Follow

This looks rather interesting!
means.tv/

<quote>
Means TV is the world’s first worker-owned, post-capitalist streaming service.

Launching on 2.26.2020, Means TV will have a library of documentaries, movies, and shows with new programming added all the time. We'll also have live weekly shows covering news, culture, gaming and sports.

All of this will be available to subscribers for $10/month across desktop, mobile and smart TV devices like Roku, Fire and Apple TV.

No advertisements or product placements. No corporate backers or VC cash ever.
</quote>

The main question I have is: how do I contribute content?

(via followers-only toot)

@woozle i thought the post capitalist streaming service was bittorrent

@cosine That's for "unlicensed" content, mostly. I gather this is for content that is totally legal *and* not produced by the for-profit media industry.

(Also, where are the channels of curated content on Bittorrent? There might be something like that on Tribler, I suppose...)

@cosine Note specifically that content producers are, in fact, paid out of the co-op's profits from viewer subscriptions:

from means.tv/pages/cooperative-str -- paraphrased for Masto narrow-column readability:

All year-end profits are distributed amongst the members of the cooperative based on their membership catagory:

Worker Members (70%)
* full-time employees at Means TV
* can serve on the board
* have full voting and economic rights in the cooperative.

Contractor Members (20%)
* indy contractors the co-op works with
* have economic rights in the cooperative.

Royalty Members (10%)
* filmmakers, distributors, and certain crew on original productions.
* have economic rights in the cooperative.

@woozle hmm those percents seem a little weird but that's cool

@cosine @woozle

those percentages look like they substituted "music label, publishing rights owner and songwriter" with their own member groups

any model where the creators get anything less than 70% = bad. all the more since (presuming here) all they're doing is providing server space plus whatever online promotion they deem fit, rather than actual marketing and promotion. at least with the label model (and all other corporate media models), that's the service they may provide. in theory.

@cosine @woozle coming up with clever ways to say "for exposure" = why do that, seriously

@poiseunderchaos @cosine

That's an issue worth looking at.

I think the real test will be whether they provide some kind of serious means of interacting with the people who run the operation (the board of directors, I assume), for members to talk with each other, and for everyone to collaborate on governance decisions.

If they do, then there's always the option to revise the percentage structure, after discussion of the reasoning and data behind the current structure.

If not, then they're not really serious about being democratic. (I could rant about this problem with regard to our local grocery co-op. >.<)

@woozle @cosine that makes sense. the worker-ownership part, that's good -- but it's like "...ok, did you think this through? because sounds like you're saying that a co-op bakery, a co-op health food store and a co-op streaming label are all the same thing, and they're not"

(the food distribution industry is also completely messed up, but in a different way)

@poiseunderchaos @cosine

Where did the bakery/healthfood comparisons come from?

(If you thought I was saying that they're equivalent, then I'll just clarify that no, I don't think any such thing. I just think that if an organization is going to promote itself as self-governing, they need to make some effort to enable communication and collaboration within their membership/community. I brought up our local grocery co-op because they were extremely oblivious on this front.)

@woozle @cosine no, i'm saying "if all they plan to do is give 10% in royalties and expect people to produce content that way, they're pulling from a different model, and possibly, confused."

(i also could be talking out our ass here, btw. it's just that 10% for a streaming platform = ok, i'm wary, but also, not sure about overhead for video streaming. still, though)

@woozle @cosine sorry for that being confusing, what i'm getting at is that saying "we're a media streaming co-op!" and focusing most of the budget on worker-owner-employees means that someone is going to get screwed, most likely the content providers. but it sounds like it's not as bad as all that. so, probably should dig deeper here, tbh

@woozle oh so like, boring content

idk, curated content rarely pleases me, i watch stuff cause someone recommended it and then i connect with them

@cosine It remains to be seen how tightly controlled the content is.

...but yeah, it'd be nice if they included a way for spontaneously-shared content to get an audience. (I have my own plans for that sort of thing, not limited to video.)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Toot.Cat

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!