Why the Film Industry Hasn't Been Disrupted Yet, Part 5
The article&#x27;s Part 1 refers to an old HN thread and buried in there is a good comment from 	
anactofgod about &quot;disrupting Hollywood&quot;:  
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=3491584" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=3491584</a><p>His analysis has similar to themes to the misunderstanding of &quot;gatekeepers&quot; like Netflix &#x2F; Amazon Video &#x2F; HBO and why they exist.<p>Gatekeepers are an <i>emergent property</i> of artists not having money to self-finance their projects -- and -- also not wanting to mess around with tasks that are unrelated to creativity such as managing a web server farm to distribute their videos to their fans.<p>There was a recent HN thread where people were frustrated that they had to pay for multiple streaming services (Netflix&#x2F;Hulu&#x2F;Amazon) to get <i>all</i> the shows they wanted.      Several suggested that we need to move towards a decentralized P2P distribution platform.  Unfortunately, as techies and programmers, we don&#x27;t consider the underlying economic forces that created the centralized gatekeepers in the first place.  For example... if director&#x2F;producer David Fincher wants the highest payment for his project, he can go to Netflix execs and convince them give him $100 million[1].  How would he get that kind of payday from decentralized systems such as IPFS &#x2F; Sandstorm &#x2F; DECENT[2]?<p>[1]<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.hollywoodreporter.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;netflix-outbids-hbo-david-fincher-167882" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.hollywoodreporter.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;netflix-outbids-hbo-da...</a><p>[2]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;decent.ch&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;decent.ch&#x2F;</a>