Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Will Delay Renting New WB Releases
DesertBlade tips the news that Netflix will delay renting new releases from Warner Brothers for 28 days, and adds "Luckily I am so far behind in my movie watching that I will probably never catch up anyway." "It's part of a strategy by several studios to create staggered releases of DVDs so that the most profitable transactions are available first and cheaper rental options take effect further down the road. The move could be copied by other studios, forcing consumers to wait nearly a month if they want to rent popular movies from Netflix. ... The studio is hoping that the four-week window will push consumers interested in watching movies at home to buy the DVDs or pay a premium to rent them from stores like Blockbuster or from Internet and cable video-on-demand services. Warner Bros. already imposes a 28-day window on $1-a-night kiosk firm Redbox."
Artifically deny your customer the ability to buy your product. They'll love you for it!
Feh.
Living With a Nerd
yes.
I'm usually a year behind, so I consider all options. Until blueray takes over and I'm forced to pirate just to watch movies, services like Netflix are great.
I also like the Amazon service; I don't really care if it's DRMed to hell if it's just a rental that I'm going to watch once.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
If I really want the movie on dvd I'm gonna buy it anyway. If I was just gonna rent it when it comes out on dvd what makes you think I'll want to buy it instead of waiting 28 extra days? Or at worse one could always pirate it since I'm sure there will be dvd rips on the net. Anyway, this isn't all bad... more streaming stuff :)
This sounds like a risky strategy. Creating more hassles and delays for your customer does not seem to be a "customer first" attitude. But I guess ultimately the market will decide if it is reasonable.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
When it's as easy as 1) Search a torrent site and 2) Clicking the magnet link and wait for it to download, I would say yes.
to visit more pawn shops to get my brand new dvd for $3.99 Way to take away a choice for consumers so you can alienate even more of them.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Which makes them retarded. Seriously, one of the best ways to combat copying is to make it easier/more attractive to buy. People are lazy, make it worth their while to pay you, and they'll probably do that since it is easier and less risky than downloading. However, be a moron about it, and they'll go to where they can get what they want.
We use the hell out of our Netflix subscription...6 out at a time, and sometimes even that doesn't feel like enough. It works out well though...she tends to rent interesting documentaries and sci-fi, while I tend to rent the classics she hasn't seen and horror movies she hasn't seen. We both work together on choosing anime and TV series.
Having a massive selection of b-horror movies and silent films ready and waiting is awesome.
Living With a Nerd
One could argue that ever deciding that the company should make more money is not a "customer first" attitude.
"Customer first" is at best a goal of a company. Most companies want to stay afloat first ... which may or may not be directly tied to a "customer first" ideal.
But to think that companies are actively trying to seek ways to lower their profit in order to put the customer first seems a little idealistic. Sorta like thinking that most customers *won't* choose the cheaper of two products, all other things with the product identical. Some to have a brand loyalty, but I'm not sure most do.
These movie studios are still stuck in their old ways of doing things. They try to DMR content, for the longest time deny online streaming and basically go out of their way to stymie the consumer from what they want. Why are these studios having such a hard time moving to a new delivery model without imposing limits? Surely it's got to be more than just making an extra buck or two. Do they have a sense of entitlement and control over us?
These times you can download 1090p w/ dts sound bluray rips in less than an hour so... yes
if it mattered that much then a site that only rents 28 day old wb movies would show up. I doubt that there is that much demand.
But then theres the shipping time. Unless you want to pay extra for overnight or 2 day shipping. If you want free super saver shipping, you can wait 10 days or so. Netflix is 2 days. So its only 20 days difference.
Really.
People only buy movies they really, really like. The others, they rent them.
Delaying rent will not cause people to buy them bu to download them. Thus "proving" that piracy is really, really bad, evil and unAmerican...
It looks like they are getting smarter :-/
Are they _TRYING_ to increase piracy of their movies? I actually think they are with a long-term view towards "See! Look! Piracy is on the rise! You MUST create new laws that enable us to control the populace's computers and media players!" I cannot imagine anybody not knowing this will increase piracy rates and, thus, I am forced to believe they're doing this with that goal intentionally in mind.
How is it a hassle? It IS a delay, but as Netflix is the only place I use to check new releases, it's one I admittedly won't notice. In return, we'll get way more instant-watch movies available, which I don't have to wait for and can watch on my laptop or two of the three consoles in the house.
It's hardly an anti-customer strategy when they make the same choice I'd have asked them to, given the option. The only thing currently stopping Instant-Watch from being really awesome is its subpar selection. And really, if I cared about seeing the movies from Netflix soon after they came out, I'd have seen them in theaters.
I won't spend $30 on a movie just because they make me wait a month. They are only creating resentment and increasing the dissatisfaction customers already have. How long will they ride this wave of arrogance??
But now the rules have changed. Today it is a 30 day delay. Tomorrow it might 60 or 90. If one is not willing to buy a DVD, one does not get the movie. Purchase does not compete well with free.
Sure the studios have every right to do this, but it certainly opens holes for those who are not so dedicated to the copyright. Some might buy a copy of move, rip it, and then resell it to recoup some of the money. Or just give up on the whole trying to obey the law thing and just go back to downloading tapped copies the week before the film is released to theatres.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If I didn't watch it in the first few weeks in the theater, I can wait another month.
On the other hand, if they are releasing DVD/BlueRay within a week or two of the theater release, this may be a good strategy.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As everyone has already pointed out, making it HARDER for customers to get YOUR product is only going to DRIVE THEM to find it another way. IE BIT TORRENT or any other piracy trend.
This is quite clear, in the recent decision by the BBC to broadcast the recent Dr Who two-parter in the US the DAY AFTER it broadcast in the UK. Gee. What were my choices, bit torrent, or wait a WHOLE DAY to DVR it? I chose to DVR, cause it was EASIER and better to watch on my TV.
GWB to President of Brazil - "You have blacks, too?"
When Netflix was a rogue outfit that bought DVDs "off the shelf" and thumbed their noses at the studios it was an awesome service.
Streaming seems to have turned them into a negotiating machine that gives the studios what they want at the expense of the Netflix customer. The result is that it has become a clearinghouse for unpopular content.
I just tried 'em again for a month, and it has become dismal.
-Peter
It might be risky, but I think his assessment of the average Netflix customer is fairly accurate. At least is describes me, a Netflix customer, accurately. Typically, when you hear of a movie coming out that you want to see, you add it to the queue. It's not out yet, but once it is sitting at the top of the queue ready once it becomes available. Except that movie is in high demand, so it says "Long wait" next to it. The second movie in the queue comes instead. But you don't really care, because you still want to see that movie. It's not like I'm a seven year old that has to see THAT one NOW! It will come when it's ready. In the mean time, I have a long list of movies that I have already said I want to see that will ship in its place until it is my turn. At a certain point, you stop paying attention to what's next, and you just accept what arrives in the mail. Any movie that I really really want to see, I would have already seen in the theaters. Avatar was a good example. Wanted to see badly and also appreciated the big screen experience.
The thing that bothers me a little is how Netflix is being prioritized by the studios due to the fact that they are cheap. The article mentions the same with the RedBoxes. Both are far cheaper for the consumer than in-store rentals or on-demand from Cable/Satelite and they get the worst priority. It's as if the studios resent those customers for finding a great bargain and want to take out their anger on them. But again, if seeing that movie right away is that important, you can pay the premium to do so.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
It's a plan to make crappier movies and still make money from them.
Some people rent movies as they come out, before they buy them, to make sure that what they buy is good movies.
By delaying renting for a month (of February in a non-leap year), the studios are making the more impatient and impulse-buying people buy hyped movies, and you can't back out on that, unless of course you outsmart these guys and wait the month before renting the movie, deciding that it's crap and not buying it.
Companies prey on impulse buyers. Patience is a virtue.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
1090p, cause it's like 10 more.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
I really don't need to see "new releases" right away in order to feel like I'm connected in some social sense. Would it be nice? Sure, but it's no more a grand conspiracy against movie consumers than limited-time platform exclusive video game releases are against video game consumers.
I'm sure someone will find a flaw in my logic.
Like this matters! Who can ever get new releases from Netlix when they come out? Every time I add a new movie that is popular(I.E. The Hangover) it sits in my queue with the words "Very Long Wait" for three months. So its not really an issue. Who has Netflix for new releases?
Well boo fucking hoo. Hey fatass. Get off the couch and do something besides watch TV all day.
How is it a hassle? It IS a delay, but as Netflix is the only place I use to check new releases, it's one I admittedly won't notice. In return, we'll get way more instant-watch movies available, which I don't have to wait for and can watch on my laptop or two of the three consoles in the house.
Yeah, I use Netflix almost exclusively to stream movies these days. A delay in new releases is almost unnoticeable to me, since if I wanted to see it, I would have seen it in the theater.
Plus, Netflix has some awesome indie crap-gems on Instant for those of us who love to watch bad movies with friends.
I'll enjoy my extra 10 pixels, thanks
"It's part of a strategy by several studios to create staggered releases of DVDs so that the most profitable transactions are available first and cheaper rental options take effect further down the road"
a quite elaborate marketerspeak for "a new way to rape the customer". and then they come complain about piracy ...
Read radical news here
The summary forgets to mention that in return for the 28 day delay, WB is opening its library to Netflix for streaming. For the cheap price this service costs, waiting 4 weeks to see a crappy movie which I've already waited months to see since it was in theaters, really isn't a big deal.
Netflix subscriptions cost money.
The people who get free content won't have to deal with this restriction; many DVD/Blu-ray rips are available online before the retail release date anyway.
It's not going to make any difference. I don't know about any of you, but I wait that long for my movies anyways when they are new releases. Just about every new release that is even moderately popular gets listed as "Very Long Wait" for a few weeks. So, I'm already waiting. I think the record was for the latest season of Dexter - I think it was three months after it was released on DVD when I saw the first disc. So... meh.
"A wolf's eyes can see into your soul"
My writing
I have over 110 movies in my queue and I check the new releases at least once a month and add anything that appears in there that I want to see. With the 3 disk option, I am about 6-8 months behind the "new release" curve anyway. I would find it hard to believe that I am unique in this situation. I mean, I can watch 3 movies a week, maybe 4 or 5 if I really have some extra time over the wekeend. But seriously, if WB wants to make people wait 28 days, good for them. At least DVD release cycles are better than VHS back in the old days (get off my lawn?) of the 80s and 90s you had to wait a year, sometimes two for a movie to get released for rental from the local Erols ...
"Keep at least 3-6 full bottles of hard alcohol on hand, a 2 week resignation notice,..." - Poetmatt
If you are waiting for the movie to show up on Netflix, it won't matter if it comes out 1 day after the theatrical release, 6 months after, or 6 months +28 days.
I'm perfectly fine living 6+ months in the past for movies, so long as those AAA movies are still making it into my queue eventually.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The summary did not mention what Netflix gets out of the deal: more on-demand content. From the article:
As someone who has Netflix Instant Queue available directly on my television (thanks, TiVo), I'm more than happy to wait another month for a latest release if it means I can decide on a Thursday evening that I'd rather watch "Big Movie A" instead of "Big Movie B" without having to wait 2 days (one day to mail back, one day to receive) to see it.
Evil is as eval("does");
Ever since I signed up for netflix/blockbuster I've wondered..
Is it really pirating by obtaining it someplace else WHILE I'm paying netflix. For example, most of their movies arent available on demand so I have to queue them. Is it really pirating at that point if I download and watch it from say TPB? The DVD will be on its way. Netflix/Blockbuster is still getting their cut as are the studios so how is it that I am in the wrong?
Why wouldn't this line of reasoning stand up in court if you were to be busted for downloading a movie? Really the way I see it is if its rent-able by netflix and I have an account in good standing I should be entitle to watch anything I could rent no matter the means of transfer.
Doesn't Netflix have the same rights as anyone else to buy new releases? Am I allowed to buy movies and charge other people to borrow them or is that a special right not granted by law but instead licensed by the studios to rental services?
28 Days Later? Wasn't that a movie already?
Amazing. Could it possibly be that a whole bunch of former customers will just forget they were ever interested? Are they going to move back the window for showing on on-demand and premium cable, too? When 95 percent of the product you produce is utter crap, each mostly indistinguishable from all the other pieces of crap, it sure makes sense to make yours harder to get. Of course when the obvious an inevitable effects are felt it will all be the pirates' fault, or some woman videoing a theater party.
That's movie-studio thinking. And yeah, on the face of it, it does make sense - break the law, commit a morally wrong act for the sake of 28 days?
But that forgets what movies have become. Torrents being free is only half of it - the other half is service. Piracy is fiercely competitive on service: they are quire remarkable in getting whatever you want, however you want, as quickly as they possibly can. The studios have taken some steps towards competing: cinema releases are increasingly worldwide and DVD releases have a shorter delay. But they're not really close - it's like the big airlines trying to do the low-cost airline thing, they just don't have the mentality for it.
It's why some people pirate despite having their cinema card, a Netflix sub and shelves of store-bought movies. It's not that they aren't prepared to pay, it's just piracy is the better service. Sure, plenty of pirates are doing it just because it's free, but there's a big chunk of people with a range of different reasons. Each step the studios take towards competing with piracy is a chunk of people for whom paying becomes their better choice. Each step away from competing with piracy, like delaying Netflix for 28 days, a bunch of people turn on the torrents. Many will actually be annoyed about not being able to get what they want by paying for it.
I'm not trying to defend pirates, I've never illegally downloaded a movie in my life (though I'll not pretend to having never watched any). But there's what's right and there's what is. Quite basic market forces.
That's what got me into Netflix. Not new releases, but old, out of print, b-movies.
Any movie that I could possibly want enough to buy, I would have already seen at the theater. For any movie that I just saw in the theater, I can certainly wait an additional month before I have to see again.
If my post were a car, this sig would be its bumper-sticker.
Why wouldn't this line of reasoning stand up in court if you were to be busted for downloading a movie? Really the way I see it is if its rent-able by netflix and I have an account in good standing I should be entitle to watch anything I could rent no matter the means of transfer.
Largely because you are creating a copy of a work protected against such behavior, you'd legally still be on the hook.
The laws aren't designed to limit your access to the material. Instead they intend to control the circumstances under which that work can be duplicated. Just because you have the means to access it does not mean you have permission to create a copy.
Don't most Netflix customers have to wait to get new releases anyway? You queue them up and are pleasantly surprised when they arrive in your mailbox. No loss of instant gratification when there was none in the first place.
NOTE: My wife and I have SEVEN full bookshelves of DVD & Blu-Ray. We're movie nuts. We love to watch them. We love to go back and watch ones we particularly like. If they're good, we'll buy multiple editions we want--I've bought two copies of Iron Man, two full sets of Lord of the Rings, and lord knows how many Star Wars. I'll rebuy the latter two on Blu-Ray when they come out. I like to think we're the model of good customers. I don't bit torrent films because unlike some I like the way it looks on the shelf. The same as I like the way my books look on the shelf. Screw E-readers and stacks of ripped discs.
We also consume Netflix and Comcast OnDemand ravenously, and sometimes the Amazon download rental service or the local actual DVD rental store. Why?
I don't want to buy EVERY film I see. Some I'm fine with only seeing the once. I don't know if I'll like it. We only go to 10-15 films a year maximum in theaters (probably a lot compared to most). It's one of our main hobbies. Do I buy every film I see in theater on disc? Of course not. Half of them I'll never want to see again because they're either not memorable, not important to me, or total shit. Do I buy films that I've rented? ABSOLUTELY! All of them? Absolutely not! I recently watched GI Joe on a flight. Then we downloaded it on Amazon on a lark. My wife loved it, and she hates that sort of film. Now I want to buy it on Blu-Ray--why? It's fun, and it's a fun film you can watch again and toss on with company over to show off the pretty HDTV and laugh about the heinous execution of our childhood memories of GI Joe. Most importantly, again:
It's rewatchable.
Put out consistently quality, engaging films. Aim for every film to be Oscar caliber in some way. That doesn't mean every film has to have an Avatar budget or 99% of the Royal Shakespeare Company in the speaking cast. Pay for a good script. It doesn't have to be a great film--see my GI Joe example above. It's not a great film, but visually? Amazing, and rewatchable for sheer fun with people over. Pay for a good director. Pay for good lighting, decent CGI, good cinematograpy. Make films people will ****WANT**** to see more than once. You many music CDs I've bought in my life for one track that, after I played that track several times, I never listened to that CD ever, ever again? The same thing. Your trailer may be ace--but the film shit. Don't make shit films, and I'll be more likely to buy them. I'm sure the same goes for everyone else too.
Most importantly, don't piss on your devoted customers that pay your salaries. Rentals drive sales. Quality films drive sales. Crap product to simply have a release will never drive sales.
You ever notice how each week we get 3-5 new major film releases? You ever notice how 3-4 of them are substandard to the others? I think they're put out as loss leaders. You put out shit like that, and then complain that people don't all buy your annual release catalog on DVD? What did you expect would happen?
You work at our pleasure. We don't watch your products at yours.
Dude, where's my packet?
I'm not one to argue this viewpoint usually, but I think it's kind of scary to imagine the near future when any piece of media we want is so dirtcheap that it can't fund the people making it. Or heck, even fund some of them fairly well. We need incentives out there. Sure it can create some crap media/art/whatever else, but it's pretty lame if everyone just takes everything for granted and thinks they should be able to just click and have full access, for extremely cheap, to what people put a hell of a lot of time into (and all the fixed costs over the years that have developed all the technologies for the amazing stuff we have now).
Sorry but I think the only people being greedy here are those that expect everything for free/near free.
If we lived in a Star Trek world with so many resources/easy of manufacturing where no one had to worry about doing something to just "get by" comfortably*, then of course the drive would be purely intellectual/personal satisfaction, etc. Yes that is ultra geeky/optimistic, but come on, this is slashdot (well, about the geekyness.. not so sure most of you are optimists).
*Counterpoint: one may argue we are somewhat reaching that stage. I wonder how many people out there have their plasmas, surround sound systems, game systems, powerful computers that we probably didn't dream the average person could afford not too long ago... (and the insane amount of awesome open source software out there!)
Great comment - you forgot one thing - Pirates can often put out a superior product - i.e. a DVD that doesn't force you to sit through FBI warnings or unskippable trailers. You get the movie you want, immediately.
Redbox sure isn't waiting 28 days on Warner Brother release (or Universal). I saw the Hangover(WB release) just a few days after the December 18th release from a redbox. From a previous post someone said that their brother works for Redbox and basically buys every copy from every walmart in the area at midnight and stock machines. If you don't sell to Redbox, they basically with use the First Sale Doctrine without you.
Netflix really only has a few reasons for doing this. They know streaming is the future, and they need to reduce costs to be more profitable. Netflix basically don't have much real competition left and have a lot of momentum. So now they are just focusing on profitability rather then growth and competition.
"The owner of a lawfully made copy" is the rental shop. The copyright owner's exclusive right to distribute ends the moment the rental shop buys the copy, and the rental shop can do what it wants short of making further copies or holding a public screening. If you disagree with my analysis, I'd love to see you cite some U.S. circuit court cases interpreting 17 USC 109 in a way favorable to the studios.
Bingo. I wanted to watch Inglorious Bastards. So, I head off to Netflix and it's not on streaming and the DVD is on wait. Lets ignore for a moment that we live in time where we shouldn't need physical media AT ALL in order to rent something (or even buy for that matter). Next I go to the xbox movie section and I see IB. I think good, I can rent it here. Nope, it's only for purchase and it's only SD. I'm trying my hardest to give someone money to rent their content and they won't let me! At some point more and more people are going to say f' it and just go straight to TPB. The hassle of finding it to rent just isn't worth it when I can find and download it in minutes.
BTW, I think the music companies have started to learn this lesson, even if they were pulled along kicking and screaming. Look at Amazon and ITMS now. No DRM, Amazon has a great changing selection of $5 albums, and both make it easy to find whatever you are looking for and purchase for a fairly reasonable price. Why can't movies follow suit?
More streaming is a better deal on Netflix than media because of the de facto limits they put on DVD by throttling. Netflix made the right deal, for me. It's nice to see the "classic" films on my queue come up with the blue "play" button.
So on the other hand I'm sure Netflix will get a lot of forgettable titles. Warner Bro.'s has put a lot of effort into digitizing their extensive library for archival purposes and therefore it won't be any skin off of WB's back to give them tons of crap nobody's really interested in.
Except that movie is in high demand, so it says "Long wait" next to it. The second movie in the queue comes instead. But you don't really care, because you still want to see that movie. It's not like I'm a seven year old that has to see THAT one NOW!
How do you feel when several films in your queue say things like "Extremely long wait; ETA: January 1, 2042"?
Now I'm going to have to wait in the long line to buy Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
It's not like I'm going to buy or pay for the movie anyway....
Ave Molech Setting
But "28 Days Later" wasn't that good.
If there's a 'must-see' then we don't know about it until it's out of the first-run theaters. How else are you going to know that the film is good? People that go to first run movies, spend $10 each for tickets, $25 for babysitter, $5 for popcorn, and $4 for popcorn aren't going to tell you that the movie wasn't anything but good. And the second week people are always going to say the film is good to prove that they can wait for quality.
No, you gotta wait until the movie reaches the second-run $3 theaters. If it isn't any good then it won't get to these theaters. The studio will blitz the opening night with deceptive ads for a turkey and then go straight to DVD.
If it's a real 'must-see' then just watch the previews/trailers until you know the whole movie. Your average Hollywood movie can have its entire look/feel/plot experienced in a three minute preview (Spiderman III, Superman Ten, anyone?).
Nah, If it's worth seeing, then it's worth waiting for the DVD. And if it's really good, then it will make it to the library shelf where it will be free for a week or more.
And if it's great, then it's timeless quality. So why not wait a year or two to see it? What difference does it make? Now's the time to go to the library and check out for free all the excellent movies that you decided not to see because you didn't want to spend $10 on an independent or foreign film when it was in the theaters.
Myself, I always save the best for last. Maybe this week I'll watch this movie called 'Star Wars' that I've been hearing people rave about for so long.
No.
With most of the movies coming out of Hollywood these days, I wait forever. This is true even when people try to lend me DVDs. I just accept if someone is trying to be nice to me and happen to bring one along. You don't want to tell someone who is trying to be nice that you think that that movie is just a waste of time.
She made the willows dance
Waiting 28 days? OMGWTF?!? That's unconstitutional! Call a waaaaghmbulance!!!!!
Check the January sales - you might find a good deal on a sense of proportion.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
IANAL, but IIRC nobody has ever been sued for downloading a movie. What they have been sued for is making it available for others to download - which your example does not get around.
Watches a movie the year it's out, anyway?
It'll keep. And you'd be surprised how cheap it is once the hype is over...
I think they overestimate the value their movies have to me. If seeing the movie was that important, I'd have gone to the theater in the first place - and I haven't done that in probably five years. This idea, like much of what appears to pass as thinking on the part of the movie studios, is just silly.
But the "bright side" that the article mentions in passing - the increased availability of WB movies via Netflix streaming - actually is a huge plus in my mind.
So in total: I think the big winner of this "confrontation" - a confrontation forced by the studios, mind you - is going to be Netflix.
#DeleteChrome
If you don't like this, then DONT USE THEIR SERVICE.
Ok.
She made the willows dance
The people who get free content have to deal with.... wait for it...
BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW
Oops, I did not notice that WB already does this to RedBox. I rent all my movies from RedBox. I guess they are really sticking it to me.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
It IS a delay, but as Netflix is the only place I use to check new releases, it's one I admittedly won't notice
If that's all you check, then you are probably already waiting a month or more for new movies already. Have a check and see if you can find "Terminator: Salvation" or "Inglorious Basterds". They are available but you have to know they are released and search for them manually, like almost any other new movie. They "hide" them initially to keep everyone from ordering them at the same time. That's why I always have some other site open like Amazon that lists all the popular new releases while browsing Netflix. I guess that won't work now.
From the article, the real injured party in all of this other than possibly consumers is RedBox. Unlike Netflix, the delays were foisted on them by WB and other studios without any favorable terms. I'd like to know more details about it but it seems like RB has a pot of gold waiting for them at the end of their lawsuit.
Presumably Netflix pays a licensing fee whenever they stream a video to someone. By getting a video elsewhere, you are preventing such a fee from being paid by Netflix to a copyright owner.
There is the economic harm.
So why do they want Netflix to die and PirateBay to have one more good reason to exist?
The studios have taken some steps towards competing: cinema releases are increasingly worldwide and DVD releases have a shorter delay. But they're not really close - it's like the big airlines trying to do the low-cost airline thing, they just don't have the mentality for it.
Big Airlines are competing on low-cost because it is incredibly difficult to differentiate a plane ride from another plane ride to consumers. When people shop on the web they go for the lowest cost the majority of the time. Try picturing yourself eating a better meal and watching a movie on a plane, would you even pay 20$ more? Most people say to the hell with it Ill save money and eat whenever I get there.
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
Airline industry is consistently at the bottom for profit/margin, they fail if they do not have low costs. The studios make take an idea for a film, make a bunch of products based on that film, push all this shit on everyone everywhere, and are still trying to double up by not letting you even make a damn backup in the case a spec of sand finds its way onto your disc. As a secondary side note, most companies worry about customer support when they mass distribute a product. I have never got s4n74cl4wz to respond to my requests when the the frame is clipped. Think about it, how can these be "quite basic market forces" when the "competition" is distributing your product without paying you?
How is it a hassle? It IS a delay, but as Netflix is the only place I use to check new releases, it's one I admittedly won't notice. In return, we'll get way more instant-watch movies available, which I don't have to wait for and can watch on my laptop or two of the three consoles in the house.
It's hardly an anti-customer strategy when they make the same choice I'd have asked them to, given the option. The only thing currently stopping Instant-Watch from being really awesome is its subpar selection. And really, if I cared about seeing the movies from Netflix soon after they came out, I'd have seen them in theaters.
You say it's good because you'd rather have more instant watch movies, but you're assuming that increasing the amount of instant watch movies can only happen if they delay rentals, which isn't true.
Increasing the number of instant-watch movies is a good decision, but that doesn't somehow make delaying rentals a good idea - it doesn't have to be one or the other, but the studios are making it that way because they don't understand consumers.
For a random analogy: If a gunman shoots my dog, and then tells me he was going to shoot me but decided to shoot my dog instead,that doesn't make the gunman's motives any less cruel or acceptable, even though I would have chosen the same thing, given the choice between my life or my dog's. You'd choose more insta-watch movies over getting rentals sooner, but that doesn't mean that it was the best decision.
I'd rather just have my movies any way I want. I don't mind paying for some kind of rental (like Netflix, which I have) but I'm NOT going to go out and buy every movie I want to watch, I have other expenses that matter more.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Re-read what I said. I said when I find a DVD , NOT something on demand. If it were on demand I would watch it on netflix.
If they pay some licensing fee on every DVD rental they are doing it wrong as brick and mortars have no such thing.
Isn't the justice system supposed to make sense as well? Why wouldn't a judge listen to that argument and think to himself, "This is all making very good sense to me."
But as another poster said it's generally not the downloader rather the person making it available that is the one in trouble.
Netflix agreed to this because they are getting a discount on their DVD purchases and letting them cut costs.
I'm sure that's a big part of it...but the press release also mentioned that WB is giving them access to more of its catalog for their streaming service.
With physical DVDs, if WB refuses to sell directly to Netflix, they can always send someone to Costco, buy a bunch of DVDs, and rent them under the first sale doctrine. With streaming, they need an active contract with WB to do it (legally) at all. If WB decides not to renew that contract...well, there goes their streaming service. Or at least anything from Warner Bros.
$30-40 for a brand new Blu Ray disc from your local store. $20+ still for a new DVD, for crying out loud. Repeated attacks on even legal avenues for accessing content (as this article points out). Who can really fucking afford to be a movie buff?
Does Netflix have an on-demand payment instead of subscription? I do not watch a lot of movies and TV shows to rent. From its Web site, it seems like I have to subscribe to download/rent stuff. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
But, you'd better do another advertising blitz around the time it's actually available for me the way I plan on viewing it. If I forget I wanted to see your movie, I don't really consider that a loss. That's just more time for more productive hobbies.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
The problem with trying to get people you buy your movie is that it costs 6X as much as renting it, so you are eliminating a large impulse-buy crowd.
The theory, of course, is that they'll just rent it a month later. But that ignores advertising... The reason DVD releases have been moved up is because they want the first round of big-budget advertising to be fresh in your mind when they're pitching the DVD... Now, are they going to launch a 3rd round of ads, to promote the rental? Definitely not. So they're pretty well guaranteed to lose out on a big chunk of rentals, and the infamous Blockbuster entire wall covered with copies of a new release.
I'm in the crowd that really doesn't care if I see most movies months later... Some of my favorite films often pre-date me, and they're good despite being on the shelf for decades and decades. Still, I think it's a pretty cynical and short-sighted strategy. Often times, those with the money have to be FORCED by powers beyond their control, to do something that is MORE PROFITABLE FOR THEM, because they don't happen to see it, or just have a deep dislike for the changes in the market they used-to know.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If I have the patience to skip the theater showing and wait 6 months for the DVD to come out, I have the patience to wait another month for Netflix to rent it.
Maybe if WB made some movies that were actually great instead of OK, people would buy more DVDs.
Seriously, maybe my friends and I are atypical, but we have lives and if there is too big of a hiatus in mediocre ( or even good entertainment ) there is a chance we will forget about it.
I can't tell you how many television series I have lost track of when they went on hiatus for months at a time.
Many movies are okay, but just okay. I usually don't buy a DVD unless I've rented it, cheaply and know from watching it that I will want to watch it several more times in my life.
By prolonging the time I have to wait to see a DVD I may just forget about it altogether.
If a movie is good enough (rare these days ) for me to keep track of its availability, I will go see it in the theater.
I've got 200-300 items in my Netflix queue. Who cares whether I can see the latest WB picture now or a month from now... it will probably be next year before I get around to it anyway.
This kind of marketing only works if your customers are crazed, slobbering idiots and you'll only do it if you hold your customers in utter contempt. I won't deny that there may be Warner Brothers movies I want to see, but what's the rush? I've got other things to do and other things to watch.
I utilize Netflix primarily to catch up on all those classics I never saw. I watched "On the Waterfront" the other week and loved it. If the movie is good today, it will be good in a month or a year... or 50 years.
There are a hundred years' worth of good movies that are available today.
I can wait.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Another genius idea from the studios. And how's this supposed to reducepiracy how exactly? THat's just giving people *another* reason to download instead.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Legally, yes. Ethically is an entirely different matter.
Our copyright system needs heavy revision.
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
Ooooh! You're so.... SOPHISTICATED!
You are a tool. They've got you hooked on the good smack, and you can't stop watching it. But go ahead, go on hating the shit out of them anyway.
By the way, congrats on your upcoming graduation from high school. What is it, two years away or three?
They're gonna have to release some movies that are so good I can't wait another month for. Here lately, they haven't managed that feat very often. Frankly I can count on one hand the # of movies released in the last year where another 28 days would really bother me.
Those movies I'll just pirate as soon as a good dvd rip is available anyway, it's rare even without the 28 day wait for a dvd rip not to beat the dvd release by several days.
--- www.f-theocean.com
Your library lends a physical copy to you; by doing so, it makes it unavailable to others. It's not illegal for Best Buy to sell DVDs and blank DVD-R's, but it is illegal for you to use the latter to make copies of the former available to everyone on your block.
I dont get the logic.
We will make you wait longer for movies, therefore you will have access to more movies...
Damn, why did netflix take so long to come up with this?
Since they mentioned Redbox, I think the 28 day delay is just the time it takes to get a damn DVD out of it sucessfully lol. My parents were sitting outside a Walgreens waiting for me to shop and they said every single person who went up to the DVD rental thingy took forever and then eventually left, looking pissed off and without a DVD in their hand :P Which brings me to my point that they're not just saving the most profitable methods for immediate release but saving the second rate ways for later. Just think, the crappier, cheaper theater near me is on like a 2 month delay. Now it'll be where you can go pick up a personally owned, complete-in box, non-used copy immediately the same day or you could wait for shipping time to get it from Netflix. Now they just tacked on 28 days on top of the delayed, used disc rental system. So really if you REALLY want to see the movie and are REALLY excited or whatever, you REALLY have to spend more money to get it in a better format or with less effort etc. If you kinda don't care and want to spend less, you wait. I don't think there's anything too abnormal about that business model. It's sort of the same as pricing on graphics cards falling over time. If you're not THAT excited about the card, you wait the usual waiting period until it's cheaper.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
"Streamed" implies remote use of a single copy. "Downloaded" implies the copy is replicated and kept.
Absolutely not. The justice system is engineered to be about as complex as it can be and still function. Whether this is the original design or a result of corruption isn't clear, but as far as I know every legal system in the world works this way.
Thanks for the reply, I'm aware of this. It was mostly a rhetorical question as it seems like the system SHOULD make sense.
From a engineer's standpoint, writing the stream constitutes a copy, whether it goes to disk or a network. It has to be written to a buffer on your local machine to play smoothly therefore at some point all of it is stored on your computer. It doesn't matter how long it's there, or what type of storage (memory or disk) it's written to, it's a copy if it exists in two different places at the same time.
Copyright law doesn't imply how much of a movie needs to be there to constitute a copy, but IANAL, I'm an engineer. That's where the lawyers take over ;)
Streamed simply means that it's watched as the bytes come in. You've still downloaded the entire thing. You have to download it to "stream" it.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
My wife and I are a good example of what the studios are missing I think. If we -really- want to see a movie, we see it opening night in the theater. Anything not seen opening night that we want to see just ends up stuck on our Netflix queue. At that point it's already months before Netflix will have it to send out anyway, another month, or even three isn't going to be noticed at all. It shows up when it shows up. If we love a movie in the theater, or even get something from Netflix and like it, then we tend to buy a copy. But even if we're going to buy it from having seen it in the theater, then it's a movie we would never have gotten from Netflix anyway as we already decided we liked it enough to own. If we buy it after seeing it from Netflix, well we wouldn't have bought it before seeing it in the first place. So either way our Netflix queueing, and viewing of movies hasn't changed a lick, no matter how much the studios would want to delay them from getting movies.
I hope TN gets the interweb soon so those citizens can enjoy the wonder of netflix.
I don't know about everyone else, but I haven't gotten a new release from Netflix in under a month in at least a year. If I look in my queue now, EVERY movie that was released less than a year ago is in "very long wait" to "long wait" status. In fact, it's to the point right now that my "four at a time" plan hasn't resulted in actually having four movies out at a time in a month. Netflix is having delivery problems, add on top of that gouging for Bluray "access" (with no promise of actually delivering any) and now release delays, I'm seeing their days numbered.
Don't buy any Blu Rays or DVD's from any publisher who denies me the ability to satiate my Netflix fix on the day the new movie is available for sale.
I will never buy a WB Blu Ray or DVD again. Period.
Interesting take. I haven't ever pirated a movie. My argument was simply showing how the movie distributers are going to push their customers away from paying for the content. Instead of making it easier to rent, they make it harder with the hopes that the customer will pay 2x-3x more and buy the movie.
This might be valid pre-internet/on-demand/etc..., but that's not the environment we live in today. On-demand content is the way everything is moving and fighting that trend is only going to push your customers away.