The Stark Contrast Between Music and Video Distribution
The music and film/television industries have fundamentally diffrent approaches to distribution,explaining why a “Spotify for video” hasn’t materialized. The music industry, from its inception, prioritized rapid and widespread distribution to combat piracy and ensure longevity - a ideology that never involved regional restrictions. Radio operates on a virtually global license, and even with physical media like vinyl and CDs, geographical limitations weren’t imposed. This streamlined market, dominated by just five major labels without their own dedicated streaming platforms, made the creation of a unifying service like Spotify relatively straightforward. crucially, music largely bypasses the complexities of localization.
The film and television world,though,has consistently focused on controlling when,where,and how content is consumed,a practice dating back to the 1950s. This control manifests in a history of fragmentation: staggered international cinema releases, the PAL/NTSC divide in the VHS era, DVD regional coding, and now, streaming service restrictions enforced through IP address and payment card origin. the current landscape is a fractured ecosystem of competing streaming platforms – Netflix,Disney+,and countless others – each hoarding exclusive content.
This is further complicated by production rights. While autonomous creators might retain full ownership, larger production companies like Banijay often maintain rights, selling territorial licenses to broadcasters who are then obligated to enforce geoblocking. This practice, particularly prevalent in sports broadcasting with exclusive territorial rights, creates a web of limitations.The prospect of a single entity acquiring all content from these diverse sources – Netflix, Disney, Banijay, and global broadcasters – and translating it into every language is, frankly, unrealistic. The unwillingness of major players to sell rights, coupled with the astronomical cost of comprehensive translation, would result in a subscription price prohibitive to most consumers.
