MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
from the missing-the-point dept
One of the key points that many people have been making for decades is that copyright infringement likely wouldn't be such a big problem if they actually made works more available in convenient and reasonable ways. This was never an excuse for infringement, but an explanation and a suggestion on ways to minimize the amount of infringement happening. For the past few years, the big legacy copyright holders have been trying to spin things, claiming that they've made stuff "available," and since there's still "infringement" they obviously need new laws to better "protect" their works. They're basically claiming that because the works are now available in some format, the whole "availability" argument is debunked. Except, of course, they're ignoring the full equation. It's not just about making it available, but making it convenient and reasonably available. Instead, the MPAA frequently touts annoying and inconvenient offerings no one uses, claiming disingenuously that this proves the availability argument is untrue.The latest is that NBC Universal (the driving force behind many MPAA efforts) has commissioned a study from KPMG on the availability of film and TV titles. The clever folks at KPMG have hidden the important factors in the aggregate stats, looking at a big list of 34 services, and saying that as long as a film or TV title are available on one of them, it's "available." But this conveniently buries the more important stat, dug out by TorrentFreak, that the study actually shows over 80% of top film titles are not available on Netflix, which is, by far, the most popular streaming movie service.
Rather than admit this, of course, the MPAA instead has decided to trumpet its friends' misleading coverage of the misleading report (pretty sure nearly everyone in its list has received money from the MPAA). Many of the MPAA's friends insist, incorrectly, that the report shows that these films are widely available, rather than admit the truth -- which is that they're narrowly available, often in inconvenient ways, separated from how people want to watch (and pay for!) those films.
It would be nice if the MPAA were legitimately interested in reducing infringement by improving innovation and allowing more services to flourish. But it has yet to show any honest intentions on that front, preferring bogus and misleading reports like this one.
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: accessibility, conveniences, copyright, movies, streaming
Companies: kpmg, mpaa, nbc universal, netflix
Reader Comments
The First Word
“You've actually come out with a strong argument for why it's 'not widely available'. You should have been able to go to just one and find your item.
Overpriced is another issue everyone sees and recognizes, not to mention the insane TOS and licensing issues that come with that.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You haven't shown how this particular report makes any claims that are "bogus and misleading." Can you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"The clever folks at KPMG have hidden the important factors in the aggregate stats, looking at a big list of 34 services, and saying that as long as a film or TV title are available on one of them, it's "available." But this conveniently buries the more important stat, dug out by TorrentFreak, that the study actually shows over 80% of top film titles are not available on Netflix, which is, by far, the most popular streaming movie service."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A different kettle of fish.
Not only is a new release film unlikely to be on Netflix. It may also not be available for a rental price on any of the other 28 services that this bit of propaganda is tracking.
"Available" might mean that your download version will cost you as much as the BluRay.
A common response to that may include expletives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A different kettle of fish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A different kettle of fish.
Actually, I don't not see any non-passive verbs.
I think your main point is missing.
what are you trying to say?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Again, can you point to a single statement in the report that is "bogus and misleading"? Did they say something is available when it isn't? Did they say something is available on Netflix when it isn't? Etc. I understand that some people think everything should be on Netflix, but that doesn't make the report "bogus and misleading."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If 80% of top movies can't be found on the most popular (legal) streaming service in the country, there's a big problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you point to the "bogus and misleading" information in the report? Did not the report say what was available on streaming services such as Netflix and what was not? I'm waiting for someone to show me the exact claim in the report that is "bogus and misleading." It's easy to say I'm being obtuse. It's quite another thing to actually present evidence that backs up the claim. Mike hasn't presented that evidence. Can you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike's opinion on what constitutes "misleading" and "bogus" is not the focus of the article, but you're attempting to attack that because you can't discuss anything else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I do take issue with digital content being priced the same as physical content, especially since I am only licensing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They would rather plug their ears and scream that they are losing qungjillions of dollars and have law enforcement step in rather than actually having to spend money and innovate.
It's the same problem that happened with Cassette tapes. And Beta / VHS. And Recordable CD's. And MP3 players. Now it's streaming services.
It's the exact same bullshit they have tried to get away with for yeas, and have succeeded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes
The clever folks at KPMG have hidden the important factors in the aggregate stats, looking at a big list of 34 services, and saying that as long as a film or TV title are available on one of them, it's "available."
The cost of the "big list of 34 services" is how much? I can't tell you for sure, but that's not "AVAILABLE" to the average person (or "reasonably available") which makes the claim (that availability isn't a factor) in this study "bogus and misleading" about the affect availability has on piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The MPAA is claiming that if it can be found out there in commercial land somewhere that it is available. What is totally being ignored here is the hoops you are expected to jump through to access that film or material.
I'm not going to a rental place. There isn't one in town and there isn't one within a reasonable distance. I'm not willing to drive 60 miles for a rental and return it.
Nor am I willing to search all over the net to find it. It is either available or it isn't where I go. That is what widely available means.
Ease of access comes in for another negative in the form the hoops to be jumped over to get to the item. I am not willing to go to thirty different sites on the net, give up tons of info just to get in and find out I can't access it anyway. Either I don't have the right credit card, live in the wrong place geographically, don't have the right player and am not willing to install the latest spyware to get it, or can't access it because I am not willing to give up a ton of personal data for each and every site, and am not willing to agree to the insane terms and conditions which seem to vary widely from site to site.
None of that is in the article. It doesn't change the fact that when narrowed down in those terms, it isn't widely available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are definitely being misleading by stating that 94% of the films are available. While that may be technically true, by choosing to make them available only on the online equivalent of the library basement between the hours of 4:55 pm and 5:00 pm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While that may be technically true, by choosing to make them available only on the online equivalent of the library basement between the hours of 4:55 pm and 5:00 pm, they are being misleading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You've actually come out with a strong argument for why it's 'not widely available'. You should have been able to go to just one and find your item.
Overpriced is another issue everyone sees and recognizes, not to mention the insane TOS and licensing issues that come with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, that is not enough. If a title is available legally via only one service that pretty much no-one uses, then the title may as well not be available at all. Everyone has heard of Netflix, and has used it at least once, even yours truly. If a title is not on there, it is tantamount to unavailable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where in the report does it make any claims about the relationship between availability and piracy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I used to work for Netflix and had to tell disappointed customers all the time that not every movie comes to Netflix's streaming service and many get pulled after the current licensing deal is up because the studios either refuse to license some movies or they want more and more money every time a streaming license is renewed.
The studios want to have their digital cake and eat it too. They want to sell you a license for a digital version at the same or sometimes higher cost than a physical disc and then say you have fewer rights with the digital version than you do with the physical version.
You're statement, "but there are other services out there to fill the demand" is exactly what the studios are saying to pretend that they're making things "available."
Building your store on the other side of a minefield and then screaming that you must not be making the amount of money that you expected to because of piracy is a pretty stupid and disingenuous business tactic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consider this: the study says that 95% of titles are on Hulu Plus and 17% are on Netflix. What if we layered on data to show that only 1.6% of the population uses Hulu Plus, but 10% use Netflix. By weighting the calculation you realize that to the general population, the 95+% availability really doesn’t mean very much in terms of absolute access to content. Not to mention that when you consider that most people will only want to pay for a few subscriptions (at most), saying content is available in at least 1/34 services is not conclusive enough to be able to call it 'widely available'.
It would have been far more insightful if we saw availability by service, or weighted availability against total subscriptions. Otherwise, I have to agree that the conclusion is misleading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What we want is bundling
Then again, that's part of why the frequent calls for a la carte cable access are so silly. Most people want bundles. They want them cheaper than the cable company, and more convenient, and so on. But people want bundles.
A look at a la carte pricing will show why people want bundles. For example, on Verizon's FIOS TV, NFL Redzone is available a la care for $80/season (which is 4 months long). However, for those four months you can pay $20/month more for their top tier bundle compared to the second tier bundle, and get NFL Redzone added plus Cinemax, Showtime, and a bunch of other networks. And that's how unbundling tends to be priced-- more expensively per item than bundles, partially because the average person doesn't watch nearly everything that they get in their bundle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If 80% of top movies can't be found on the most popular (legal) streaming service in the country, there's a big problem.
Here's what the report says: "This report found that the most popular and critically acclaimed films are widely available to anyone who has access to the Internet through dozens of Online VOD digital distribution services."
Anyone who wants to sign up and pay (the horror!) can do so. That's "widely available" in my book. Saying that only the movies on Netflix are "widely available" makes little sense to me. Yes, it's a popular service, but I don't see how other services which are less popular are any less "available." A URL is a URL. If you can access one, you can access another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it's not equivalent to a library basement that's only open for five minutes. Netflix is just as available as Hulu. Just because you prefer one service, that doesn't mean the other service is somehow less available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Is setting up an account at Netflix significantly more "hoops" than setting up one at iTunes?
Nor am I willing to search all over the net to find it. It is either available or it isn't where I go. That is what widely available means.
Do you have trouble navigating from techdirt.com for Mike's content to wsj.com for their content? Different content is available on different sites. This is how the internet works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, as others have said, the problem is that this then means that to get as close as possible to legal access to most movies, you'd have to pay for MULTIPLE services. So are you really suggesting that people should pay for the 34 different services here? Do you honestly think the vast majority of people can afford that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
well, gee, might as well keep my teevee cable since that now ends up being cheaper than paying 10 online services 10 bucks each so i can get the 5% of the movies *they* have in their library...
but they're 'widely available', you know, just like gold is 'widely available' in seawater...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't any Apple hardware. Why would I go to a site that only works with Apple equipment? The same can be said about widely available when it comes to websites. Why would I give iTunes any money or info or for that matter Netflix?
Netflix is totally unusable to me because my ISP doesn't have a fast enough connection. I live in the boonies, cable isn't available. The whole issue here is a total lack of availability. Your idea is no better than your reasoning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Available" as defined in the new Government and Corporate Deceivctionary
Widely available* at popular† booksellers worldwide‡
* accessible in at least one non-imaginary location
† as defined by the author
‡ somewhere in the world (For example at the CIA Starbucks)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What we want is bundling
For years the only way I could get BBC America was in a bundle of ~100 other channels, none of which I ever watched. Sure, on a per channel basis it was probably dirt cheap (around $15 for the bundle I think) but if I could have gotten BBCA alone it would have been way cheaper in the long run. I'd never want to spend, say, $5 each for dozens of separate channels, but $5 for the one I want vs $15 for 99 I don't adds up quick. (The lineup has changed recently, so the situation is more complicated now.)
Frankly I'd settle for keeping all sports channels in a bundle all to themselves. From what I've read they tend to be the most expensive, and if I want almost anything else they always come along for the ride.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
TBP, dingleberry...
*kaboom* is the sound of your 'argument' exploding all over you...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, CAPITALIZE some of the words as if it actually gives them more IMPORTANCE over how your IDEA is STRUCTURED.
Second, don't have a POINT or IDEA.
KUDOS to you!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
$680 per month or $8160 per year.
Guess you need to be MPAA member to afford your own availability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A different kettle of fish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is setting up an account with each and every one of these providers significantly more hoops than setting one up at Netflix or iTunes?
Amazon Instant Video
CinemaNow
Google Play
iTunes
MGO
Playstation Store
Redbox Instant
Sony Entertainment Network
Walmart Vudu
Xbox Live
Marketplace
Blockbuster
Crackle
Crunchyroll
Popcornflix
Hulu Plus
Netflix
Warner Archive Instant
AT&T U-verse Screenpack
Comcast Xfinity Streampix
Verizon Redbox Instant
I'm guessing it's not even possible to sign up for all of the last three, and for many people not even one of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Which is insane, they should be drastically cutting prices after a movie comes out in hopes of making some kind of money on it. Almost all a film's revenue comes at the beginning, and after that it's competing for attention with the next new release. The price should drop sharply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wait. There's more.
Hulu is notable in this regard as having ads.
There is ZERO chance I will ever use it. The same goes for any "full price purchase" option or something like the Warner Brother's obscure film archive. There's only so far down the rabbit hole I'm willing to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Back to 1955 with you.
There have been attempts to get around this but I'm not sure how effective they've been. Most of those are redundant and just offer the same stuff or a smaller subset of it.
A number of them are proprietary. Some are associated to cable providers. Some are associated with particular hardware vendors.
It's a little dishonest to include stuff that's bound to a particular hardware manufacturer (iTunes) and gravely dishonest to include the stuff tied to cable companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I can't pay for any streaming service and find the latest top titles available to watch.
This is the problem.
They're making it so I have to shop at multiple stores just to find the movies I want to see. Imagine wanting to see the latest blockbuster movie, and having to figure out if it was being sold at Walmart, or Target, or Best Buy, or Barnes and Noble, and having to do this for every single movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where is DRM-free?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. FUCK YOU
2. FUCK YOU SIDEWAYS WITH A PINEAPPLE
3. you MISSED the POINT in YOUR rush TO condemn, DICKLESS...
ARTguerrillaATwindstreamDOTnet
have at it, ASSWIPE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What we want is bundling
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Profits lost. And they complain that piracy causes them losses. No, they're outdated business model which denies me access to their product when I pay for a service that would give it to me otherwise is what causes them losses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Netflix sucks.
Get Amazon and you'll have access to basically everything that's out there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's a very twisted example of 'free market'. Free markets don't have IP laws.
"I've gone to three different service providers as they each had something different to offer"
but thanks to overarching IP laws (that keep getting retroactively extended) there can't be one place that has everything to offer for a reasonable price. Instead you have to go to multiple places to maybe get what you want and pay thrice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is exactly what IP is not supposed to be intended to do. IP is not supposed to be intended to ensure that you pay a huge premium for some 'obscure' flick because it's hard to otherwise get a hold of. If something is so hard to get a hold of now, while it's still not in the public domain, imagine how difficult to impossible remaining copies in good condition to ever reach the public domain. and that's a loss to our culture. IP was supposed to expand the public domain so that a wider audience can enjoy a more diverse set of content and there can be smaller sub-audiences enjoying more specialty content that suits them. Instead you want to force generic content on everyone so that you can charge a larger audience more. The public loses out because people don't get content as closely specialized to their specific individual desires.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The general timbre of this article and the comments is bratty entitlement in the extreme. This is like listening to toddlers rationalize their need for more candy; ALL CANDY EVAR RIGHT NOW!!!! While they're at a pizza parlor.
Perhaps "widely available" means available to many people who want to purchase it? Not as in, "available at every newstand and register." McDonald's is "widely available" but I still can't buy a Big Mac at Burger King. Is that also causing a lot of problems for the people here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So as asked above, does that mean you think people should have to sign up to multiple services in order to get the range or movies they want? Can you honestly not see how nobody wants to do that? It would be expensive and inconvenient, the exact opposite of what the studios are claiming.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A different kettle of fish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only a few of the services listed are subscription services, such as Netflix. Many, like iTunes, require users to purchase each title individually. It's not like someone has to have 34 Netflix subscriptions, if that's what you're implying. I see no problem with going to different services to get different content. I go to different stores to buy different things. I don't freak out when the grocery store doesn't stock blades for my table saw. I get that a one-stop-shop would be nicer. That's one reason I like my Roku box. I can watch Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon, etc. with one piece of hardware. Things are getting better, and they're moving in the direction that you guys all want. I just don't get the constant whining. And I especially don't get the victim-blaming.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From what I've heard, they're working on getting things more centralized. You have to understand that Blockbuster can stock whatever it wants because of first-sale, while streaming requires complex licensing negotiations. I applaud the industry for the changes it's made already. Give it time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amazon Instant Video
CinemaNow
Google Play
iTunes
MGO
Playstation Store
Redbox Instant
Sony Entertainment Network
Walmart Vudu
Xbox Live
Marketplace
Blockbuster
Crackle
Crunchyroll
Popcornflix
Hulu Plus
Netflix
Warner Archive Instant
AT&T U-verse Screenpack
Comcast Xfinity Streampix
Verizon Redbox Instant
I'm guessing it's not even possible to sign up for all of the last three, and for many people not even one of them.
I have at least an order of magnitude more accounts online than that. You should see my password sheet. (Yes, I still use analog for that!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
$680 per month or $8160 per year.
Guess you need to be MPAA member to afford your own availability.
I watch all the movies and TV shows I could possibly ever want (and do so legally) for one-third that much. Your math is off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's obtuse to demand that "widely available" = "available on Netflix." I'm still waiting for someone to point to even one single sentence in the report that is "bogus and misleading." The report is very upfront about which services it includes and what percentage of the titles are available on each.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This site is pretty good: http://wheretowatch.org/ I think they can (and will) do better. Things are moving in the "right" direction, IMO. Just give it time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Back to 1955 with you.
How is it dishonest for the poster to include them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UK VOD services
While I assume this info is largely accurate (no-one would bother to make it up), it is largely from sites I've not previously heard of -- mostly http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/126129-which-is-the-best-movie-streaming-service-in-the-uk-netflix-v s-amazon-prime-vs-now-tv-and-more -- and the original post is from February, so some details have probably changed since then.
There are probably more reliable and up-to-date sites for this information, somewhere, but this is the best I could find without a more substantial research effort.
VOD sites -- Monthly Movies Subscription Costs
Now TV (the online version of Rupert-Murdoch-owned Sky Movies) - £9
Netflix - £6
Amazon Prime Instant Video - £6
Wuaki - £6 sub, PPV @ £4.50/new film rental
Knowhow Movies - no sub, PPV @ £5/new film rental
Blinkbox (from Tesco) - no sub, PPV @ £4.50/new film rental
Apple iTunes - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental
Google Play - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental
Xbox Video - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental
Readers may wish to note that the UK version of Netflix is generally regarded as an aborted washing-machine foetus of a service, when compared with its US counterpart.
All PPV prices are for the highest definition versions, which is usually 720p, with a couple of services offering 1080p. Older titles and SD rentals are normally cheaper. TV episodes are usually available - prices vary widely, but are usually cheaper than films.
As far as I know, all providers -- both subscription and pay-per-view -- require the installation of crapware from either Adobe or Microsoft and all require their users to allow the monitoring and commercial exploitation of their viewing habits.
Most content available is nearly identical across services. New content - i.e. movies released in the last few years - is heavily restricted. NowTV has a blog post on the subject - http://community.nowtv.com/t5/Movies/Movies-Latest-amp-Biggest/td-p/7604 - which they update monthly:
"The list below shows the top 100 UK box office films in the last 18 months from 29th August 2014.
Of the titles on the list available to watch on the relevant services at 5th September 2014; Sky Movies has 44, Amazon Prime Instant Video has 4 and Netflix has 4.
Wuaki Selection is not listed, as this service does not currently feature any titles in the top 100 list.
When a movie is first available on Sky Movies it will not be available on Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant Video for at least 12 months.
Source: Rentrak"
The blog post then goes on to list the top 100.
While the numbers change and have recently shifted in Sky Movies' favour, the figures have strangely consistent ratios from month to month, with retail getting everything, Sky getting a big chunk -- now at 44% -- and Netflix and Amazon both getting the same amount -- now 4%.
The other 48% or so does not appear to be available, except for retail, the online version of which also shows remarkable consistency of pricing.
It's fairly apparent that both prices and content are being centrally set by Hollywood, with the intention of driving as much business as possible to their preferred vendors and neutering new services as far as they can get away with.
This may or may not be legal under UK law, but since there is no prospect of their friends in Parliament ever prosecuting them for anything, it doesn't really matter.
In any event, it's clear that consumer choice is not on the agenda for the movie industry.
Not even slightly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are trying to debunk the claims by asking for a specific example. The problem is, you are missing the point (again) and that is that the ENTIRE REPORT it misleading in its entirety. No "single" example need be given.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't you think that's a supply issue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only reason it takes so long is because they make the licensing so complicated to begin with. It's middle management at its worst and it's nothing to applaud. The industry should have taken the lead with this years ago, but instead they had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
And what did they end up with? Netflix runs the show and keeps all the precious streaming data while the studios were worried about losing Blockbuster's business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another 15 years or so, maybe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
while streaming requires complex licensing negotiations.
And whose fault is that?
I applaud the industry for the changes it's made already. Give it time.
Another 15 years or so, maybe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for proving his point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Something the industry hates and tries to erase at every opportunity.
streaming requires complex licensing negotiations.
Created by the very same people/organizations to divide money and power amongst themselves.
So the bad situation, created by middle-men and abusers of truth, will be fixed by those same middle-men and liars so that people can have a situation more like first sale and the simplicity people want even though it's something that the middlemen hate and fear, because it removes layers of -middle- for them to inhabit. It will be fixed right up so it's important that we wait patiently, accept what we're given and never ever question the steps being taken.
Seems legit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you think that it's reasonable for people elsewhere in the world (and less moneyed than yourself) to pay that for legitimate content? Personally I can see where the piracy comes from then. Nobody over here would pay that much for "TV and series" per month. And I'm certainly far from living on the bread line.
Idiot!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you think that it's reasonable for people elsewhere in the world (and less moneyed than yourself) to pay that for legitimate content? Personally I can see where the piracy comes from then. Nobody over here would pay that much for "TV and series" per month. And I'm certainly far from living on the bread line.
Idiot!
My point was that I pay that much and I get way more movies and shows than I can possibly ever watch. It's a luxury item that I can afford. I wasn't always so fortunate, and I'm sure there are many people less fortunate than me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As such, if something is to truly be called "widely available" it stands to reason that it should be on the most popular and used service.
If, for some (moronic) reason, it isn't on the most popularly used service then it really goes without saying that it isn't widely available. If it's on a service that isn't preferred, much less used by the majority of people then it really is the equivalent of saying, "It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard."
Netflix might not the start and end of digital distribution, but it's the biggest and most popular player in the game. Not because of any help from or because of the studios, who do their best at every turn to make Netflix unprofitable and far from enjoyable. If your product isn't there then it's going to get ignored for someone else's who is.
And your facetious and moronic comments to the contrary really do say it all. You'll defend anyone who tells others lies or tells them to bend over and take it. "It's widely available! It's not my fault you don't want to sign up for 34 different services to really enjoy the one thing you want that happens to only be on that one service and you have to do that for 34 different things spread across them!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do all 34 grocery stores have websites that instantly deliver the goods to your house?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this right here is your problem. You've had upteen people do exactly that. It is bogus and misleading to say something is "widely available" when it isn't on the most popular (and likely biggest) service used by the majority of the people.
Yeah, they're available, just not widely. That is bogus and misleading.
You're basically trying to spin the argument to be "show me a single sentence that can be definitively proven as being a blatant lie". No one can. But you can't actually come up with a proper rebuttal to anything else anyone has said, so you're sticking to your guns and demanding an answer to that one question.
Tell me, AJ, have you stopped beating your wife? It really is a "yes" or "no" answer type question. Have you stopped beating your wife?
THAT is exactly the kind of argument you're making here and THAT is exactly why people report your comments. You've literally said the same thing I won't bother to count how many times, this is the kind of behavior you pull with Mike regularly and that's why he ignores you as well. You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, it's not as though anyone could have seen this coming in time to do anything about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have at least an order of magnitude more accounts online than that.
You really are about the most obtuse troll I've ever seen. And you wonder why you get no respect around here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, fucking HORSE SHIT. I call you out on your specious BS. The industry (music and movies) have had over a DECADE to "work on getting things" more centralized and available to the public. They DO NOT CARE what the public wants. The only thing they care about is how far they can get the public to open their wallets for with the least amount of effort and service. Period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be more specific, he's missing the point on purpose, which is his M.O.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is that I have to pay an subscription to all 34 grocery stores websites so that I can get the product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The report should have just said that 100% of movies are available (to those with enough money to buy movie companies and set up their own streaming services).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, they're available, just not widely. That is bogus and misleading.
The report says they're "widely available" and then it defines exactly what that means and tells us what percentage of movies are available on the different kinds of services. And then you guys claim that it's "bogus and misleading"? I don't see it. I get that you would define "widely available" differently, but that doesn't mean they were "bogus and misleading" when they were completely upfront about what they meant by that.
You're an idiot.
And my posts here are being reported as abusive and trollish. Sigh. I know you guys can't stand dissenting points of view, but the amount of abuse you all regularly dish out is just terrible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A: If a single one out of 34 legitimate online services has the title, it is "widely available"
B: If every one of 34 pirate torrent sites has the title, it is "widely available"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys are assuming you'd have to have accounts at all 34 services to see the content you want. I have accounts at Netflix, Amazon, M-GO, and iTunes, and they have all the content I want.
I get that you guys need to blame others for your conscious decision to pirate, but this victim-blaming is getting pretty silly. No matter what they do, you guys will complain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What we want is bundling
there is virtually NO BUSINESS in amerika which operates along the lines of responding to and respecting their customers; it is ALL ABOUT FORCING you to make choices you don't want, buy shit you don't want, and making it IMPOSSIBLE to get the same/similar goods/services by any other means...
the so-called 'free market' is a fucking sick joke...
IF they had a la carte pricing that was REASONABLE, i'd probably only have about a dozen or so channels; WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY they will NEVER have reasonable a la carte pricing: EVERYONE would get their top 10-20 channels, and they could shove their useless bundles up their cloaca...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not everybody has the same tastes in films as you do, nor do they live in the same country, so just because your needs are met does not mean that other peoples needs are met by just a few services, or that any of the services available to them carry the films they would like to watch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
i'm a medium tee vee/movie/sports/etc watcher, but SIMPLY because Big Media has fucked people over so long and so hard, i don't want to watch their shit SIMPLY FOR THE PRINCIPLE of it...
would dump satellite TOMORROW, FOREVER if it wasn't for SWMBO who simply can't live without the glass teat...
shit, i'm not sure we are 'living', WITH it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's cost me thousands to set up a home theater, media servers, and movie library's. I've done all that because big media can't figure out how to make it happen for me. It would be much cheaper for me to stream everything than it would be to buy all the Blueray's and computers to run/store them. I would love.... absolutely LOVE, to get rid of all that crap, it's a pain in the ass. But what's the alternative? 20 different subscriptions? Timed releases? Sub-par quality? It's not worth it yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True enough. But this report is about the US market, so that's what we've been talking about. And no one here has actually shown that they'd need to sign up for 34 different services to see the content they want. They just assume the worst and complain about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That sounds great. I'd sign up for that.
Figure out how to do that, and "piracy", for the most part, goes away.
I seriously doubt that. I hope I'm wrong. And even if we had this wonderful one-stop-shop, I'm sure Mike and the pirates would be whining about something. Probably the price.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even with that limitation, your point is a non sequitur, about like someone claiming that because they can walk to their place of work, nobody needs a car.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This issue isnt defined by just what YOU want. This seems to be the source of your problem: you can't see any of these issues from any perspective but your own, and then you condemn and question everyone else (who has other considerations than yours) as if their concerns arent valid because they dont align with your own, narrow view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ooo I can play that game too!
"No one here has actually shown that slavery is a bad thing. You are just assuming the worst and complaining about it."
"No one here has actually shown that priest abuse of children is widespread. You are just assuming the worst and complaining about it."
"No one here has actually shown that the economy is in trouble due to abuse of mortgages. You are just assuming the worst and complaining about it."
Are you getting a clue now why people are taking issue with this problem? When you hand-wave everything away to appease your corporate paymasters and try to sweep all complaints under the rug, you dismiss the the problem out of hand and invalidate legitimate points.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
$680 x 12 months = $8160
God you suck at math as well as reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Back to 1955 with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Back to 1955 with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]