the most lucrative scheme for productions, while also staying within that invisible boundary of not alienating consumers, for films and series: the exclusivity deals.
How's that dr watson?
In an extreme example you are paying a long term subscription, let's say $200, for the exclusive privilege to access say 2 shows. That's $100 for one aficionado, per production.
What you are advocating for is
for each production to be made available on dozens of platforms each having most other productions, you end up with a prorata/ratio of that aficionado who viewed yours, but also happen to have viewed 8 other productions. Unless the viewer pays up 20x or 30x for some universal subscription, that's far less revenue than $100.
In practice subscribers simply won't even spend 10x. Why? Because they are only ready to pay 10 times more for certain beloved productions, but very little for those that aren't deemed that necessary to watch. So they tend to accept to pay a lot for a few hits, even if they have to give up on all the rest.
Why does it not work the same for music?
First, it used to. Apple, in the good old Steve Jobs days, did it good to break the practice. With iTunes. Which managed to catch up with every other platform and integrate well to provide a UX leaving the competition far behind. Pressure power, and master maneuvers accomplished the exploit. Apple TV didn't show the same prouesse, maybe Jobs started to fade away, Apple didn't make a great screen display like they did with the iPod to gain that consumer pressure against the trad distributors, and it was simply a much harder battle due to the second reason below.
A great tune is played many many many times. An average one at least far less. So the prorata formula used to compensate the owners, works OK. The pareto distribution applies where great hits get accordingly rewarded.
With movies/series, unless it is one of those rare non thriller/mystery gem, it is watched once and for all. A one to one view to reward system puts greater productions at a deficit.
I doubt the Entertainment industry saw all of this from the get go, but they have decades of accounting experience and shaped it up once cable/satellite tv with network channels became prominent. It roughly applies the same with with streaming.
Does it make it right? Legally it seems that they win, those exclusivity contracts are legal. Building a platform and funnel your productions through it only as well. Although legislators needs to step up their game, end the lobbying thr led to this abuse of Intellectual Property rights, to finally enforce what it is and just it: ownership of the art, not of its distribution.
How's that dr watson?
for each production to be made available on dozens of platforms each having most other productions, you end up with a prorata/ratio of that aficionado who viewed yours, but also happen to have viewed 8 other productions. Unless the viewer pays up 20x or 30x for some universal subscription, that's far less revenue than $100. In practice subscribers simply won't even spend 10x. Why? Because they are only ready to pay 10 times more for certain beloved productions, but very little for those that aren't deemed that necessary to watch. So they tend to accept to pay a lot for a few hits, even if they have to give up on all the rest.Why does it not work the same for music?
I doubt the Entertainment industry saw all of this from the get go, but they have decades of accounting experience and shaped it up once cable/satellite tv with network channels became prominent. It roughly applies the same with with streaming.