My feeling is that since PBS is largely funded by taxes and donations, all their content should be available freely just about anywhere. They really ought to publish directly to YouTube as well.
IMO, there is a large gap between taxes and donations. Taxpayers would be better served by open access, but donors may feel funding for PBS is a better option.
As taxpayers are only 15 percent and this may reduce PBS's funding needs it's probably a good approach to licence the content widely for a reasonable cost.
It _was_ widely available, on Hulu and Netflix. Swapping those two ubiquitous services our for Amazon Instant Video is a dramatic decrease in availability, given the limited number of devices that Amazon allows access on (i.e. no Chromecase, no Apple TV, etc).
I end up connecting my computer to the TV with an HDMI cable. Even then, I remember at one point it didn't approve of the make/model of the TV and would only play in 480p.
Only because they are very successfully at monetizing their content which was originally bootstrapped by tax and donations. After this exclusive deal that percentage may drop further.
The problem isn't with Amazon having to pay to serve the content. It's that Amazon now has an exclusive deal and this content is being removed from Netflix and other streaming services.
As others have noted, this isn't a great deal for consumers who also happen to already pay for some of the content via taxes.
This is presumably more money for PBS than they were getting before which means they will have a larger budget for new programming. Also, the content is already free to access for those consumers you are so worried about:
> All of the titles moving to Amazon will still be broadcast on local PBS stations, on PBS’s website and the PBS Kids Video app. Amazon Prime will have the streaming rights to shows approximately six months after their premiere date on PBS stations.
The website and PBS kids video app have maybe 3-4 episodes of each show. Not even close to what Amazon will now carry, and what Netflix used to have.
Also, from what I've seen most kids (mine included) are now watching PBS via streaming apps and not live tv. PBS is now locking most of their kids content behind one corporation.
> This is presumably more money for PBS than they were getting before
Their priority is not profit, but public service. Since this reduces the availability of their programming, it is a disservice to the public that supports them through taxes, regardless of how much richer they are now.
> Their priority is not profit, but public service. Since this reduces the availability of their programming, it is a disservice to the public that supports them through taxes, regardless of how much richer they are now.
Public service can be defined many ways. Is it better to have less programming that is available on Netflix and Hulu or more programming that is available on Amazon? Amazon Prime has very wide reach, this may actually increase the number of kids with streaming access. If it did increase the number would you be for the move?
How can Amazon alone reach more people than Amazon, Netflix and Hulu combined? The difference will have to be huge to allow production of enough programming to offset the reduced streaming audience.
I understand they cannot neglect the broadcast TV segment, but this is nuts.
BTW, it's odd to me the Department of State doesn't see PBS as a powerful propaganda tool. It's your BBC.
Is there a (good) reason PBS can't license it to both Netflix and Amazon? Is it possible Amazon (or Netflix) are really willing to pay more for exclusive access than Amazon and Netflix combined would pay for non-exclusive access?
> Is it possible Amazon (or Netflix) are really willing to pay more for exclusive access than Amazon and Netflix combined would pay for non-exclusive access?
The good reason is precisely that one distributor is willing to pay more for the content on an exclusive basis than multiple providers would on a non-exclusive basis. If PBS were getting more from Amazon + Hulu + Netflix on a non-exclusive basis, they wouldn't have done this deal and reduced their revenue.
