←back to thread

Paramount launches hostile bid for Warner Bros

(www.cnbc.com)
366 points gniting | 2 comments | 08 Dec 25 14:16 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Previously: Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46160315 (1333 comments)
Show context
magicalhippo ◴[08 Dec 25 14:18 UTC] No.46192486[source]▶
I brought popcorn, who are we rooting for?
replies(5): >>46192833 #>>46193212 #>>46193404 #>>46193585 #>>46200085 #
Larrikin ◴[08 Dec 25 14:49 UTC] No.46192833[source]▶
The best outcome would be for all of the bids to fail, all the streaming services would bleed money due to people sick of the siloing, and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog.

The second best outcome would be the cartoon villain Larry not getting what he wants.

replies(3): >>46192985 #>>46194495 #>>46200972 #
nubinetwork ◴[08 Dec 25 15:02 UTC] No.46192985[source]▶
I honestly don't think cbs paramount would be any better, if anything, wb content would be further paywalled and tiered off
replies(1): >>46193418 #
Spivak ◴[08 Dec 25 15:33 UTC] No.46193418[source]▶
Which is why the model that would actually be good for consumers and the model that absolutely no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Let a bunch of companies compete over being the best streaming platform and then let those companies all compete for licensing deals for content.

I think a big copyright holders in a strange way actually don't want a repeat of cable. They want all content to be exclusive by default to their own streaming service.

replies(2): >>46196798 #>>46200976 #
andsoitis ◴[08 Dec 25 19:55 UTC] No.46196798[source]▶
When you make something (eg TV shows), you might also want a direct relationship with your customer (eg viewer). Consequently, A platform where you get to choose how to present and celebrate the stories seems like a reasonable thing.
replies(1): >>46197256 #
ndiddy ◴[08 Dec 25 20:32 UTC] No.46197256[source]▶
In the US, the film industry originally worked like the streaming industry does today. Besides just creating films, the major studios distributed them through the theaters they owned. If you wanted to see a Paramount film you had to go to a Paramount owned theater, if you wanted to see an MGM film you had to go to an MGM owned theater, and so on. In 1948, this distribution scheme was ruled to be in violation of antitrust law and the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theaters. Now you can see major films in any studio and the theaters have to compete on price and amenities. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to streaming services.
replies(1): >>46200186 #
raw_anon_1111 ◴[09 Dec 25 01:22 UTC] No.46200186[source]▶
So you want to pass a law that no one can produce content and put it on their own website?
replies(2): >>46203663 #>>46206220 #
1. Larrikin ◴[09 Dec 25 15:48 UTC] No.46206220[source]▶
No, just media production companies on their own streaming service. There is no reason to pretend that billion dollar, publicly traded companies are poor college kids just trying to get noticed on the Internet for their quirky videos.
replies(1): >>46208608 #
2. raw_anon_1111 ◴[09 Dec 25 18:30 UTC] No.46208608[source]▶
Okay, and if they move ownership and production outside of the country and stream it from their website ate yoi going to block them from streaming to the US?

How is that law going to apply to Sony who is Japanese owned and CrunchyRoll?

Do we force PluralSight and Udacity to share their content? YouTube creators?