
But it also takes very little effort or cost... It's effectively free money at their scale.. no bandwidth fees, no storage, no user membership, etc... it's hard to sell a pile of junk no one wants to watch in a subscription too -- okay that might be harsh, but a LOT of old stuff is do do hard to watch nowadays... So there's certainly some great classics.. but also a lot of stuff that most people would never watch outside a class assignment
replies(2): >>42957110 #>>42958610 #
1. paulddraper ◴[] No.42957110[source]
That's also true of Apple/Amazon/etc.

If you want to make money from a movie, that seems a much better option.