Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek: Discovery Nearly Cracks Pirate Bay's Top 10 In Less Than 24 Hours (ew.com)
Yesterday was the season premiere of the first new Star Trek TV series in 12 years. While the first episode aired on the CBS broadcast network Sunday night, the second episode -- and all the rest to come -- was made available exclusively on the CBS All Access streaming service for $6 a month. Naturally, this upset Trekkies and led many of them to find alternative methods to watch the show. EW reports that Star Trek: Discovery "is on the verge of cracking Pirate Bay's Top 10 most illegally downloaded shows in less than 24 hours." From the report: The Discovery pilot is currently at No. 11 on the list (apparently at No. 15 just a few hours ago), the pilot is up there with the likes of HBO's Game of Thrones, Adult Swim's Rick and Morty and, for some reason, TNT's The Last Ship. The show's second episode is at No. 17, which is a tad surprising as that was the one that wasn't free. Ever since the distribution plan was first announced fans have resisted with some vehemence the idea of paying for "yet another streaming service just to watch a single show" (there's more than one show on All Access, CBS is quick to point out, and then a debate over the relative merits of NCIS and MacGyver repeats ensues).
No it is fucking awful. way too much touchy feely Janeway type crap combined with moronic plot building and a captain and first officer that are suicide twins doing everything themselves regardless of how risky. I am hoping Michael gets the same treatment as the captain got in the next few episodes then perhaps they can start again. The only remotely likeable characters are the klingons
Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages. Not clear what is horrible about sub'ing the producers of content one watches at any one moment, and switching those around when one's viewing preferences change. Personally I'm not much of a TV watcher so am not in market for this, but seems strange complaint given the population who does want paid TV content.
:-)
re: the show, can't say it interests me, I am more the sort who wants to see time-line furthered post DS9, rather than re-hash original Trek timeline. And fuck Kirk, Sisko was King.
Well I was hoping that it boldly went where no one has gone before. Seems not the case.
Star trek Discovery is available on Netflix in Europe.
No.
The lead characters are all thoroughly unlikeable. All for different reasons; a ridiculously stereotypical scaredy-chicken science officer, non-descript (quite literally) secondary officers, an arrogant, egocentric and irresponsible first officer and gullible, emotional and passive captain. All thoroughly unlikeable nonetheless. The main protagonist especially.
The camera work also doesn't add; all dark, cold and gloomy. Will human spaceships really be more depressing than the inside of a WW2 submarine?
Orville gets the "feel" of the original ST shows a lot more even though it has it's own problems.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Whatever it was, it was ugly.
Well guess what uncomfortable men of slashdot?
The spirit of Star Trek has always been quite radical since it's 1966 introduction. It had an African American woman playing. Many TV producers at the time refused to air series showing professional African Americans as it would offend white southern TV viewers. She was also a woman which back then was controversial as well.
Star Trek also had the first interracial kiss which really shocked people the most as you could be beaten up and mobbed if you did this in the south back then. Martin Luther King was a Trekkie as it showed an alien, Russian, Chinese, and African all working together in harmony with racial differences involved. He even flew down to the set and pleaded with the actress who played Uhara to not quit and be an inspiration to both women and Black Americans.
Transgendered folks as much as they make you uncomfortable are here. Star Trek wants to portray them in a future where we overcome differences which is the spirit of the series.
http://saveie6.com/
bullshit, all of the Captain/first officer garbage was touchy feely bullshit, their was fuck all logic to any of their actions. I never said the Klingons were good, but compared to anything on the fucked up federation side in this steaming turd they looked great. how could you possibly think the captain was an interesting character? she lacked all substance and made decisions that went against logic and just plain common sense.
A show like this is going to be too hot. Anyone downloading without using a VPN client is risking a $3,000 fine and possible loss of their internet connection.
I like star trek. But I'm simply not going to watch it.
I have too many other forms of entertainment anyway.
If it's good- perhaps it will be available thru less expensive or less risky delivery methods.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The vulcan gave the very non-vulcan advise to skip any diplomacy but to shoot first. The casus belli was a human he indoctrinated eagerly desecrating a klingon shrine. Might he be a romulan infiltrator posing as a vulcan tasked with igniting a human-klingon war?
The klingons were obviously played by reman actors.
My guess is that CBS bought this series from the Romulan Propaganda Directorate.
/. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
The advice given by Sarek was that when the Vulkans first met the Klingons their ship was destroyed. From that point on they decided to attack first, which eventually lead to the Klingons respecting them enough to agree to peace.
He then advised her to consider the ramifications of that policy carefully, i.e. that many people would inevitably die.
I thought it was one of the most interesting parts of the show, how it wasn't clear how much was Vulkan logic and how much was her PTSD and hatred of the people who bombed her as a child.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I don't know if it was touchey-feeley, but it definitely didn't come from writers who have any respect for scifi. Sure, the various Enterprises often avoided destruction by all kinds of sketchy remodulatings or whatever, but at least they tried to make sense. In this abomination, we're at some outpost that's allegedly three light years from anything inhabited. Then a very bright beacon is set off, and instantly, the whole galaxy sees it: Even on Vulcan they report "seeing a new star" within minutes. This isn't just plot-saving mumbo jumbo. This is a show that's just not trying. Fuck them. I am not bothered by the gender stuff. I even grew to like Janeway. I can't watch this because they just shit so hard on any possibility of the suspension of disbelief. (This is just one of like 10 such howlers from the first episode alone. Don't get me started on the radiation farce and the "solution" of flying out in a spacesuit... the idiocy of a data storage designed for open space that gets wiped by radiation that's safe for humans.... the officers on a volatile planet who have no training in a protocol for communicating with an extraction team when "interference" disrupts their signal. Was there one thing in the episode that wasn't stupid?
it isn't "radical" to take a pro lgbtqxyz position right now, that is the current default position of establishment in west.
i think what you mean is star trek has a history of siding with the "liberal" "progressive" ideological position. doing that was once radical and risky. now that progressive liberalism is the ideology of establishment, it is neither risky or radical.
I didn't know I chose to be Autistic because it was trendy nor that the people who post comments like that know more than the psychiatrists?
http://saveie6.com/
I don't know why so many people seem to think that Michael is gender fluid or trans or something. Bryan Fuller always gives his female characters male names, it's his signature move. It doesn't imply anything, all the previous ones on other shows have been cis females.
Considering how some people denounced the show as some kind of SJW bullshit before it even aired, the first two episodes didn't have any hints that a single character was gay, trans or whatever. Is just being female or non-white enough to trigger people now?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages.
What is replacing cable is certainly not "ala carte" by any means.
Example: I want to view exclusive content on Netflix. So now, I have to pay them for that right while ignoring the other 90% of content they offer that I have zero interest in. Tell me again how that is any different than being forced to pay for 200 cable channels I'll never watch in order to get access to desired content? Rinse and repeat this stupidity for the other dozen "exclusive content" providers, with more on the way.
In the end, consumers will likely end up paying twice as much per month to get the shows they want to watch, bundled with 500 years of crap they'll never watch. Due to death by 1,000 cuts, they'll gladly pay it too. Creative Marketing/Millennial Math will make a $10x12 streaming cost seem like a bargain, while a $120x1 cable cost was a "ripoff".
The vulcan gave the very non-vulcan advise to skip any diplomacy but to shoot first.
I haven't seen anything of Discovery yet so I could be speaking out my arse. The Vulcans in ST:E were nearly as trigger-happy and duplicitous as the Romulans, especially when Andorians were around.
Yeah, I wanted to see this show. So the show - the visuals, I mean - was very pretty, the acting was terrible, the plot was positively drowning in angst (not uncommon for shows these days, sigh), the Klingons ridiculously slow to communicate (a warrior race that can only speak at turtle-like rates is pretty damn disadvantaged against humans) and the presentation was wounded mightily by commercials. Plus, what, yet another version of Klingons? Good grief. And the incompetence and lack of discipline on the part of the bridge crew, that was just... well, I'll call it "highly unlikely" in order to keep my language clean.
So we cancelled our CBS all-access subscription and will wait for the show to come out on bluray, assuming that happens (I expect it will.) We might even buy it at that point. Maybe the pain of the problems with these two episodes will have faded from memory by then...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Discovery is not SF. It's fantasy. Bad fantasy.
No even slightly competent science advisor got anywhere near these plot lines.
Between that, the angst, the rather awesome lack of discipline and order among the bridge crew, the pointless nattering when serious matters needed addressing, and O lord, the inundation with commercials...
Ugh. Terrible. Bye bye, CBS-all-access.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages.
I think you might be misunderstanding the complaint about wanted "a la carte" cable. The precise problem isn't that they have too many channels available to them. The problem is that the price of cable packages are high and rising, and people are saying, "If I'm paying $120 for 500 channels with thousands of shows, but I only watch 20 shows on 4 of those channels. Why can't I save some money by only getting the shows and channels I want?"
So now the content owners are saying, "Oh, you want a la carte, do you? Ok. We'll take those 20 shows that you want, put them each on a different streaming service. We'll charge $10/month for each service, and then in order to justify that price, we'll pack the service with a bunch of other shows that you don't care about. That's what you want, right?"
But no, having a la carte cable wasn't the goal, it was the means. The goal was to save money without losing access to the shows they want to watch. The idea was that maybe they could save money by sacrificing access to the crap they don't want. It doesn't help to give them a new distribution model that finds a different way to bundle crap we don't want, that ends up costing even more when you add it all up.
I did, and was happy to do it, on the chance that it might have been a good show - it can happen, witness Firefly.
Of course, now that I've seen how dismally bad those two episodes of Discovery were in so many ways, CBS-all-access gets the boot.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well, transexuals are mentally ill, by definition.
It is a mental illness, that's why it requires psychiatric counseling before you can get your junk cut or be put on any type of medication and so on. Argue all you want, but if a person has gender dysphoria or body integrity identity disorder aka amputee identity disorder you have a mental illness. There is no fundamental difference between the two besides the individual "wanting to have a part cut off" or "believing that they aren't the same sex as their body."
There's nothing "bad" about that. Except for the people who believe it isn't a psychiatric problem, and would dissuade people from getting proper treatment.
Om, nomnomnom...
Republicans control both houses. Republicans are not progressive.
Trump controls the White House. He is definitely not progressive.
Seems to me that the political establishment is fairly far to the right in the US. Even the Democrats are on the right by European standards.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You seem to know nothing.
When young children say they are trans, they are supported to live as their correct gender but there is no medication or surgery. That only starts when they hit puberty, after they have been living as that gender for some years, and even then it takes many years of living as their correct gender and sticking to the hormone medication before surgery begins.
It's not something a person can simply decide one day because it's "trendy", it's something you have to commit to living with for years. And when they are only 10, living with it for 5 years is half their life.
Is it really so surprising that state healthcare covers well established medical conditions? Are you also outraged that it covers "non-essential" stuff like prosthetics for men who had testicular cancer? Or is it just that you think it's not a real condition, in which case why do you disagree with the majority of medical experts?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I seem to know nothing? Yet I can find plenty of examples of children under the age of 10 with parents pushing this on their kids as well. So can you, pick a search engine. You'll easily find those parents who're pushing their kids into it, show them off and "how proud they are" and so on. Not parents acting like a parent. Seems to me you know nothing on what's going on or that there's a push in this, that the media has made it into something trendy along with advocates of it.
That you can find news stories on those under-age kids not dressing up, not living their "correct gender." That those same kids who apparently "know they're the wrong gender" are legally unable to know the difference from right or wrong at the age of 10.
s it really so surprising that state healthcare covers well established medical conditions? Are you also outraged that it covers "non-essential" stuff like prosthetics for men who had testicular cancer? Or is it just that you think it's not a real condition, in which case why do you disagree with the majority of medical experts?
No, here's the thing. In our lovely socialized countries, a trans individual is being bumped to the top of the line for priority treatment while that person suffering from cancer is waiting a 1/3 of a year for treatment. They're also being bumped to the top of the line against that 40yr old worker with the torn out knee that's stopping them from going back to work and taking surgical time up in an already strained system. On top of that they're getting drug coverage, and covered by the state where the person who's on depression is paying out-of-pocket for their medication. Do you think any of that is reasonable, that a single person is granted preferential treatment vs more cases in a strained system?
You mean those same "majority of medical experts" that classify it as a mental illness which requires psychiatric treatment? Or the "experts" who turn around and claim that gender is whatever you're feeling like it is when you roll out of bed because that's also trendy?
Om, nomnomnom...
No it's not a mental illness. No more than being gay by definition.
http://saveie6.com/
Last Ship is a fun show.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
When young children say they are trans, they are supported to live as their correct gender but there is no medication or surgery. That only starts when they hit puberty, after they have been living as that gender for some years, and even then it takes many years of living as their correct gender and sticking to the hormone medication before surgery begins.
The problem is the whole idea of a "correct gender", or the idea that "living as their correct gender" means treating them differently from any other child. Children learn that some genders are good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate, and then take that idea and run with it to an illogical conclusion: that it is better to undergo drastic surgery and at minimum have to take sex hormones forever (if there are not other complications, as there often are with surgery) in order to pretend to be something they are not, because they're not happy with the way they were born. People somehow get the idea that there's something wrong with them because they don't feel the way they are told that someone of their gender should feel. Then they have to get the ol' hack n' slash done to their goodies in order to feel good about themselves.
How about we do away with the gender role bullshit that society forces on people, instead of promoting fixing everything with surgery? I'm about as liberal as can be, and I'm in favor of people having the right to reassign their gender if they want to, but the situation where we make people feel bad about their goodies and then end up paying for them to have them remodeled is sick from stem to stern.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yet I can find plenty of examples of children under the age of 10 with parents pushing this on their kids as well. So can you, pick a search engine.
Finding examples of "parents pushing [gender transition] on their kids" with a search engine is problematic to say the least. You are talking about something that is a crime in most places, and which proving would require a detailed investigation that is likely to be beyond what a journalist could do on their own. It would need medical expert opinions at the very least.
All you get when you use a search engine is blogs making wild, unsubstantiated claims and some disreputable media sources that are little better.
Can you provide just one single example of a confirmed case of this happening?
That those same kids who apparently "know they're the wrong gender" are legally unable to know the difference from right or wrong at the age of 10.
It depends on the jurisdiction, but actually most places do try to involve children in medical decisions even when they are that young, or younger. I wasn't much older than that when I had to sign medical consent forms for surgery, and refusal would have resulted in my death (or legal intervention).
In our lovely socialized countries, a trans individual is being bumped to the top of the line for priority treatment while that person suffering from cancer is waiting a 1/3 of a year for treatment.
That's the "non-essential" argument I asked if you were making. You seem to be saying that cancer patients should get priority, and if that means diverting money from other treatments then so be it because cancer is life-threatening and represents a greater need.
However, no sane healthcare system works that way. I'm also going to have to ask for a citation that there is a line and transgender people at at the front of it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Can you provide just one single example of a confirmed case of this happening?
You mean like the case of Thomas Lobel? Which started at the age of 3.
It depends on the jurisdiction, but actually most places do try to involve children in medical decisions even when they are that young, or younger. I wasn't much older than that when I had to sign medical consent forms for surgery, and refusal would have resulted in my death (or legal intervention).
Yeah and in most places, you can't consent until you hit the "mens rea" age. In most places that's the age of 12, a few places it's as low as 9. Even in places where it's under the age of 12, the courts routinely rule that the child is incapable of fundamentally understanding the situation before them.
You seem to be saying that cancer patients should get priority, and if that means diverting money from other treatments then so be it because cancer is life-threatening and represents a greater need.
And they should, and that's not happening.
However, no sane healthcare system works that way. I'm also going to have to ask for a citation that there is a line and transgender people at at the front of it.
Oh so naive. And if you think it's just in Canada, search in your own backyard and you'll find something similar.
Om, nomnomnom...
It's a mental illness, just like religion
Yeah it really is a mental illness. Unless you want to argue that the entire branch of psychology is wrong.
So let's roll with this: The "conscious self" says one thing, the physical body is saying something else. Will you now argue that someone who wants to cut off a part of their body to gain a disability doesn't have a mental illness? Is that not the very definition of a psychiatric problem?
Om, nomnomnom...
The "conscious self" says one thing, the physical body is saying something else.
From the very first sentence from your link:
Gender dysphoriaÂoccurs when there is a persistent senseÂofÂmismatch between oneâ(TM)s experiencedÂgender and assigned gender.
It doesn't imply that the mismatch is between a purely mental perception and a purely physical one. There are a huge range of conditions that cause parts of the body to more masculine or more feminine than other parts, including parts of the brain.
When people say it is a mental illness, they usually want to imply that it can be cured by talking therapies and the like, rather than by changing the person's gender. Most medical experts view that in the same light as "gay conversion" therapy.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You're confusing 'Republican' with 'conservative'.
Right now the Republicans are the conservatives. But when they did all the things you listed they surely didn't further conservative ideals.
What is wrong with the Tammy Lobel case? It appears that she said she was a girl, her parents thought maybe she just made a mistake but she insisted. They sought medical advice, and eventually she started wearing girl's clothing, upon which:
"As soon as we let him put on a dress, his personality changed from a very sad kid who sat still, didn't do much of anything to a very happy little girl who was thrilled to be alive," Moreno said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09...
How exactly is that her parents pushing her into anything, when they initially tried to discourage her?
As for your link, did you read it? There is a 2 year waiting list, that doesn't sound like "front of the queue" or priority over cancer patients. In fact the story doesn't imply that there is any priority given at all, it's about who is allowed to make referrals.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Did not know this, but a quick google will confirm this.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0298188/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
Trade Marks:
All of his shows have at least one female character with a traditionally male name (Chuck in ''Pushing Daisies'', ''George in Dead Like Me'', Freddie Lounds in ''Hannibal'')
They have to be primed by social media first.
People knew what they thought of this show before they saw it. As they increasingly know what to say about any topic before they've thought about it; they even know the exact language to use.
Social media have proven to be the greatest agent of social conformity in history.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I saw Ep1 last night (legally, on Netflix). Nice CGI, but the rest of it was largely terrible. Unsure I'll bother with Ep2, or anything after. Crap plot, crap characterisation, crap acting. Compare this with the new Expanse (which also had its flaws), only one is really Science Fiction, and that would be the Expanse hands down. Looking forward to the third series, but I really don't care to see anything more of "STD".
It's kind of sad that you have become such a sensitive snowflake when it comes to anything political or social related that your enjoyment of Star Trek is ruined now.
I can only assume you have somehow managed to block out all the political and social commentary in every other Trek series. Given time, perhaps you will be able to do the same with Discovery. Maybe someone will make a special censored edit for sensitive types like yourself.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You can argue with people all you want but if they hate it, they still won't watch it. The cheetos crowd will watch anything. Sci fi lovers, need stories not sy fy bullshit. When they try to stick cheetos crap on sci fi lovers, they end up pleasing no one. Trying to push sci fi on a larger audience, filling it with touchy feely crap, just puts of sci fi aficionado and the touchy feely types can get what they crave from soap operas without, to them, the science nonsense. They can show that broader appeal bullshit back where it came from. Want to make soap operas, make soap operas, what to make science fiction, than start telling stories about science in the future, try to do both at the same time and you make shite no one wants.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Gay conversion therapy has actually worked for lots of people. The problem is its been mostly practiced by people who are unqualified to do so; so its got a bad name.
There are a huge range of conditions that cause parts of the body to more masculine or more feminine than other parts
While this may be true their frequency in the population does not come anywhere near the number of people who currently claim to be transgender. Essentially yes most of these people probably could and should be treated with a mixture of therapy and less invasive drugs like mood stabilizers, not the extreme measure of gender conversion. Which by the way has been show over and over again to do nothing to address the state of depression and other conditions these individuals have, which suggests its a not a route cause of the "discomfort" experienced by these people. This is further evinced by the number of people who 'transition' back.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Aspergers no longer exists
You're cured! Seriously, you are arguing that doctors decided to reclassify your condition going from the DSM-IV to DSM-V. You still have whatever it is you have. Do you prefer the label Autism? You have a condition, it is unique to you, do labels really matter?
Sure they do. Labels (symbols) are how we communicate. In most cases, these labels are collaboratively constructed by the whole society, and evolve over time. If you want to communicate, you need to keep up. For example, while I don't use "sick" to describe something appealing or good, I understand it when my kids do. In cases of technical jargon, there is sometimes a professional body that defines the meaning of terms, which is definitely the case with autism and Asperger's Syndrome. If you want to communicate clearly and accurately about issues within a certain space, you should use the terms as defined by the relevant body.
That said, Billly Gates is wrong about what DSM-V says. It does not eliminate Asperger's Syndrome as a diagnosis, nor does it call Asperger's "autism". Instead, it defines a set of pervasive developmental disorders which include autism and Asperger's, as well as several others, as the "autism spectrum". Asperger's and autism are separate diagnoses, but they both fall within a category of diagnoses called "autism spectrum disorders". So to be very precise, Billly Gates should not say that he is autistic, but that he has an autism spectrum disorder.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Worse when you call it an illness rather than a disorder it implies something different medically and legally. If you view someone being mentally ill it gives a green light for HR to fire him or her and not worry about being sued as this person is a threat to herself and others and had to be eliminated etc.
If it is a disorder then it is an acknowledgement that perhaps the brain is wired differently and now you can't fire someone from being trans or discriminate and need to make reasonable work accommodations.
Last, it is frankly offensive to call someone mentally ill. I mentioned aspergers/autism in the thread here. I have a disorder. However, I am not mentally ill and would take great offensive if someone implied this or if I lost my job due to it and have no protection.
http://saveie6.com/
History lesson: All the far right win democrats switched to the GOP. All but Byrd.
The right wing were historically democrats before FDR. THe left and center were republicans. FDR ran as a liberal democrat to win the south (which at the time refused to vote for the party of Lincoln) and being liberal could win northern states. The 1964 Civil Rights act switched politicians to opposite parties as the south said screw the no party of Lincoln mantra we need to discriminate and keep white power and joined the GOP and supported Nixon in protest. Reagan took the rest over by 1980 as Jimmy Carter was too liberal for the south
http://saveie6.com/
I've asked this like five times now, but fuck it let's try again: What SPECIFICALLY about these two episodes was "SJW bullshit"?
Don't give me some vague answer about "touchy feely crap", give me specific examples of scenes or dialogue that you think are "SJW bullshit".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages.
In cable television, a la carte reasonably refers to the practice of being able to purchase access to channels, because that's how cable television is organized; channels, and bundles of channels. In internet "television", a la carte reasonable refers to the practice of being able to purchase access to episodes; not only because this is how we're used to handling digital media, but also because this is how digital media has traditionally been sold.
Unfortunately, DRM really ruins that. You have to trust that whoever you're buying the viewing rights is going to be around for as long as you expect to want to be able to authenticate that video file, assuming a file is even delivered to you. I "bought" an episode of Babylon 5 on Amazon Prime because I couldn't conveniently get it elsewhere. It was only one episode so it wasn't a lot of money even though the price-per-episode is a bit steep, and it served my needs at the time so I spent the money. But I have to trust that Amazon will stick around and that they will retain the rights to distribute that video and that they will distribute that video for as long as I think I'm going to care about it in order to justify the "purchase".
And that's why services like TPB still exist. People will pay a nickel or a dime to watch a TV show that they don't have any expectation of being able to rewatch for free. They'll pay a lot more for a piece of physical media without phone-home DRM, because they assume they'll be able to watch again. The little bit of streaming content that is actually available on a per-episode basis tends to be overpriced. Or you can just go torrent it, and you're done. You have the content for as long as you can hang onto it. Content that people would pay a nickel or dime or maybe even a quarter for to watch now, and then maybe pay again to watch it again later is just getting downloaded instead, producing no revenue now — and no revenue later. Reminds me of a RATM lyric...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How's life in the hypocrite lane?