Hollywood Continues Its Plan To Kill Netflix
from the jealousy-is-no-strategy-for-business-success dept
It's really kind of amusing (and frustrating) to watch the entertainment industry look to kill every golden goose that comes its way. Any time a new offering is successful, the entertainment industry gets greedy and either tries to demand a much larger cut, more control... or it tries to kill off the offering because it has "too much power." We saw it with the labels, when they turned on iTunes (though Apple's been able to hold that together pretty strongly) and music video games. It's part of what's been driving the record labels to give Spotify such a hard time in signing a deal to bring the (rather successful in Europe) service to the US. And it's not just the recording industry. We've noted that Hollywood has now decided that Netflix has been too successful for them, and it's time to put the company in its proper place.Thus, we're starting to see Netflix partners push back and start to limit what Netflix can stream. First it was Showtime pulling back from streaming its content via Netflix, and now it's Starz that's pulling back in a big way. That's pretty significant, because it was the original deal between Netflix and Starz that really jumpstarted Netflix's ability in the streaming space. The big studios have been complaining about the Starz deal for years, and it's not hard to see their hands in the company's decision to scale back its relationship.
It really is amazing. Some new service comes along that drags these industries -- often kicking and screaming -- into the modern era, and then starts making them lots of money. And suddenly the industry turns on them (and fans and consumers) claiming that these services are simply too successful and need to be cut down to size. It's really a case of the entertainment companies overvaluing the content over the service. They think that all the value is in the content, and if the services are making money and getting users, it's because they're somehow "exploiting" the content in unfair ways. On top of that, I really think there's a psychological issue, where the entertainment industry bosses still think that if anyone else is making a lot of money, it's "unfair" -- even if they're making plenty of money themselves.
Of course, these moves will backfire. It'll just make people on Netflix watch less of these companies' content... or seek it out from alternative sources that Hollywood probably likes even less.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: digital distribution, movies
Companies: netflix, showtime, starz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Please buy your own studio Netflix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
They don't have the lawfirm of Ben Dover and Taye Kitt, LLC representing them so I'm sure that eventually they can walk from a deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
The correct phrase is 'they could NOT care less' ie, its not possible to care any less than the do, because they don't care at all.
Back on Topic, Netflix is not available in Europe. I was looking forward to it as I don't own a TV, not sure if its worth the effort now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
All languages have them, and very few of them make any sense until they're explained to you. That's just the way it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
I suspect the true confusion comes from what I believe was the original phrase, "*AS IF* I could care less." People just dropped the "as if" but as has been pointed out, that robs the phrase of its meaning.
And people who try to say they're using the phrase ironically don't understand *anything* about language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
The correct phrase is 'they could NOT care less' ie, its not possible to care any less than the do, because they don't care at all.
Back on Topic, Netflix is not available in Europe. I was looking forward to it as I don't own a TV, not sure if its worth the effort now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please buy your own studio Netflix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consequences?
Also, this could provide a great way for smaller studios to now take a bigger piece of the Netflix streaming pie, since there will be less top-level content on the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consequences?
The Netflix model already somewhat insulates a person from release dates. It's very easy to become completely oblivious to new stuff as it comes out as you already have so much stuff in your online and mail queue.
This is the real problem that Hollywood faces. They have this huge back catalog of material. Consumers are flooded with choices. Prices are being driven down due to the glut. Even if you're buying your stuff, it's easy (and relatively cheap) to have more than enough stuff to suitably distract yourself with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consequences?
The Studios CANNOT RELEASE much of their back catalog due to the fact they don't even know if their old rights deals allow them to release a lot of it digitally.
In particular, they are not sure that the music deals on old tv and films are cleared for digital releases, AND they are not willing to spend the legal $$$ (a lot) to find out. In many cases, the physical paper rights records simply don't exist anymore. And if they can't prove they have the rights, they can't get E&O insurance coverage, and if they can't get E&O on the digital releases, they simply won't release it. It's too big a liability for them.
I don't think you're going to see a lot of older back-catalog content until it falls into public domain, a very long time from now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would be the end of those muppets. After all they don't do anything other than promote and say who gets what.
Microsoft is already financing producers, Google may fallow suit, Yahoo is an unknown. Instead of dealing with studios that do nothing go direct to the source and offer better deals to the producers.
Also make a partnership with Google that is building the physical infra-structure because they already saw the writing on the wall, that is why they are buying and putting fiber on the ground and across the atlantic and the pacific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Going to the producers? Do you have any links to stories? I'm interested in that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703512404576208972975699708.html
they bought the new david fincher series
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps it's time to revisit them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20110318/netflix-bets-big-on-house-of-cards-but-swears-i ts-not-a-radical-departure-qa-with-content-boss-ted-sarandos/
I'm not sure about the other two funding their own content though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://community.watchtheguild.com/forum/topics/microsoft-orders-third-season
Netfli x experimenting with content production.
http://netflix.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=361
Quote:
Google submarine fiber cable plans.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/02/googles-submari/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-2 0000715-265.html
There is no dealing with those schmucks from the entertainment industry they are to greedy to be dealt with, go around them with a coalition of the willing LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yep. And I have friends who are queuing up to pitch original content series to Netflix like there's no tomorrow.
If producers can get better production financing deals, and less pain from a Netflix deal they'll go there in a hurry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- VODO
- Flattr
- Bittorrent.
- Vuze(I don't like this one but others do)
- Wreckamovie
- Archive.org
Tech companies should be talking with those people specially VODO and Wreckamovie.
Google does have a movie section on Youtube but is about talking with those middleman that don't produce things they should be doing more to attract real talent.
When the tech industry gets enough leverage you will see the tone of the deals change in the meantime I will just seat back and enjoy the show.
The industry don't want partners they want subjects but they neither have the expertise to be successful on the internet nor the money to make it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Instead of producers trying to pitch content to studios they should be trying to pitch content to somebody who actually has the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Our relationships in general with the Networks and Studios have been painful and acrimonious; there are very few exceptions to this.
Many of us would far rather pitch nerds than MBA's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Under the deal with independent studio Media Rights Capital, Netflix said "House of Cards"—a political drama to be executive produced by Mr. Fincher and star Kevin Spacey—will begin playing exclusively on Netflix's Internet streaming service late next year.
So, you're getting pissed that movie execs want to claim ownership over their own content, but praise Netflix when it creates is own virtual monopoly on an exclusive series?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When it produces top quality content and releases it to me without any additional cost beyond the low monthly fees i already pay, and its in an easy to view streaming format? Yeah I got no problem with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By killing it, the studios will force people to resort to the next most convenient alternative: piracy.
If you think about it, it's inevitable: how else are you going to get that kind (netflix) of convenience at that kind price?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Go ahead studios, if you really don't want me to spend my money on your stuff, then I won't. But that will not stop me from watching your stuff if I want to. I am trying to be reasonable, and you are not. I will not feel bad at all for not paying you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
DVDFlow 2
http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=65933&p=219644&hilit=dvd+browser&s id=85b7730153a97cbba6362ab2fa90a6e9#p219644
It lets you play videos anywhere you get access to the internet it even encodes the video on the fly for cellphones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've given up on them myself
We can bitch and moan all we like, though. They won't listen. Why should they? They hold the rights to do whatever they wish and they reserve all rights. They reserve them in the vault until they corrode beyond use. So I give up. Won't you join me in giving up? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've given up on them myself
if we stop consuming they way they are demanding, they will have to listen.
so read a book, go for a hike, learn to paint. cut the chord, turn off the TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've given up on them myself
Stopped buying Disney material because I bought the back catalog already and their new stuff just isn't as exciting as it used to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've given up on them myself
I actually think that model would work if every content provider made an easy to use system that worked on most platforms for a relatively low price. Say every major content provider said you can get what we put out for $1/video and $3 for a year of TV content w/ commercials, $8 without commercials. Their books would probably look the same(maybe even better because it might drive some people who download illegally into the payed market because of ease of use), and people would be happy. If you told me I could get redbox prices from my house and not have to deal with Comcast cable prices I'd ask where I could sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relative 'low' price isn't actually....
Sure $.99 a song ....sounds reasonable. Until you realize that people are carrying around players (that can cost less than $50) which are capable of holding 10,000 songs or more. To fill up that player at $.99 a song, you are looking at around $10,000. Suddenly that $.99 a song isn't all that reasonable.
It's the same thing with video/TV. $1/video $8/year for television content, sounds reasonable. If you watch a couple of 'videos' a day (and who decides what constitutes 'a video'? A movie? An episode of a television program? A single music -video-?) You're already talking $60/month.
$8/year for what? Everything by CBS & affiliates (not terribly likely)? Everything for a single television channel? Every episode for a single show?
Wow, in that world high priced digital cable television, complete with bi-annual increases, looks down right thrifty.
Right now you can watch as many movies or television shows as you like on up to six devices for less than $10 a month. That's the price level that people expect. Low price, flat rate, and they get to pick what they watch and when.
It's almost completely opposite of what the old guard wants. They don't get to dictate how or when, and they don't get anything per view (and especially not per viewer).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Relative 'low' price isn't actually....
If each provider(CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, TBS, etc) were subscription based over the internet(and didn't go through Comcast) and consumers got to choose which channels they'd subscribe too instead of paying $1 for each channel of a massive bundle, you'd get more directed content(and probably directed advertising). I just don't necessarily think that unlimited content models are really that sustainable and the only reason they were allowed to begin with is that they were viewed as revenue streams which they never would have got before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've given up on them myself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've given up on them myself
The Kindle and Steam have been getting my money lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short answer: Yes
The longer answer is that they want you to pay them, both individually and collectively, every time you watch anything. Not only that, they would really love it if they could figure out how to charge you per person. (i.e. If 1 person is at the TV charge $x, if three people are sitting on the couch then charge $x + $x + $y).
Solution:
Change the laws to actually benefit the country and its citizens instead of greedy, increasingly obsolete businessmen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Short answer: Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brien's law
Is finally catching up with Hollywood...
See this link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everything that is shown on Netflix in the US I am able to either watch on TV now if I subscribe to the right cable package, get at a video store, watch on demand via cable if I was dumb enough to pay them for their stupid box, or find elsewhere if all else fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But it is so convenient, even versus pirating. I actually prefer to watch movies, even ones I've downloaded, on Netflix because:
- it remembers where you were watching,
- you can rate the movie and then it suggests other one,
- foreign movies are guaranteed to have subtitles.
So I'm a perfect example of a pirate who will pay for content, even though it is available free elsewhere, because of some added features. If they added things like movie extras and kept slowing adding more movies, I'd be hooked for life. But I'm worried they are just going to stagnate, and I'll eventaully go back to downloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When you cancel Netflix asks you to take a survey, they want to know where you will get your movie and TV shows from now, pirating is an option. I picked that hoping it would be shared with the industry exec's, in truth I couldn't even be bothered to waste the bandwidth downloading that crap.
I've just stopped consuming what Hollywood has to offer completely instead. THAT is a lost sale in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T added to the mix?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AT&T added to the mix?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some of the shows on HBO or Showtime I won't ever be able to see (Rome) simply because I don't have access. Also, there's the entire PPV model that is affected with the free streaming that's allowed.
So of course, the big boys are scared for Netflix. What if they offered streams? What if they get consumers to change their habits?
All that money on the table is affected because technology is making the world a lot more efficient through the net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the crux of the matter
They know how unfair it is for themselves to make the kind of money they do and they don't like when someone does it to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bout Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
download
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a lot of great stuff out there, but it needs financing to get traction.
Netflix has a great opportunity to change the landscape, put Indies on the map, and let the studios know they aren't as smart as they think they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that online streaming scares you so much without a thought to the fact that if you take it away we can still rent the DVD for cheap, rip it then share it shows you are drooling halfwits who don't know what end of your iPad is up.
Protip: We're not going to get off your lawn. Stop waving your cane at us and learn to adapt or we'll take over the house too.
If you leave me no choice for enjoying your content online legally I will find my own ways of doing so that cuts you out of the equation.
In short, either join the game and participate or lose and have your future defined by a world that changed without your consent.
Regards,
Someone ready to rip and p2p once you force me to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bunch of TV Series are missing episodes lately..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A bunch of TV Series are missing episodes lately..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A bunch of TV Series are missing episodes lately..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix reduces piracy!
My internet friends all say they watch Netflix for most of their content, and then anything they can't get on Netflix they torrent! People don't want to pirate, they are forced by high prices and limited access. People pirate because they want $60 for a Blu-ray of some movie, and it isn't available in their country!
If content creators were serious about piracy, they would do one of two things:
1. Stop using Blu-ray and DVD (its been cracked, and BD rips on torrents are widespread). Invest billions for research for new DRM methods using some new disc technology. Force consumers to buy new players for big money, and only release new movies onto this format. After 4-6 months, this new DRM scheme will be hacked/cracked into oblivion. Invest billions into a new DRM scheme and start the process over again. IE If you are "serious" about fighting piracy, then invest in the technology to protect your content.
2. Put their content on Netflix or other streaming services. Or, if they are serious enough, start their own streaming service. Create an iPad app, Android app, and apps for smart TV's and blu-ray players. IE compete directly with Netflix. I for one would be glad to pay per network. If a network had compelling shows that I want to watch, and had enough of them, I would gladly pay a monthly fee ala Netflix. Price your service too high, and it will fail. Don't produce enough good quality content, it will fail. Let me pick and choose what I'm willing to pay for. IE Compete DIRECTLY with Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAH!
I would be very curious to see a breakdown of several "businesses" to see how much revenue they generate on their own vs how much revenue they make from law suits. If they can make more money by restricting access and suing people that "steal" the content than they can by selling the content.. why wouldn't they? Sadly, I'm sure that's been a real discussion in several board rooms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plastic media is dying
1) Build a model that gets around the licensing problem of content distribution: setup a bank of DVD players and continue to rent plastic discs with holes in them connected with a long cable to each renter's computer.
2) Netflix or some other production company will produce content with the intent of licensing the material for digital distribution.
People are easily distracted and are not married to Hollywood. It only requires someone to break the mold. I will not subscribe to a dozen different providers just to see 1 or 2 movies. I will simply do without. If you look on Google Video or YouTube, there's tons of interesting stuff on there. The shift is already happening. The new generation is not interested in plastic media anymore. Plastic media is dying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with Showtime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way this ends...
See, this is the problem. Consumers don't know what's going on and yet, having just signed onto Netflix, I'm not greeted with a message reading "Dear customer, Despite our best efforts to bring you the best choices possible, our hands are being tied with ridiculous price gouging from monopolistic corporations, including Warner Bros., 20th Fox, Disney, and Universal, just to name a few. We believe our future is dying. They've killed off Blockbuster, while conveniently dismissing what was 'owed' to them. Now they're after us. Just how long are you going to sit there and do nothing?"
I've a feeling I'll be closing my Netflix account, and it'll be because I won't be supplying those idiotic companies my money anymore. It'll suck for Netflix, but what other choice do I have?
Oh, right. That one, which is looking more lucrative every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only way this ends...
Excellent point. It seems lately like once a week I meet someone who has switched to Netflix, and usually they have a few complaints about stuff that's missing, and they (explicitly or implicitly) blame Netflix for that. I've unintentionally become their public defender, encouraging users to point their ire in the right direction...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMO, the studios would be more open to an arrangement like that.
If not, Netflix could fail to renew any of its contracts with the studios and implement Zediva's strategy, assuming Zediva doesn't get sued to kingdom come first. Heck, they'd already have the DVD framework and any litigation over the matter will be fronted by Zediva beforehand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Paying for Movie Channels Anymore
I imagine this is because of Camelot (I applauded how they did Spartacus) and was looking forward to more programming being handled that way. Oh well, I guess there's still Starz play if I want to avoid the 90 days, albeit it is live and not on demand. I never really watched Showtime's programming so that won't be missed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix cut down on piracy and now they want to kill it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
delay, who cares...
Also, Netflix, Hulu and so on are added revenue sources for these greedy asses anyway. People who don't want to pay that big surcharge each month for a small amount of value(maybe if they could do some sort of al a cart type deal) would probably jump on the idea of using the above services. I can tell you that I pay less in a year using Netflix than I do using cable/satellite in a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that's the problem: they believe that they control the market, and that the ultimate path to profits is control. In reality, they never have, and never will control the market. The media execs can try to contort the market with all of the laws and enforcement that they can broker, beg and bribe, but done of that can save them from becoming irrelevant. They have the money and resources to remain relevant, but they instead choose to focus single-mindedly on control, at the expense of everything else. Like I said, the media industry is run by a bunch of overpaid half-wits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a novel idea.
Studios band together, create a consortium of sorts. All studios pays a certain amount into a pot for a separate licensing body to work out rights for all films 'owned' by studios. In addition they start a joint web division which would create a service to distribute these films.
All rights managed and cleared films are fed to said web division for online distribution. So when someone say's, "What do you mean you haven't seen [insert movie here]?", you can instantly go to the website and start watching.
Income could be advertising or an all-you-can-eat model or a combination with some freebies thrown in. You watch a film by X studio, X studio gets paid. You watch one for Y studio, Y studio gets paid.
Furthermore, and this is the fun part as the studios now have this playground where they can try things out. But what I'd like to see is worldwide release of a film in theatres and on this service at the exact same time. Want to watch a film that would've traditionally gone to the US Theatres > UK Theatres > Airplanes > DVD > netflix.. etc. Sure you might pay a hefty premium, but you could organise a party of friends take a few bucks off 'em and watch at home.
If the film sucked, but the marketing was good, you would get lots of rubes watching a crap film at the same time, maximising your potential income before word got out. Having all these films at your fingertips you might see all of the sudden a heap of folks watching John Hughes films due to some social network buzz... old films could go viral with millions of new viewers opening up entirely new and un-thought of revenue streams due to sudden popularity. Simply because you're reducing obstacles to consumption.
Think about it, all that content. All those shows and films they could be making even greater amounts of money from but instead they continue create barriers...
(/fantasy)
Now, when someone says, "Have you seen [insert film here]?", a large percentage of those folks go instantly to a torrent site and start downloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HOW many movies and music have been released to the public domain, in the last 10 years?
I know of a few sites that have public domain show/movies/and so forth..
there are VERY few NEW releases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix doesn't pay enough money for filmmakers to make $ back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix doesn't pay enough money for filmmakers to make $ back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donate money to the filmmakers or grant them no-interest loans if you don't think it's fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix
you choose Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]