Warner Bros., MGM, Universal Collectively Pull Nearly 2,000 Films From Netflix To Further Fragment The Online Movie Market

from the this-isn't-helping dept

Thu, May 2nd 2013 9:50am — Mike Masnick

Michael Carusi points us to the news that Warner Bros., MGM and Universal Studios have agreed to pull nearly 2,000 films from Netflix's library, in order to put them in the Warner Bros. Instant Archive. You may recall that Warner recently launched this archive, which is an incredibly overpriced and ridiculously limited offering. Apparently, they're trying to bolster the offering in part by hurting Netflix. As we've warned, this sort of fragmentation does little to help anyone. Consumers don't want to have multiple accounts for multiple services. They don't want to have to worry about whether or not a particular title is available in one place or another. And they certainly don't want movies to suddenly disappear from the service they had been already paying to get.

Everything about this move seems designed to piss people off, not provide them a better overall experience. Sure, Warner wants films for its own archive, but removing them from other services doesn't suddenly make people run gleefully to join their service. It just makes people annoyed and resentful of Warner Bros., which is exactly not the way to encourage people to sign up for their new service. In the article linked above, it noted that some people were having "marathon" viewings of some of the films about to disappear from Netflix. Note that they weren't planning to sign up for Warner's lame archive, but rather watch while they could on the service they chose. One of the key lessons from the past decade or so of internet content is that you need to make accessing your content as convenient as possible. And Hollywood's response is to do the opposite. Incredible.

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

Companies: mgm, netflix, universal, warner bros

198 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 8:43am

And when they fail...
They'll just blame piracy, again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:00am
  
  Re: And when they fail...
  They'll blame netflix, actually. And say that they are owed damages from Netflix's "harmful business practices"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zakida Paul (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re: And when they fail...
    True but piracy will be just around the bend
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Davey, 2 May 2013 @ 5:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And when they fail...
      They've just demolished the last possible argument against so-called piracy. I sympathize with their wanting to get paid, but this is all about controlling the market. Their idiot business plans deserve no protection at all.
      
      What we need are regulations that force them to distribute what they're selling to anyone who wants to buy, same price for everybody. All it would take is to quit letting the government enforce their non-existent "right" to control their product once they sell it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 8:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And when they fail...
      But piracy... heheheh
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re: And when they fail...
    At least they won't be blaming bit torrent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zos (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:35am
    
    Re: Re: And when they fail...
    to be completely fair, if it disappears from netflix (and happens to be something i want to watch) my next step would be to pull it from the bay. so you're both right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 3:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And when they fail...
      >to be completely fair, if it disappears from netflix (and
      >happens to be something i want to watch) my next step would
      >be to pull it from the bay. so you're both right.
      
      So by that logic Warner's is actually encouraging Piracy by removing films from Neflix. Seems right. How long until they halve their prices or return their films to Netflix so they would actually make something from them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Khaim (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Harmful business practices
    To be fair to Warner Bros, Netflix's business model of "provide a useful product at a reasonable price" is incredibly harmful to their profits.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:59am
    
    Re: Re: And when they fail...
    If you ask warner brothers, Netflix is piracy. Everything they don't like is piracy to them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymouse, 2 May 2013 @ 10:55am
  
  Re: And when they fail...
  I think they realised a lot of people were turning away from piracy and using the services available, this is a problem for the copyright cartel. If Piracy goes down too much they cannot use it as an excuse to keep the system as it is and rape the content creators of as much money as they can.
  
  So sad that governments around the world don't stand up against them and demand they make their content available on all possible websites, encouraging more people to buy.
  
  Oh and in their control on their own website they can skim money off the top and nobody would be the wiser, with the likes of Hulu and Netflix eventually content creators would realise they are being stolen from, in a big way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:02am
    
    Re: Re: And when they fail...
    Keep the system as it is?
    Don't you mean constantly strive to make the law worse for everyone decent every chance they get?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Falindraun (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:56am
  
  Re: And when they fail...
  and in fact may actually drive people to turn to piracy to watch the movies they want.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:21pm
    
    Re: Re: And when they fail...
    Which would give them leverage against politicians saying that there is less need for strenghtening copyright? Sometimes a loss of profit in the short term, is a huge bonus in the long term...
    It reminds me of fishers in Denmark mixing fish with paint to keep the prices artificially high because demand in the market hasn't been even close to met!
    
    Oh, good old times in the 00's. Artificial scarcity is a bitch to maintain, it appears.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re: And when they fail...
  Amusingly Netflix decreased the movie piracy ratio. Now we may see a spike and they'll indeed blame these filthy pirates and not their sheer stupidity and greed. I'll just go without this time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:01am

You didn't mention the second part, that the pulled films are NOT going to be appearing on Warner Bros offering, at least not right away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymouse, 2 May 2013 @ 11:00am
  
  Re:
  I w0onder if they realise that the likes of Amazon , netflix, hulu and others are starting to creat their own content using the profits from selling access to the content they have licensed , this is the real threat to them, that some group of businesses start creating better content than them, then there whole pack of cards fall down and they go bankrupt. and everyone celebrates.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Aerilus, 2 May 2013 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I am personally waiting for the day netflix sits down at a table with big content, where big content wants 200milllion for access to a series and netflix tells them they can make their own for 1/4 of that. maybe play on all the out of work artist and actors that are supposedly harmed by piracy to drive their production cost estimates down.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 2:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sounds like you're dreaming of the day when Netflix becomes big content too. Personally I'd like all content to be available to whatever service I want to pay for - not which one can strike the best deals.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Zos (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 4:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      that's reasonably similar to what happened with starz (and the reason i love netflix) starz wanted tiered pricing for netflix customers, netflix offered them an amount that was something like ten times higher than what they'd contracted for last time, but refused to play their game, then walked away from the table when starz held out for special pricing status.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ed C., 2 May 2013 @ 3:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And this is why they keep raising licensing fees. They know by now that their internet-based competitors can distribute content far more efficiently with far lower cost. However, they can't compete directly with them because the profits are not high enough to buoy their legacy legacy business models and the bloated profit margins they'd become accustomed to. They simply cannot compete. So, they partner with a few internet companies, but continue raising the fees to keep them as sustainably unprofitable as possible and prevent them from gaining enough capital to compete with them directly by producing their own original content.
    
    In spite this, they still failed. Also, there is nothing stopping other companies from skipping the studios entirely and taking their content directly to competing internet services. This eventuality is what keeps the studio bosses awake at night. Or at least should. This current move is likely to not only keep a competitor like netflix back, but to keep their own creators beholden to them.
    
    It's only a matter of time before the studios lose the net--it's inevitable--and physical media is slowly going the way of the dodo. The last real refuge for the studios is legacy theater distribution, because it's the one market they can manage to squeeze smaller producers out. Sure, the market might be shrinking, mostly do to raising ticket prices, but I think the service of big screen exhibition will continue to be around in some incarnation or another and the media still glamorizes box office numbers over all other revenue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:02am

Great move Warner Bros. Now your plans are for the internet to be treated by the customer exactly like cable. The average customer hates having to pay over the nose for a package just for that one or two shows he likes to watch: the same goes for streamers: we don't like having to pay for multiple accounts just to get those shows we like to watch. Back when I paid for Megaupload accounts, I knew that I had access to everything, as long as somebody bothered uploading it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  Problem with their intentions here though is that unlike with television broadcasting, anyone can put up a website and put up what content they want. There's nothing physically stopping them from doing so, unlike with TV, where one must have, well, cable lines, broadcast towers and so on, before transmitting your own content. So of course, their legal monopoly means nothing to the average netizen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  According to Netflix, the move was voluntary on their part or at least that was the inference from the Verge article.
  Netflix is a dynamic service, we constantly update the TV shows and movies that are available to our members. We will add more than 500 titles May 1, but we also have titles expiring, this ebb and flow happens all the time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    I honestly believe that PR line was written by someone at Warner and provided to Netflix.
    
    Unfortunately for Netflix, they don't produce enough content themselves to form a stand alone offering so they can't really come out and call Warner a bunch of assholes otherwise they risk losing more content.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DannyB (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Unfortunately for Netflix, they don't produce enough
      > content themselves to form a stand alone offering . . .
      
      Yes, but things do tend to change over time. It's always gradual. You can't point to a single day and say that is when the web became a household word. There isn't one single day when micro computers became dominant over mainframes. There isn't one single day when Apple became evil, or when Microsoft no longer dictated to everyone, but I digress.
      
      These things happen gradually.
      
      At some point, new internet companies will produce enough content that they won't be beholden to dinosaurs who are stuck in the tarpit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - akp (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    I really wish Netflix would add a search category for "expiring soon," so I could watch the stuff that's going away.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DannyB (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > I really wish Netflix would add a search category for
      > "expiring soon," so I could watch the stuff that's going away.
      
      That's a good idea. It is a shame that Netflix does not employ technology that allows them to read your mind to know of good ideas like this. Darn shame.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - lucidrenegade (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 12:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This is what you're looking for:
      
      http://instantwatcher.com/titles/expiring
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 2:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not very useful unless it's showing the movies in my queue. Netflix should add that feature.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lily, 3 May 2013 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you see how many titles that is? I'm bored already searching through box art of a few pages of that, even screening only titles with 3/5 N-stars and up. My husband uses instantwatcher, but I find it to be more or less worthless as it doesn't have enough search options or allow you to search with IMDb ratings. I just have the add on for chrome that tells you the IMDb rating on Netflix. The more Netflix can better itself or people can better the Netflix site with addons, the better. Instantwatcher is just not that great. Too many repeats to show multiple season of shows. And it lets me search year but not genre? How often do people think, "I would love to watch a(n expiring) movie made between '95-'97. That's what I am in the mood for."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Silly rabbit, facts aren't relevant on Techdirt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Citation, please.
      
      Otherwise, you're just as a-factual as those you accuse of being without facts, laughing boy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 5:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He was responding to the citation, you fucking moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Silly rabbit, facts aren't relevant on Techdirt."
      
      Especially to idiot ACs like you, girl.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 1:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Silly rabbit, facts aren't relevant on Techdirt.
      
      I guess Mike wasn't "doing journalism" on this one. That's OK though because the commentators can just correct his mistakes. That means there no duty on his part to put forth any effort in getting things right. But, whatever you do, be sure to give him all the deference you would a real journalist, though he can't be bothered to earn it. Makes sense to me. Hey, he was just stating an opinion, man.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 7:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hm...smells like jealousy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hm...smells like jealousy.
        
        Hm... smells like interference with A.J.'s business model of being an IP lawyer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course it was, Warner asked for all the riches of the world and when Netflix said we don't have it Warner just told them they couldn't have it.
    
    And so politely Netflix dropped the issue since they could not pay that amount.
    
    In the process they are not burning the bridge so in the future who knows maybe Warner starts to get more reasonable (not likely LoL)
    
    Meanwhile, piracy starts to look very very sexy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I wouldn't necessarily say it sounds like a voluntary move.
    
    To me it sounds more like them wanting to keep a good tone when negotiating future rights with these companies.
    The reason to not burn bridges is likely an expectance of the new service tanking fast or them having other content from the respective companies...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 1:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It sounds both normal and unfortunate; after all, it makes sense that a license to have content on Netflix would have a time duration - so if the contract isn't renewed by either party, content would go away.
    
    With that said, I don't read that quote as voluntary on Netflix's part. It sounds like "this is happening, so we are putting the best face possible on it, whether or not we wanted it to happen". If anything, it sounds like they are trying to not burn any bridges over something they didn't desire, but can't change.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:03am

as politicians and governments cant wait to do something else to assist the entertainment industries in remaining in the 'dark ages' rather than trying to get them to move their ancient arses into the digital age, what are they going to do now? if these same politicians cant see that the industries are not doing anything to help anyone other than themselves, in fact, are doing as much as possible to hinder other services, the bribes they are getting must have turned them blind as well as stupid! this is a disgraceful move designed to do nothing other than screw over other businesses and, as stated, really piss off as many customers as possible. i wouldn't join a service that is prepared to pull the plug on a service as quickly as this. you would never know whether you had a tech problem so couldn't get the service or whether it had been turned off!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug D, 2 May 2013 @ 10:07am

Boy howdy, am I glad that most of their content sucks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:13am
  
  Re:
  Most but not all. There were several movies in my queue I was looking forward to watching.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 2 May 2013 @ 10:30am
  
  Re:
  You mean I can't watch Jonah Hex now? Dagnabit!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:09am

Thanks Warners. I'm pissed!
As suspected, they'd like to kill Netflix and totally own the distribution chain. Looks like it's 1948 all over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: Thanks Warners. I'm pissed!
  Except that the chances of getting an antitrust suit from the gov't this time around are nonexistent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 2:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Thanks Warners. I'm pissed!
    Depends on how abusive they get with their monopolies - but the studios had a good 20-30 year run with it the first time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- docy, 10 Aug 2013 @ 12:57am
  
  Re: Thanks Warners. I'm pissed!
  yah they said 3 ninjas is gonna play 2day en they chose another movie
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:11am

Until licensing laws are updated, this will continue to be an issue. The entire content distribution industry is set up to protect monopolies and increase profits (for distributors, NOT creators). This is wrong.

True artists do not create their work for money. They create work for the love of the creative process and the sense of satisfaction they receive when they create something people enjoy.

Culture is NOT a product to be bought and sold or locked away in a vault, people. It is something to be shared and enjoyed by as many people as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:39am
  
  Re:
  True artists also have to buy food and pay rent. You know this, but like to pretend it's not an issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    And they can do this by getting jobs, like the rest of us. I don't go crying to the government to make sure everybody else pays my rent and other bills, all because I starred in a movie ten years ago. In order for me to get money today to pay today's bills, I have to do work TODAY.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:44am
    
    ???
    What does that have to do with anything that he's talking about in regards to culture?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "True artists also have to buy food and pay rent. You know this, but like to pretend it's not an issue."
    
    And Warners, Universal, and MGM pulling LEGALLY-AVAILABLE content is going to feed those artists how, girl?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    True artists are not full-time artists in his speculation.
    
    The issue of compensation to cover food and rent are entirely irrelevant unless you have presumption that you need professional artists.
    
    Not saying that his vision couldn't involve professional artists either. It is just not with the current revenue streams...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    True artists also have to buy food and pay rent.
    
    Absolutely true, and I hope more artists end up figuring out how to buy food and pay rent from their art alone. Everyone wants to see the artists that they like succeed, and I'm no different (not least because I personally know a few of those artists).
    
    But whatever they figure out, it will not involve idiotic moves like this one. How sad it is that the "true artists" have no say in this decision whatsoever.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arsik Vek (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:11am

You're partially right. This is to piss people off. But they're not going to get pissed at Warner. They're going to get pissed at Netflix. The average person is terrible at following causal chains. Nor are they likely to realize it's Warner pulling it's movies without going looking for it. They'll just see "Netflix used to give me this movie, now it doesn't. Netflix sucks."

Warner wants to drive people out of VOD entirely by ruining their trust that it will continue to provide value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:15am
  
  Re:
  Actually they want people to sign up with MPAA controlled services like Hulu so they can effectively shut out indie and foreign films - something Netflix embraces.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zakida Paul (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    I hope Netflix can produce more exclusive content on par with the excellent House of Cards because that would be a nice two finger salute to the MPAA and their minions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But that's the same problem in reverse. Exclusive content is exclusive, and content needs to be made available on every platform before any real competition can occur.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Zakida Paul (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        True, if the legacy industry won't change their ways, I would like to see them beat at their own game. Maybe then they could see the merits of updating their business model.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Imagine if the only movie theatres in your town that could show Iron Man 3 were AMC theatres. That's how it used to be before the government forced the studios to give up the exhibition business in 1948. Streaming is the same thing all over again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am pretty sure that most governments are far too timid to go through an anti-trust lawsuit on something they don't understand. If you want to change this, you need to reduce the copyright-holders control of content which would create another world of whining from content industries.
        
        Even worse: If you look at TV-rights it is basically the same game. Exclusive rights to series and films exist in that environment, so it would be a complete non-sequitor to demand a change just because it is happening online and in the eyes of the public!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They don't necessarily have to produce it. They just have to offer a way for the Indies to get in. Now it's a question of 'Do the Indies have the quality content that Netflix customers might want?"' and how brave...err omniscient...err non-judgmental...err open, yes that's it. open to testing new contributors.
      
      To some degree, Netflix has little to lose if they create some kind of pay for view starter promotion for creators. Then watch demand for future funding opportunities.
      
      Next, if someone, Netflix maybe, can take such a business model to the tipping point, where consumers feel there might be a fifty-fifty choice between one or the other, the other(s) being MPAA types.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There are new producers already coming out from the machinima makers to places like Blip TV.
        
        If Netflix wanted to reach out to the indies, they have a LOT of options and could indeed do well in their financing of new content.
        
        Personally, telling the studios to take a hike while promoting up and comers would really make Netflix more valuable and leave the studios looking lost in their efforts to fight piracy AND create a better alternative than Netflix.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But Netflix can do both - open up to indie filmmakers and the studio content. Plenty of hard drive space for both.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:15am
  
  Re:
  You are right. There is a thread on the Amazon forums blaming Amazon for how pathetic their Love Film library is compared to Prime in the US. I have advised where the true blame lies (licensing) and I will be trolling the Internet for people blaming Netflix and politely pointing the blame where it should be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:24am
  
  Re:
  And Netflix can blame only Netflix. When they started they walked into Walmart and bought DVDs to rent. If they had continued to purchase their product and then rent it they would own all their movies. Instead the decided to make a deal with the studios to lower costs(completely understandable) and now are at the mercy of the studios.
  
  I realize this doesn't address the streaming but I believe that had Netflix not gotten into agreements with the studios they would have better alternatives than they now face. I wish them luck with their original content, it is all that can save them.
  
  You can't negotiate with terrorists.
  
  or
  
  You can't argue with a sick mind.
  
  Pick one, either applies to the studios.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    You can still get a lot of those movies via DVD or Bluray from Netflix. You just can't stream them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DannyB (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Warner wants everyone to stop paying for streaming and go back to ripping DVD's again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 7:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I realize this doesn't address the streaming but I believe that had Netflix not gotten into agreements with the studios they would have better alternatives than they now face.
    
    You think they would be better off if they had not done any streaming until now? Because they can't stream without licensing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 7:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That was me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Khaim (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:55am
  
  Re: Average people
  Arsik, the average person can't even spell "causal chain".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:28am
  
  Response to: Arsik Vek on May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:11am
  actually VOD works well, this just people to the muddly but free versions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert, 3 May 2013 @ 10:54am
  
  Re:
  This is all about limiting offerings to see if people can be forced to consume what is left available at inflated prices.
  All content competes, if you have 10,000 movies to choose from the reduces the price that can be charged, if you have only 10 to choose from they think they can charge 10 times as much.
  So they will rotate which movies are available at any particular time and only make them available at inflate prices.
  Of course this fails because there is the internet which allows global choice in content.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:13am

"Everything about this move seems designed to piss people off, not provide them a better overall experience"

This is all about control, actually. This move is designed to obliterate the competition, not by being better, but by abusing the monopoly position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymouse, 2 May 2013 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  Maybe this is the time that the likes of Amazon and Netflix and Huu and all the other smaller content distributors took this to the highest court and demanded that the monopoly be removed as it is destroying the entertainment industry, fragmenting it and causing an unfair advantage to the few organizations that buy content from the creators and refuse to allow it to be distributed to everyone at a reasonable price. With the size of Google and Amazon alone they could probably resolve the monopoly problem, but with hundreds of sites coming forward and showing how the industry as it is destroyed them on purpose i am sure a judge and jury would find the studios in the wrong and force them to distribute for 1 tenth the cost that they are charging now.
  
  Not beign funny but there could be a much bigger investment into the entertainement industry if the monopoly was destroyed once and for all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    There is no monopoly. Nothing is stopping you from making a movie and licensing it to any or all of the streaming services.
    
    Oh, but you say these companies have all the content you want? That's because they have knowledge and experience in such creations, and ventured capital up front as an investment in that content, believing it was desirable and would return its investment.
    
    Is so funny when you people pretend to not know the obvious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AC Unknown, 2 May 2013 @ 11:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Shut up, troll. We know you love the MPAA and RIAA. Why not go to one of their blogs and shout to them how much you love them and their philosophy?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "ventured capital up front as an investment"
      
      Which strangely is being more or less guaranteed by the government through a legal monopoly. That's funny, I thought this was supposed to be a free market?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No it isn't, you fucking moron. I just explained it to your dense ass and your pointed head still can't accept it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Love you too!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 12:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "There is no monopoly."
      
      The monopoly is called copyright which lasts Death + 70 years, is held mostly by corporations, doesn't allow derivative works, doesn't allow the public to remix and create relevant content, doesn't want anything but more money and screws the artists, actors, and physical labor union types out of their jobs by giving them a paltry sum while the pipeline revenue is given to the director and main actors in most cases.
      
      "Nothing is stopping you from making a movie and licensing it to any or all of the streaming services."
      
      Except access to film techniques, writers of quality story lines, lack of focus in public education on business arrangements, more money given to the studio heads than writers to create independent works, and less minimal income projects that could free people up to pursue better interests than a minimum wage job that barely pays the bills.
      
      "That's because they have knowledge and experience in such creations, and ventured capital up front as an investment in that content, believing it was desirable and would return its investment."
      
      Wrong. The "knowledge" of the studio heads is in how to manipulate artists to sign rights away and give them everything for nothing in return. You get $5 million from Iron Man as an extra? Well, Robert Downey got $50 million as one of the main draws. Yet he also gets royalties and added stipulations while as an extra you have to find your next movie meal ticket.
      
      The experience learned is in how to exploit your fellow man instead of creating movies for added benefit of society.
      
      And the ventured capital? Not a good investment long term for most people. Even then, the Hollywood Accounting done gives a larger return on investment than the initial loan in hurting the public while giving them no copyrights, no way to remix or any options in how they want to see a movie.
      
      So please, spare the disingenuous arguments.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So please, spare the disingenuous arguments."
        
        That's all they have. Well, apart from the seemingly endless supply of toddler tantrums and strawmen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rapnel (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 12:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey look! Nothing can stop me from infringing either. Funny how that works. You favor pumped up penis and I just favor good service.
      
      Obvious is obvious - the entertainment cartel will fuck the world for a nickel and you're just a hop-along whore. Well done.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "That's because they have knowledge and experience in such creations, and ventured capital up front as an investment in that content, believing it was desirable and would return its investment."
      
      So that's why they made 6 Fast and Furious movies.
      
      You also left out the part about them throwing money at politicians, that makes keeping their investments in tact consistent despite undermining the system of law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 2:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It happened before with movie theatres, and it can happen again if the only services offering streaming films are owned by the studios like Hulu and Warner Archives.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:50am
  
  Re:
  " This move is designed to obliterate the competition, not by being better, but by abusing the monopoly position."
  
  But a monopoly position is extremely fragile. Sure, these studios have a lot of money from various projects and act like financial bankers. But they can't control the public, which is why they're doomed to fail. Publishers are eventually uprooted by their own greed, which even Adam Smith recognized in his discussions in "Wealth of Nations".
  
  The government's job is to protect the public and unfortunately, it's too corrupted to do so. The public is too weak to fight against the threats of a mergeance of corporations and state powers but it can mobilize to fight these issues and push back.
  
  Eventually, I'm sure that copyright will be defeated, but getting to that process and slogging through it will be very difficult until people understand what it actually is they're fighting against (their civil liberties and freedom of choice).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 2 May 2013 @ 10:21am

What we need is an content aggrigator, I put in my login/credentials for all the services I have access too, then when I want to watch a movie, it finds it on one of the services and plays it without bothering me for the work of finding out who has it. I bet that'd piss them off real good... :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:24am
  
  Re:
  Google Fiber apparently offers a service just like this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lord Binky, 2 May 2013 @ 10:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    haha, my first thought after typing that was 'That sure sounds like a search-like thing google would do'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:54am
  
  Re:
  That wouldn't address people like myself. The number of memberships/logins isn't the main issue for me -- total cost is. I'm unwilling to pay more than around $20/mo total to watch TV or movies. There's nothing out there that's worth more than that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lord Binky, 2 May 2013 @ 11:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    While that seems perfectly reasonable to me, I have a feeling the media companies cannot comprehend that you even exist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lily, 3 May 2013 @ 2:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh I agree. I am cool with 20 bucks a month to watch movies and tv shows, but I will not go above that. Either they shut up and take my money, or I will keep my money and keep doing what I'm doing. Right now Netflix has my 8 bucks a month and I feel it's worth it, but I'm not going to spend 8 bucks per site for 5 sites. 8 bucks is 1 hour of work for me and many Americans, and life necessities have to come first. If I suddenly could make 60k a year, yes, I would have money to spend more on entertainment... heck, I could travel every year and have kids. Ya know, live a decent life. They don't want me to have that though, they just want to sue people like me so I have nothing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 4 May 2013 @ 12:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not being that keen on movies I went with Amazon so I can get stuff shipped faster and watch Red Dwarf. Consequently, because I was bored and it was there, I watched Iron Man 2 and Ghost Protocol. 2 movies I never would have watched otherwise.
    
    It was convenient and involved no additional cost (mental or monetary).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brandon Rinebold (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 7:34am
  
  Re:
  Unfortunately, the terms of service for most of these services explicitly prevents other people from doing something like throwing up netflix content in an iframe. Each of these services wants their website, whole and unfiltered, to be the sole source for their content.
  
  They do have legitimate concerns here with people providing poor service wrapped around netflix causing people to feel like netflix is to blame for that other service not working well or companies trying to rebrand netflix but I think they could be a bit more flexible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Reinheimer, 2 May 2013 @ 10:21am

Blame Netflix too!
You seem to put a lot of blame on Warner Bros, and not on Netflix. In various interviews the netflix people have talked about how they want exclusive deals on content[1]. If Warner Bros was looking to increase the availability of their content (rather than giving netflix a monopoly) they'd have to drop them, thanks to netflix's desire for exclusivity.

[1] http://mashable.com/2013/04/30/netflix-streamageddon-2013/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lord Binky, 2 May 2013 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: Blame Netflix too!
  I don't see how it is reasonable they pay the same amount they were for exclusive access for non-exclusive access. Content companies way over-value their offerings.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:30am
  
  Re: Blame Netflix too!
  Netflix is just trying to give an excuse without calling out Warner Bros. behavior. The problem with monopolies is that once someone has complete control over something they can make outrageous demands. The problem with Hollywood is that all the studios are not only monopolies but they are also an illegal trust that collaborates to control the entire industry.
  
  If Netflix called out Warner Bros. behavior they would find the cold shoulder at all future negotiations with the major studios.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:49am
    
    Re: Re: Blame Netflix too!
    Yeah sure, Netflix is secretly making themselves look bad in order to help Warner's look good. Uh huh.
    
    You're a fucking idiot like everyone else here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AC Unknown, 2 May 2013 @ 11:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Blame Netflix too!
      Same to you, troll.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rapnel (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 12:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Blame Netflix too!
      Right about now is when I, for one, certainly hope that it's some of your copyrights that are the ones being infringed upon. Apart from that you're just another anonymous cunt with about as much relevancy as, well, nothing. Oh, and you're still a pussy, pussy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 1:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Blame Netflix too!
      "You're a fucking idiot like everyone else here."
      
      Ouch, but hilarious that you would waste your time arguing with idiots.
      
      I guess it's a birds of a feather situation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 1:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Blame Netflix too!
      You're a fucking idiot like everyone else here.
      
      You are aware that you are also here and are included in everyone right?
      
      Your inability to get the irony actually makes your statement a proof of your statement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re: Blame Netflix too!
  You are complaining that a company wants monopoly powers from a monopoly?
  
  I wonder why that happens.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:21am

The stupid! It burns!
It's hard to say more than that about something so self-destructive. Making your customers hate you is NOT good business practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:25am

Story sounds twisted
I seem to recall reading this was mostly due to Netflix wanting exclusive contracts. When the current license expired, the studios no longer wanted to give Netflix exclusive license to their movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:33am
  
  Re: Story sounds twisted
  I've already responded to two similar statements above.
  
  TL;DR: Warner probably told Netflix to use this excuse. Netflix is just trying not to bite the hand that provides the content.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shmerl, 2 May 2013 @ 10:26am

I expect that this WB archive is DRMed? One DRMed service switched to another - nothing interesting. When will DRM free alternatives for video services arrive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aarrrg, 2 May 2013 @ 10:13pm
  
  Re:
  DRM free archives of every movie ever made already exist, the services have been available for some time now and people enjoy using them every day.
  
  Oh, I suppose you mean legally... I'm guessing that will never happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 12:00am
  
  Re:
  If the archive is streaming, then it probably will be. As is Netflix's streaming.
  
  DRM is odious, but its presence on streaming services is a minor problem. DRM is bad largely because it is usually present on purchased material. It's there on legally purchased content trying to control how you use it. With streaming, however, you're only ever renting the content, so I don't personally have an issue with its presence there apart from the fact that it restricts which platforms you can use to view it.
  
  Judging by the fact that Hollywood seems obsessed with retreading every move (and every mistake) the music industry made, I'd say we'll see DRM-free purchased video by the end of the decade. But don't hold me to that...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2013 @ 6:57pm
  
  Response to: Shmerl on May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:26am
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gnudist, 2 May 2013 @ 10:30am

Terrible move if they really are against filesharing
By only having limited selection on netflix-like services the next most convenient source for a wide library of titles is torrent sites and the like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:32am

I subscribe to HBO, and simply cannot begin to express my level of despair that it does not host Showtime, Starz, etc. programs. I want a simple and single place to watch everything.

BTW, I own a Mazda, and it ticks me off to no end that I cannot go to non-Mazda dealerships to get if repaired with OEM parts. This is so inconvenient...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:38am
  
  Re:
  You do have a simple and single place to watch everything. It's called your cable company.
  
  What if a new cable company started up in your town, but HBO wouldn't let people subscribe through the new service? You might think that was unfair.
  
  Not that you'd ever see such competition in the cable business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 1:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It is basically what is called "program packages". If you pay 40$ for one package and 30$ for the other, you can see both.
    
    HBO cannot force you not to buy another program package, but they sure as beep wont offer you the other companys program you W.
    
    Same for the online market: If you want the "program package" from HBO, you pay 15-20$ for an HBO subscription to watch everything they have license to. If you want the
    
    In Netflix's package you pay 8$ for their current back-catalogue.
    
    If you want the oldschoolers "program package", you go to their site and pay about 10$ + pray that the content you want is up this rotation...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But we're in the world of the infinite.
      
      You're applying a cable TV mentality to the internet and it doesn't work.
      
      Program packages are fine for scheduled television when there are only 24 hours in a day to fill with programming. You have to pick and choose what programming you're going to license and schedule - you pick what you think a customer will pay for.
      
      But in the world of the infinite, there are no schedules to fill, no screens in theatres, no limited video store shelf space. There are no limitations on how many movies your service can offer except maybe hard drive space - but that's almost a non-issue.
      
      We know HBO has to churn through content to keeps its offerings fresh. Nobody complains when they stop showing something to show something else, because that's how their business operates. The internet doesn't work that way at all.
      
      Which is why this whole game of licensing content and then removing it from streaming services is a joke, and why customers are understandably furious. It's not cable TV. It's the internet. We know the content is there and available, but we aren't able to see it because of company politics and licensing negotiations - nothing to do with satisfying the desires of the customers or the limitations that other delivery systems face.
      
      I'll say it again. It's not cable TV. It's the internet.
      
      Not to mention the only thing keeping pirates at bay are great services like Netflix. They're just shooting themselves in the foot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lily, 3 May 2013 @ 2:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    what do you mean the cable company provides all content? Since when? Even if I bought the most expensive cable package from my local monopoly cable provider for like 500 bucks a month, I still wouldn't be able to watch all shows or movies that I want. It would be what they and the channels chose to give me as always. And much of that would be things I never watch, like Sports. Right now I pay for the smallest cable package because internet and tv is cheaper than just internet, for some stupid reason, so I have cable that I don't even watch, and if I tried, they dont even have the channels I thought were basic. I seriously only watch a little bit of local tv in the morning ( if any) and then go online for everything else. And I don't care if I have to wait a week to watch something If I can watch it for free.
    
    The might as well take my 20 bucks a month, I would offer them, if they just let me watch anything I want. Stop trying to choose for me. I don't want to watch American Idol and The Doctors, I want to watch full seasons of my choice tv shows over a couple days. I want to be able to watch the Seinfeld episode I want to watch, not the 2 you aired today. They think they should have control over what we see and hear, and that's not right. I have control over my life. I DO.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:43am
  
  Re:
  The amount of fuck in this comparison is just mindblowing....
  
  Apples and Fried Bananas, dork.
  
  Actually...Even in a car analogy, I get to test drive the damn thing before I plunk down any cash.
  
  Dork.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:48am
  
  Re:
  I know, right?
  
  Can you imagine how confusing those new fangled supermarkets are to me? I mean, I can buy like a hundred different brands of beer in there.
  
  Not to mention that I can buy my cheese in the same place where I buy my beer.
  
  It's madness! Complete and utter madness!
  
  /end nutcase rant
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymouse, 2 May 2013 @ 11:30am
  
  Re:
  What?
  
  Ok i can understand that you dont want to have to register with Amazon Prime and Hulu and Netflix and Nokia Movies and Google movies and Hbo and Sky movies and all the others distributing their own little bit of the pie, it is just crazy to think anyone would register and pay a few hundred dollars a month just to get the shows they really enjoy watching once a week.
  
  But what is this about Mazda and oem parts etc, don't understand where this comes in. With physical products normally the original manufacturer has better quality manufacturing, but you can get poorly made parts for your car from other manufacturers, but even pointing this out to you i actually don't know why i am.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lily, 3 May 2013 @ 2:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    maybe he means his warranty doesn't allow this. I know my friend has a car that stopsw working on the freeway because the computer inside is glitchy, but the car company wont fix it because they can't see the problem with their diagnostic software. She can't really do anything but get a new car or void the warranty. They are supposed to pay for the repair but they wont repair it. So many companies suck. I'm glad my car doesn't have a computer in it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 3:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      She can't really do anything but get a new car or void the warranty.
      
      I believe it is illegal to refuse to honor a warranty because of third party repairs or service. Your friend should do some research on it if she hasn't already.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryunosuke (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:36am

and so..
they wonder why people pirate movies and wonder how to stop it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Fool (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:40am

OOH ARRR.
Time to cancel my subscription I guess, don my Pirate hat and get back to downloading again... sigh..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: OOH ARRR.
  I had actually been paying for Netflix AND HULU. Now I'm back to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't need no stinkin' content.
  
  Well, after Iron Man 3, that is....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - akp (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:26am
    
    Re: Re: OOH ARRR.
    I can't abide paying for Hulu. If I'm paying, I shouldn't have to watch ads.
    
    Also, I really hate how nearly every show on Hulu has some different "window" of watching. If I'm paying, don't ever show me "clips," only full episodes. If I'm paying, *always* show me back seasons as well as all the episodes from this season.
    
    The one month I tried it, I got extremely annoyed with "you can only watch the revolving last x episodes of show y, but you can watch ALL of show z."
    
    Instead, we have the non-pay Hulu streaming through XBMC with the ads stripped out. Best Daily Show/Colbert experience ever.
    
    If it became "Hulu for TV, Netflix for movies, no ads on either" each at ~$10/mo with no blackout of TV content (old episodes, all current season) I'd subscribe to both and never look back.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - anonymouse, 2 May 2013 @ 11:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: OOH ARRR.
      Seriously i would make a list of all the tv shows i have but i dont think spending an hour doing so would be a valuable use of my time. I have 4 seasons of Dexter ready to watch in 720p and i have 2 seasons of all the csi shows to watch 1 season of NCIS LA and a few seasons of other shows. All together i have probably got around 150 season of good quality tv shows to watch, plus the shows that i have been watching i have a buffer of at least 5 shows to watch.
      
      Then i have a 2 tb hard drive full of SD movies ripped from either DVD or Bluray perfect quality for my 42" tv.
      
      I have enough content that i don't need to ever switch a tv on again, or at least for a good few years.
      
      The thing is that i like to watch stuff and chat about it online i like to discuss with people what is going on and the possibilities and how exciting some parts were, like the game of thrones. some parts of that show are so phenomenally good, some of the best parts of entertainment i have ever watched in a long time.
      
      I would suggest that the tv stations quickly resolve this mess they have caused and get content available for everyone at free pricing. Cos if they don't it will not be long before the movie and Tv arena will go the same way as music went, where people have so much stuff available to them to watch that they just stop downloading totally, i don't know how long ago it was that i last downloaded music i have so much i could listen to a new track every minute of every day for the rest of my life. If people get to this point with movies and tv the whole system as it is could collapse virtually overnight.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Simple Mind (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 2:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OOH ARRR.
      Hulu revolving windows are the stupidest invention of all time. It makes me use the service less. Is that what it is for? Is that what they want? Else why keep doing that? Studies must show that it makes people use Hulu less. They must!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 5:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH ARRR.
        Studies show that it keeps people subscribed to cable, and they're happy with that. The goal is to reduce dependence on piracy without upsetting the cable TV gravy train. The whole thing is a joke on us. The only solution is to abandon cable en masse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lily, 3 May 2013 @ 3:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH ARRR.
        oh I would if my internet/tv package wasn't cheaper than my former internet package. I always encourage friends and family not to pay for cable, unless the intro package is better than one's existing internet price.
        
        Cable needs to die or change. If they charged $ 1 a channel per month, and let me choose my channels and change from from month to month based on whether I am enjoying the content, I, and many people would be fine with that. If I was rich, I could pay more, but like most Americans, I am poor, and I for one refuse to throw the money I have for food/shelter over to the cable companies so they will stop threatening to sue my fellow poor people. Maybe they can take away the little bit of entertainment I can scrounge for online, but they can't force me to pay them 100 bucks a month for crap I don't even want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh Gree, 2 May 2013 @ 10:42am

This is borderline sick
Just thought i'd through my 2 cents in and say this is really a tragedy what a company will do to hurt another one. The company I support is great and they actually HELP other companies and add to their instead of taking away. We�re at about a year of �DEPENDING� on DNS Services. After using lower-end services that claimed to have higher traffic caps than they did, I made the switch to DNS and have been really impressed. Check them out dnssvc.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich, 2 May 2013 @ 10:49am

This is why I still purchased DVDs even though everyone laughed at me for not "going digital."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 2 May 2013 @ 10:51am
  
  Re:
  FYI: and I do have Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu accounts, plus two Rokus and a WD TV Live. But I still prefer DVDs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 10:56am
  
  Re:
  Just remind everyone who laughs that DVDs are, in fact, digital.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 2 May 2013 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, you are preaching to the choir.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ok, I just tested this by flinging a DVD into my co-worker's head. His loud complaints and threatening fist motions suggest with nearly 100% certainty that DVDs are, in fact, physical, not digital.
    
    It was single layer, though. Once I regain the element of surprise I will try it with a double-layer and see if the result holds.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think that perhaps you don't understand what "digital" means... all digital anything is carried on a physical medium.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rich, 2 May 2013 @ 11:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sigh. I don't know this notion that digital means ephemeral came from. The different between digital and analog have NOTHING to do with whether or not something is a physical object. The Recording on the DVD is a digital one, as are CDs. They are no less digital than a downloaded file. By contrast, cassettes and laser discs are analog.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "as are CDs."
        You might want to tell the artist formerly but is probably now known as but I don't care really, Prince, since to him, anything digital messes with your head...which would logically include his music CDs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rich, 2 May 2013 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And to think: I didn't believe back in the 80s that he could get any crazier!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 7:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The different between digital and analog have NOTHING to do with whether or not something is a physical object. The Recording on the DVD is a digital one, as are CDs.
        
        If you want to get really pedantic, the DVD is neither digital nor analog, it's a physical thing that holds a digital recording. But that kind of pedantry makes one unpopular at parties I hear. ;-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greggore, 2 May 2013 @ 10:50am

Back to ......
I used to love the idea of having digital movies. Avi or Divx,Xvid codec files could be easily played on any computer and connected to your TV. Keep a library small in size but big in content. DVD's were also fine as I could buy the DVD, then rip it to be an AVI file on my PC too for other formats.

Now portable media is Digitally locked, so ripping a Blue Ray or DVD is not possible for most average joes\janes.

Along comes services like iTunes where you can buy movies, but are completely restricted to using Apple products (which by the way suck when run on PC's). Can not burn to DVD or port to anything else. "Monopoly" and really against Copyright laws (until recently). There are a slew of other companies (Rovi etc) that do the exact same thing but more and more restrictive.

Services like Netflix was a great idea, but again the movie companies make it horrible as you don't know when a movie will be available or not. This happens in other services too like Amazons, where you can purchase a movie, but if you lose it you might not be able to buy it again....

which leads up to this supposed "licensing" from the Movie companies under the belief that people are "buying" a movie. Again, you are limited to what you can do and how long you can watch it...that sounds like renting to me, but hey, Corporate America likes to change the meaning of words all the time.

What's next? who Fucking know! I don't watch movies on phones, totally ridiculous and I certainly wouldn't PAY for it... then we'll have them on watches too.

Really for me it's back to the best alternative. Downloading or purchasing the DVD when the prices are right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymo, 2 May 2013 @ 11:02am

Warner Archive Instant Official Statement
Just want to point you to what the official statement from Warner Archive Instant on this issue....

https://www.facebook.com/warnerarchive/posts/10151641114891563
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 2 May 2013 @ 11:08am

MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:
MIKE YET AGAIN DIDN'T READ ALL:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/04/30/netflix_queue_to_become_netflix_list_maybe_al so_many_movies_no_longer_streaming.html

"* Correction, May 1, 1:07 p.m.: This post previously stated that these titles would become exclusively available on Warner Archive Instant. A spokesperson for Warner Bros. tells Slate that the films being removed from Netflix�s streaming service do not belong to Warner Bros."

HA! And Mike blames Warner Brothers! THIS is the kind of reporting you get here at Techdirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:16am
  
  Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:
  Don't worry Blue, he won't respond much like how you never respond to anyone who points out the flaws in your statements.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:52am
    
    Re: Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:
    And of course ootb's truth gets censored here on the zoo board. Typical.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 1:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:
      Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the Waaaambulance.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 1:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:
      At this point, OOTB could come up with a scientific formula for clean energy that is 100% guaranteed to work and it would still end up hidden out of hand by the Techdirt community: not out of malice, but because OOTB has done everything he can to earn a reputation as a liar and a madman. So what if Mike didn't read something important: OOTB has admitted in the past to doing the same, therefore he can't call someone else out on it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 5:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:
      This coming from the average_jackass that insisted that he never reads out_of_the_lube's posts. And now he's lube boy's shining defender in white.
      
      When are you going to stop lying and debate me about Prenda, jackass? y u no debate mi?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:18am
  
  Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:
  Compared to the amount of mistakes and errors that you have posted on this site (which is still far way out number more than Mike!!!) you are in no position to point the finger.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:19am
  
  Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:
  "MIKE YET AGAIN DIDN'T READ ALL"
  
  This, coming from the guy who has confessed, on multiple occasions no less, to NEVER reading the articles he vomits all over?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymouse, 2 May 2013 @ 11:56am
  
  Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:
  Actually because of the mess of who is who it is right to say they removed titles, mgm is mgm i am not interested if it is their international arm or local arm or they have created a new business to avoided taxes or paying royalties or whatever, they are all linked together and so Mike was relatively correct in his assessment of the issue. Trying to mix it all up by selling your licensing to various business you have created to make it difficult to track copyright is something that has been going on for a long time, nobody really cares other than those that lose their royalty payments
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:09am

I'll be sure to keep supporting Netflix regardless of how many studios pull their movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:16am

All I want...
...is Steam for Movies. Why is this so difficult for the Internet backwater of Hollywood to get?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:16am

Okay, can someone more enlightened than me explain exactly why this isn't antitrust collusive behaviour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymouse, 2 May 2013 @ 11:58am
  
  Re:
  Because the studios sell their licenses to subsidiaries they own then sort of get away with it, but there time is coming i believe. There are some really big players out there with a hell of a lot of money, It just takes some of them organizing and getting together and resolving this monopoly mess to stop this nonsense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  It's amazing what you can get away with when you contribute millions to political campaigns on a yearly basis...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re:
  Okay, can someone more enlightened than me explain exactly why this isn't antitrust collusive behaviour?
  
  Sure, but first explain exactly what you think the antitrust violation is. Price fixing? Group boycott? Market division? Tying? Spell it out for me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casey, 2 May 2013 @ 11:27am

Netflix
It has already been established Netflix pulled these films. One of their deals expired with Epix so they pulled the titles. This is a daily occurrence in the licensing world. It has nothing to do with Warner's new service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PVR, 2 May 2013 @ 11:29am

Piss off the Dubya-Bee
During those marathon movie sessions I'd play those movies through a connected PVR and record it through the analog loophole...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:35am
  
  Re: Piss off the Dubya-Bee
  One word (well, an acronym really)
  
  SOC.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re: Piss off the Dubya-Bee
    And yes, I know that SOC is only for broadcast TV but considering the mindset of those who pushed for it, I wouldn't expect for them to demand that Netflix stop functioning if you're watching through a VGA cable and not DVI or HDMI.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Piss of the Dubya-Bee, 2 May 2013 @ 11:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Piss off the Dubya-Bee
      There's no way to defeat the analog loophole... It doesn't work through an HDMI cable, but does work through component cable... Won't work through aPC, but with a PS3 or Xbox 360 it'll work...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Piss off the Dubya-Bee
        Which is a damn shame, because with HDCP, it's the copyright industry dictating to the tech industry and its customers what hardware we're allowed buy. I wouldn't be surprised that if someone were to design a HDMI cable that didn't include support for HDCP (or bypassed it while allowing picture/sound through), they would be sued out of existence. So we have no choice but to buy cables that won't allow us to record game footage at 1080p.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PVR, 2 May 2013 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piss off the Dubya-Bee
        Tell me about it... my cable company *cough* Time Warner Cable *cough* used to support set top boxes that allowed for component output... unfortunately I'm stuck with their "service", and the box I'm currently saddled with only works theough HDMI with no component out... Fortunately, gaming consoles support component cables, plus current gen consoles can use the component cables from the prior generation... PS2 component cables (not RCA) work on the PS3...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 2 May 2013 @ 11:51am

RE: you were warned back in the 60's
Warner Bro's warned EVERYONE back in the 60's, are you all too young to remember Daffy Duck?

well now in the 21st century Daffy is in charge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjB9jlDvUNM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theoden, 2 May 2013 @ 11:58am

RE: you were warned back in the 60's
Daffy doesn't come into his own until the 24th 1/2 Century!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:00pm

If Netflix only had 1 movie that I could stream, and that movie was already in the public domain and I could watch it elsewhere for free, I'd still subscribe to Netflix because of what they're trying to do, and the awesomeness at which they do it.

All this means to me is I won't be watching movies from Warner Bros., MGM & Universal.

Can't watch *Insert Movie Name Part 1* via Netflix well guess what, when the sequel comes out in the theatre, I won't be going to see that either, because you pulled part 1 from Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:42pm

Let's all look on the brightside, here - at least they're taking down their Carlos Mencia drivel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 12:43pm

Would it really be so difficult to leave it on Netflix bring it over to your own platform, reduce the cost slightly ti give yourself the advantage (and have another stream of income) while adding MORE titles?

Are they really this nearsighted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Mind (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 2:49pm

open letter to movie studios
No video is must-have. If it isn't on netflix chances are pretty good I am not watching it. So if you want me to watch your stuff, put it on nflx. My Q is already long, so it will need to get in-line. You should be working to get me to eyeball your junk, not making it harder for me. You are doing a great job of making yourself irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 5:26pm
  
  Re: open letter to movie studios
  The best thing an indie film can do these days to promote themselves is say "It's on Netflix"
  
  Makes it pretty easy to check it out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrrrrrrr!, 2 May 2013 @ 7:22pm

Meanwhile, everything's just dandy on the pirate ship...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mitch, 2 May 2013 @ 7:22pm

You used complete logic to prove your point.. best article in a while !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 9:35pm

Always so negative on this site.
It makes total sense for WB films to be delivered to viewers by a WB property, its no different to how WB films are shown in WB cinemas. Just because its 'on the internet' doesn't change anything important like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 9:49pm
  
  Re:
  Same applies to all the studios, if there was any problem with studios owning or controlling the distribution chain to the viewers it would have been flagged up as a problem long before teh internets came along.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Perhaps you should look at United States vs. Paramount Pictures
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 9:57pm

greedy fucks
fuck you warner bros, suck a dick
fucking greedy fucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phil, 2 May 2013 @ 10:12pm

I already resented Warner
I resented Warner when they wouldn't allow their shows like the Mentalist to be shown on cbs.com. You could watch all the other CBS shows for a couple weeks, but not a single full episode of any Warner owned shows. Why? Because they just don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 2 May 2013 @ 10:47pm

So, they want me to just download the torrent. OK, can do.
Subject pretty much says it all. I'm certainly not going to subscribe to a Warner streaming service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2013 @ 11:08pm

Compulsory Licensing
Would be nice if they started Compulsory Licensing (like they do music for Radio) on all movies for streaming services. They could make it so CL kicks in when the movie is 1 or 2 years old. This would give the Studios time to sell all of the Blu-Rays they can. Usually after a year or two those Blu-Rays are in the 7.99 or 5.99 Bins anyways. So they have already ran that horse into the ground. If this was started then there could be REAL competition in streaming services. Yes that could be bad for Netflix, but could be awesome for consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2013 @ 11:33pm
  
  Re: Compulsory Licensing
  What's good for Netflix should never be an issue. It should always be about what's good for the customer (the public). Right now, Netflix is good for the customer, but that may not always be the case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry Voter, 3 May 2013 @ 12:37am

Later they will beg to be let back in
Just like they had to with Apple.

Netflix should offer progressively worse deals to the companies so that the first one back makes the most and the last one back makes the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 2:01am

At least they can't pull it off torrent trackers. They'll just push customers back to piracy, and lose their licensing income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wandspiegel, 3 May 2013 @ 2:04am

Lucky Guy
Great move Warner Bros. Now your plans are for the internet to be treated by the customer exactly like cable. It's amazing what you can get away with when you contribute millions to political campaigns on a yearly basis...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 8:39am

to heck with warner brothers and MGM I don't want to watch their films anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 8:40am

I wouldn't even want to pirate their crappy movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 9:23am

Who wants to watch their productions anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pat Warren, 3 May 2013 @ 1:39pm

Pulling movies from Netflix
So sorry that corporate greed has deprived the American people
of old wonderful movies.

I will NOT go to Warner's site, EVER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tpb, 3 May 2013 @ 2:39pm

good news
the good news is that all of the movies are still available in high def format on the free bittorrent service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2013 @ 2:14pm

Still no support for Linux? FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DarthDiggler, 8 May 2013 @ 2:41pm

Netflix removes (and adds) movies all the time...
Netflix removes and adds movies all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyber Killer, 13 May 2013 @ 4:40am

EA and games
Electronic Arts did a similar thing when they launched their games store (Origin) - they pulled many of their games from Steam, and they do not publish nearly any new games there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 15 May 2013 @ 2:06am

Congratulations WB, MGM, and Universal
For finally pushing many more into the piracy scene...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
daniel hicks, 12 Jun 2013 @ 5:27pm

netflix
i have netflix and been a member since almost day one in canada i really enjoy it and hope that the warner brothers forgive netflix and start to bring back some of the movies to netflix again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don Martin, 2 Aug 2013 @ 10:31am

Warner Streaming Content Sucks By Itself
Frankly Warner as a stand alone service just plain sucks at $9.99 per month. Netflix was no award winner with a collection consisting of way too many old and lousy movi8es, but for the kids at Warner to think the4y can cut out the middle men and serve up their old junk alone? Oh Please. The service is a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gm, 27 Aug 2013 @ 3:45pm

DANCING IN THE STREET
I FOR ONE WILL NEVER GIVE NETFLIX THE SATISFACTION OF HAVING MY BUSINESS SO I AM EXTREMELY HAPPY YOU IGNORANT BAFFOONS HAD THIS TAKEN AWAY. NOW IF TV NETWORKS WOULD ONLY CATCH ON TO WHAT WARNER BROS. IS DOING AND DO THE SAME TO NOT ONLY NETFLIX,HULU,CRACKLE, ALL THE STREAMING NEEDS TO DIE, I'D RATHER PAY FOR CABLE WITH THE EXTRA CHANNELS MAYBE YOUR ARSES WILL LEARN TO APPRECIATE CABLE TOO OR MAYBE YOUR TOO STUPID TO LEARN NEW STUFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]