Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

tedium.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 485 posts

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#191

Post by spratzt »

echelon wrote: post #179
Frederation wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art doesnt cease to be art when new forms of art are materializing. Its up to the viewer.

That wasn't the argument. The argument is that few will watch the majority of WB's back catalogue, because their time is being spent with all the other attention sinks. This places a monetary value on the content, not a social or cultural value.

I absolutely agree.

It’s also a silly to believe that because it’s old it’s culturally significant. There’s plenty of ancient dross in the back catalogues.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#192

Post by Retric »

mrandish wrote: post #189

There was a time fairly early in Netflix's streaming era when all the studios were just dumping their old back catalogs on Netflix to get some revenue from 'dead content' that I thought "Wow, someday soon pretty much all the old content will just be available on a central streaming service. The future will be good." Then the stock market started inflating the value of streamers because of ARR projections and studios…

Most things are on Amazon if you’re willing to pay for them individually. It’s more buffet style streaming services that splintered.

Per movie may seem expensive, but at the low end of hours per month watch time streaming services are a bad deal.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#193

Post by LordDragonfang »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #122

Anything from before the 1980s should just be on YouTube, its easy cash for them on films that are sitting idle otherwise. Anything they aren't licensing to anyone anywhere should just be on YouTube. Or any sort of streaming platform that has sane ads, and anyone can see. It is really sad to me there's no genuine YouTube competitor.

> Anything from before the 1980s should just be on YouTube

Agreed, but because all of that should be public domain at this point. The idea that some company needs rent-seeking motivation to allow people to view 50-year old media literally until everyone who could have consumed it when it was published is dead is absurd.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#194

Post by echelon »

spratzt wrote: post #191
echelon wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't the argument. The argument is that few will watch the majority of WB's back catalogue, because their time is being spent with all the other attention sinks. This places a monetary value on the content, not a social or cultural value.

I absolutely agree. It’s also a silly to believe that because it’s old it’s culturally significant. There’s plenty of ancient dross in the back catalogues.

100%.

The back catalogue will have a few scattered gems that you can find amongst the sea of mass media that appealed to its audience at the time. Most of that content no longer relates or makes sense to us. There's also a massive load of dreck and garbage.

People should be realistic about this instead of emotionally invested against AI as the news media has tried to sway this. It's just a tool, and artists are starting to use it productively.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#195

Post by t-writescode »

bongodongobob wrote: post #187
giancarlostoro wrote: post #122

Anything from before the 1980s should just be on YouTube, its easy cash for them on films that are sitting idle otherwise. Anything they aren't licensing to anyone anywhere should just be on YouTube. Or any sort of streaming platform that has sane ads, and anyone can see. It is really sad to me there's no genuine YouTube competitor.

"you should just do X" generally means you don't have the full picture. You're completely disregarding all the union stuff that needs to be considered. You're forgetting all the little guys that make movies happen. Yeah the directors and actors probably don't care, but the other 100s of other people involved in making films probably do. Edit: You're right. Just disregard any laws and contracts in place. HN knows best…

Early US copyright was something like 20 years + 20 years if they were still alive.

Under that, everything before 1985 would be free of copyright already.

I think the majority of Americans would greatly prefer that model; but, The Mouse had other plans and has extended copyright to approx 100 years.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#196

Post by giancarlostoro »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #193
giancarlostoro wrote: post #122

Anything from before the 1980s should just be on YouTube, its easy cash for them on films that are sitting idle otherwise. Anything they aren't licensing to anyone anywhere should just be on YouTube. Or any sort of streaming platform that has sane ads, and anyone can see. It is really sad to me there's no genuine YouTube competitor.

> Anything from before the 1980s should just be on YouTube Agreed, but because all of that should be public domain at this point. The idea that some company needs rent-seeking motivation to allow people to view 50-year old media literally until everyone who could have consumed it when it was published is dead is absurd.

I wanted to say that too, but I rather take any wins we can get. I mean, the best part is, if they made their movies public domain THEN put them all on youtube, they would earn so much ad revenue from them being on their YouTube accounts.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#197

Post by heywire »

not2b wrote: post #173
mrandish wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, most creators just click the "insert automatically" button. That seems like a good opportunity for a neural net feature that's smarter than simple scene cut detection. While most theatrical films lack many good spots for commercial breaks, there are certainly a lot of "less bad" spots. Sadly, I doubt YT will bother since they no longer seem to care about viewer experience in recent years.

YouTube doesn't even bother with scene cut detection; they'll insert ads mid-sentence. A lot.

That’s one way to keep you watching, you’ve at least gotta hear the rest of the sentence! /s

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#198

Post by giancarlostoro »

bongodongobob wrote: post #187
giancarlostoro wrote: post #122

Anything from before the 1980s should just be on YouTube, its easy cash for them on films that are sitting idle otherwise. Anything they aren't licensing to anyone anywhere should just be on YouTube. Or any sort of streaming platform that has sane ads, and anyone can see. It is really sad to me there's no genuine YouTube competitor.

"you should just do X" generally means you don't have the full picture. You're completely disregarding all the union stuff that needs to be considered. You're forgetting all the little guys that make movies happen. Yeah the directors and actors probably don't care, but the other 100s of other people involved in making films probably do. Edit: You're right. Just disregard any laws and contracts in place. HN knows best…

Are the little guys receiving royalties from these movies decades later? I recall instances where actors paid some of the little guys out of their own pocket to keep movies going, Deadpool is an example of this.

Re: Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

#199

Post by inopinatus »

echelon wrote: post #179
Frederation wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art doesnt cease to be art when new forms of art are materializing. Its up to the viewer.

That wasn't the argument. The argument is that few will watch the majority of WB's back catalogue, because their time is being spent with all the other attention sinks. This places a monetary value on the content, not a social or cultural value.

This was already true irrespective of any emerging media.
Post reply on HN