Starz To Pull Content From Netflix

tekgoblin writes "Starz plans to remove all of its movies and TV shows from the Netflix streaming library after negotiations failed. Starz, which is owned by John Malone's Liberty Media, said they have ended talks with Netflix to renew a deal that ends February 28th. Netflix stands to lose a large amount of content, as Starz has licenses for first run Sony and Walt Disney movies."

Comments

Re:me!

[MightyYar]

First run comments are no longer offered.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well isn't that just fan-frick'ntastic. Great job Netflix, one more reason for your subscribers to become UN-subscribers.....Its unfortunate that they can't seem to do ANYTHING right lately. -_-

Re:Really?

[gtvr]

And you know how that this is all Netflix's fault?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a shit whose "fault" it is?

It makes the Netflix streaming service useless, so as far as I'm concerned, if Netflix wants me to pay to stream, they have to have content I want to watch.

They already have next to nothing interesting on streaming, their streaming clients universally suck ass and routinely crash, and now they're going to reduce the available content even further?

I don't care if it's "Starz's fault," it's Netflix that has to keep me as a customer, and right now, their streaming service still isn't worth paying for.

Re:Really?

[mmarlett]

Well, it's more likely that Starz wants more money for its content than Netflix gets out of its subscribers. According to the article, Starz wanted $300 million a year for the rights to show the same content that four years ago it was passing along for $30 million a year. Netflix has 22 million subscribers. Stars wanted more than $10 per subscriber per year, which would probably be fine if Netflix _only_ had Starz content and no other significant expenses.

But for my $8/month streaming account, I can say without a doubt that I do not watch more than 10% of Starz content.

Netflix just signed a streaming deal with Paramount, Lionsgate and MGM for about $200 million a year — and those three have more and better content than Starz, which suddenly thinks its worth 1/3 more than those others. Not likely.

Netflix basically just said, "Meh, we'll take the money we were going to give to you and give it to someone else for their content." Starz is not the only game in town. It's not even the best game in town. And now everybody knows how much is too much. It's just hardball.

Re:Really?

[wjousts]

Here,here. If Netflix wants to be rewarded for their good intentions, they should join a religious order. If they want to be rewarded for effort, they should get a government contract. If they want to keep me as a subscriber, they better deliver some high quality content.

Re:Really?

[Grumbleduke]

So you blame Netflix? There are two parties in this contract; we won't know which one is at fault without knowing how much Starz is demanding, and how little Netflix is offering.

Of course, the real villain here is copyright. Not the law, but the idea that it gives publishers complete control over their works (rather than just being a way to help them make a reasonable return). It means that publishers like Starz feel entitled to demand whatever price they want for their content, or flat-out refuse to license it - particularly if they'd rather you spent $10/mo on their service (even though you only want to watch the odd show), rather than paying Netflix $x/mo, of which only a fraction will end back at Starz.

The same issue is gradually making itself known with computer gaming; particularly the current Valve/EA fight, with contract negotiations breaking down as both parties want to push their own distribution systems (Steam/Origin resp.) with their products (notably Crysis2, Dragon Age 2, and soon SW:tOR).

This is bundling, it occurs when you have publishers, distributors and copyright owners all mixed together, and is anti-competitive and evil. This is what led to the EU fining Microsoft €899m in 2008, for bundling WMP with Windows (and made MS give EU users a choice of web browser, by default).

Sadly, the only way around this (short of having very strict and rigorously-enforced anti-trust laws - which take a long time to work; the initial complaint against MS above was made in 1994 - an appeal is still pending) is compulsory licensing. This would mean we could get dozens of Netflixes and Hulus, iTuneses and Spotifies, Steams and Origins, all offering competing services to access the same content - giving consumers the choice for which service to go with (rather than the copyright owner), depending on the terms ($n/mo for streaming v $m per download etc.) - with copyright owners getting paid a 'fair' amount, and not having to worry about endless contract negotiations.

Of course, this will never happen in the US/EU etc. as it would involve the big copyright owners (Disney, Warner Bros, Starz etc.) giving up control, and their refusal to allow these sorts of services already (or reliance on excessive DRM) shows how tightly they cling on to this. Plus it would probably have to involve registering copyrights, a state-run scheme, international co-operation and a significant change to the big copyright treaties (such as TRIPS or the Berne Convention).

But one can dream...

Re:Really?

[Darkness404]

Exactly. Netflix is designed so people can watch DVDs and streaming content. I don't care who's fault it is that I can't watch what I want to watch. If Netflix doesn't have what I want to watch, why should I subscribe to them? Between this and their spin on rate increases that somehow it is a /good/ thing I'm paying more, I'm not sure if it is really worth the price.

Re:Really?

[Midnight Thunder]

Also with the slow death of video rental stores, the only place to get their content will be torrents.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they want to be rewarded for effort, they should get a government contract.

Never been involved in government work, have you?

Re:Really?

[PopeScott]

Thank you for this post. "Netflix just signed a streaming deal with Paramount, Lionsgate and MGM for about $200 million a year" This right here just saved my streaming account. Sound's like my selection is going to get better. Screw Starz.

Re:Really?

[Seumas]

Netflix has been doing great and I've been of the mind that they could charge me triple what they do now and I'd still feel like it was a great deal.

Unfortunately, it seems like 50% of the content is from Starz. If they're going to lose all of that, there's less reason for me to remain subscribed.

If this occurs, I'm sure we'll see torrent traffic rise, again.

Re:Really?

[Seumas]

Didn't Netflix make like more than two billion dollars last quarter, alone? It seems like $300m isn't too unreasonable. Of course it was only $30m several years ago. Netflix wasn't nearly the huge deal it has become (streaming-wise).

What I don't get is - why does Starz have all this content? Why doesn't Netflix just buy the rights to the content from whoever it is that Starz is buying the rights to the content from?

Re:Really?

[larry bagina]

Last quarter, they had revenue of $788 million with income of $110 million. I'm more of a letter guy, but I do believe that's less than $2 billion.

Re:Really?

[UnknowingFool]

$2B in revenue but $160M in profit. So with no other changes, Netflix stands to lose money next year if they accepted the deal. Unless they get a lot of subscribers, or they figure how to significantly cut costs, or they raise prices again.

Re:Really?

[alexander_686]

It’s not Netflix fault or Starz – because – gosh – it sounds one of them is doing something sinful or illegal Think about it this way

Starz is a monopoly – in so far that that they are the only people selling first run streaming Disney movies.

Netflix is a quasi-monopsony [Technically not, but it’s the largest streaming video company, and if Starz want’s Netflix consumers they have to go through them]

What is the “fair” price that Netflix should pay Starz? There is $X of profit for 1 year for steaming videos that needs to be split between these two. [I am not ignoring that there are substitute products (DVDs, ITunes, Bit Torrent’s, etc – it just limits the profit to $X – not $X + more)

I don’t think there is one in the sense that there is a moral division of profits in this case, nor does game theory help much.

Protracted negations often happen when you have a Monopoly/Monopsony dynamic going. As a comparison, look at the negations that occur between Somali pirates and ship-owners. Everybody knows that in the end the ship-owners will pay the pirates. The pirates can’t sell their stolen ship to anybody else and it is the ship-owners best interest to get there ship and crew back as fast as possible. On the other hand, neither has much leverage over the other to force negations forward – other than brute force. . Thus the negations can last for months over a few million dollars.

Re:Really?

[petermgreen]

Sadly, the only way around this (short of having very strict and rigorously-enforced anti-trust laws - which take a long time to work; the initial complaint against MS above was made in 1994 - an appeal is still pending) is compulsory licensing. This would mean we could get dozens of Netflixes and Hulus, iTuneses and Spotifies, Steams and Origins, all offering competing services to access the same content - giving consumers the choice for which service to go with (rather than the copyright owner), depending on the terms ($n/mo for streaming v $m per download etc.) - with copyright owners getting paid a 'fair' amount, and not having to worry about endless contract negotiations.

It would also require someone to decide what is "fair". Is an hour of "big brother" or "american idol" worth the same as an hour of "planet earth" or "mythbusters"?

Re:Really?

[RobNich]

Starz isn't "buying" the rights. They "own" the rights for a period of time. Until that time period is over, they are the only source.

Re:Really?

[AngryDeuce]

Also with the slow death of video rental stores, the only place to get their content will be torrents.

C'est la vie; torrenting is still the easiest and most convenient way to get the content anyway. Sooner or later these companies are going to realize that if people want to see something, they're going to see it...especially digital media. The more difficult they make it to get the content legitimately, the more people turn to The Pirate Bay and they get nothing.

Case in point, HBO Go...I recently tried to sign up for this service since I'm supposed to be eligible to get it due to being a cable subscriber (Charter), after about 6 steps into the process requiring me to use the Charter email address I've literally never touched in my 10 years as a subscriber I said "fuck it" and just download the shit illegally like I always did. I shouldn't have to do that, I'm a paying customer, but the legal process is so retarded that they make it impractical.

They'll learn, just like the record labels did. It's only a matter of time...

Re:Really?

[Luckyo]

Beauty of copyright: they ARE the only game in town when it comes to movies that they own copyright to.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never had Netflix streaming client crash on me. Not on WinXP, not on Win7, not on the Wii. It handles network traffic well and I get a decent DVD quality picture 95% of the time. We disagree on the "nothing interesting on streaming". I've been able to watch a lot of tv shows that are either unavailable or that I like. I've been able to watch a lot of documentaries or science shows that are never or no longer aired. I've been able to watch a lot of movies I've either never heard of or was not interested in spending $7 - $12 to see at a theater (sure, I have to wait a half year, but so what).

You are correct, Netflix does have to keep customers. But it seems to me that the movie industry is doing their best to kill the cash cow.

Re:Really?

[bws111]

Starz is a monopoly? What kind of twisted logic is that? By that definition, Ford is a monopoly because they are the only ones selling Ford vehicles. Toyota is also a monopoly, as they are the only ones selling Toyotas. And let's not forget the juggernaut monopoly of Bentley.

This is a simple case of buyers and sellers negotiating a price. If they can't agree, the deal is not done.

Re:Really?

[Golddess]

And yet, as a Netflix subscriber, my first thought at reading this was "good riddance". But then I'm one of those people that insists on getting uncropped content (while I've not browsed the entire Starz library that was available on Netflix, any movies/shows that I did watch that Starz had provided would be cropped so that there would be no black bars on my 16:9 screen).

Re:Really?

[Grumbleduke]

This already happens; in the UK we have a little-known thing called the Copyright Tribunal, which acts as a sort of mini-court/dispute resolution thing. It's job (by law) is to dictate the terms of licence agreements (mainly between collective licensing bodies and end users) in cases where the parties can't agree on them themselves.

Historically, this comes from part of the original Copyright Act 1709 (8 Anne c.21, often simply called the Statute of Anne) which gave a cause of action against booksellers etc. who were charging unreasonable prices for their works. Early copyright law is very much focussed on being paid a fair amount, not on control.

Re:Really?

[Tim C]

and those three have more and better content than Starz, which suddenly thinks its worth 1/3 more than those others

Not 1/3, but 1/2 - they want $100 million more, which is 50% of what Paramount, Lionsgate and MGM are charging. I.e. it's actually *worse* than you said.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have to. We watch hundreds of billions of dollars get thrown at over budget, past due, useless projects every year. It's all right there in black and white. Government contracts are a joke.

Re:Really?

[SomePgmr]

It's very simple, really. If they don't have what you want to watch, don't subscribe.

Personally, the last thing I want is for Netflix to cave in and end up securing content the way cable companies secure content, such that I have to pay $80/mo to get the 3 tv shows I watch.

They're an alternative source of entertainment. If you want Starz content, go pay your cable company the $10/mo for Starz. I liked the Netflix service just fine before the Starz deal. The cost hasn't gone up for me, and I imagine I'll like it the same now.

Re:Really?

[Hassman]

Angry much?

I, for one, am endlessly entertained by Netflix's streaming content and the DVD service is crazy convenient. The loss of Starz (if the deal is truly dead) is unfortunate. Some of the content I watch comes from there, though to be honest not a lot.

The Netflix clients are phenomenal, as is the streaming quality. I have never seen it crash once, so I suspect your anger at Netflix is misplaced here.

If you don't like the service, cancel your subscription and pay 2 - 3 times more elsewhere for less content. The choice is yours. God bless competition.

Re:Really?

[Sarten-X]

Sadly, the only way around this ... is compulsory licensing.

Coming soon: Officially-licensed porn of every Disney character!

Compulsory licensing eliminates any control over how a work is used or presented. If you're forced to license your content you can't object to situations that devalue the work you've produced. If a major cinematic element of a movie is its detailed scenery, would it really be fair to run it through a streaming service that cuts out 75% of the detail? Or what about one that surrounds a dark suspenseful movie with flashing ads? Content owners would lose the basic ability to say "no".

Compulsory licensing is also unlikely to actually improve competition. The arbitrator (or whatever entity decides what's "fair") adds yet another layer of bureaucracy, easily swayed by overstatements (and understatements) of value. Think of the value, according to the RIAA, of a pirated song. Contract negotiations would be even longer and more expensive, because the owner couldn't back out, so they have to continue investing time and people to dealing with the negotiations.

Compulsory licensing assumes that everyone has a price at which they'll abandon any attempt at art, and that said price can be determined by some third party.

Re:Really?

[DarKnyht]

Just because the Starz logo comes up in 4:3 does not mean that the rest of the show does. Every film I have watched on Netflix from Starz has been in HD (except when my bandwidth cannot keep up with it temporarily).

Re:Really?

[mc_barron]

I've never had any issues with their streaming client; I have watched online, using my Roku device, and using my Wii device. All performed well. Perhaps the problem is on your end (network)?

Re:Really?

[Grumbleduke]

Starz is a monopoly? What kind of twisted logic is that? By that definition, Ford is a monopoly because they are the only ones selling Ford vehicles. Toyota is also a monopoly, as they are the only ones selling Toyotas. And let's not forget the juggernaut monopoly of Bentley.

You are confusing the content monopoly with the distribution system monopoly. Yes, Ford has a monopoly on the manufacture Ford cars, but they're not the only ones selling them. You can get them second-hand, through a dealer, through a distributor etc.. Imagine, instead, if Ford could prevent people from selling a Ford car without a licence - they could then insist that the only way to buy a Ford would be from them, and when you did that, you had to get 5 cars at once, and agree to buy cars from them for the next 10 years...

Of course, if they tried to do that, no one would buy Ford cars; they'd move to Toyota or Bentley (now part of VW) - but when the top half-dozen manufacturers control over 50% of production (rough estimate from here), such a practice could easily become standard.

The other major point is that a car is a car, and what makes a Ford a Ford (v a VW or Skoda) is the Ford logo on the front. While there are significant variations, and individual companies may hold design rights and patents on certain elements, very few substantial designs are restricted to one company. This means that while Ford have the monopoly on Ford cars, Toyota could, if it wanted to, make a car very similar to a particular Ford model, but stick their logo on. This makes the market much more competitive and gives consumers much more choice.

In contrast, while the contrary could be argued in some cases, each TV show/film is unique. There is no other way to get an episode of, for example, the recent Camelot series, or Torchwood: Miracle Day without going to Starz (or their partners). The very essence and purpose of the object (the show) is protected by copyright etc., whereas with a car, it is only the specifics (the logos, design, possible patented parts) that is unique to any one manufacturer.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well put. And I think people are forgetting Hulu and Amazon. Both significant in the VOD world. And honestly, I'm kinda glad it worked out this way.

The content owners and network licensees behind the shows we watch are every bit as responsible for our insanely priced, bundle-only cable channel line-ups. The cable companies themselves have every bit of the technology and billing capacity to do a la carte, but they can't because they're being screwed by the network owners too. Want to give one of your customers ESPN? Guess what, you're getting 12 other channels too. The cable co's are mostly just guilty of passing the rape on to you.

They all need to be smacked around on the long, painful road to cord-cutting. It's going to take forever, but the market is going to fix this problem come hell or high water.

Re:Really?

[AvitarX]

Starz also streams their content, Netflix is their competitor. I had friends that used stars, because it allowed overnight download of a video, then watching the next day on their crappy DSL, they didn't have cable.

I think Starz wants more money, or direct subscribers, I don't expect that this will work for them though.

Re:Really?

[Grumbleduke]

Coming soon: Officially-licensed porn of every Disney character!

Firstly, "officially-licensed" would quickly lose its meaning and appeal under a compulsory licensing scheme. If you look at Creative Commons stuff (where all relevant uses are "officially-licensed") the equivalent phrase appears to be "creator endorsed" (which is 'better' in many ways, as it involves the creator rather than a mere licensor). Also, it would be interesting to see if current copyright laws could be used to stop porn of Disney characters... particularly given the expression/idea divide. Plus once the works are out of copyright, it ceases to be an issue (and most Disney characters are based on public domain ones, so you can do what you like with them).

Compulsory licensing eliminates any control over how a work is used or presented.

And? Maybe I wasn't clear (I'm not a great writer), but a large part of my original post was emphasising that this "need for control" is a bad thing. It has crept into copyright over the last 100 or so years, and has no real place there, being responsible for much of the evils that copyright has caused. If I build a house or a table, I don't get any control over how it is used once I've sold it, why should a creator have control over their work once published? Yes, of course they should receive fair compensation for the use, but control?

From my understanding, most European copyright law has a separate section for "moral rights" including the protection from degrading or defamatory use. I'm all for keeping that (and, if anything, strengthening it), but that's not the same thing as control - that's part of defamation law.

Compulsory licensing is also unlikely to actually improve competition. The arbitrator (or whatever entity decides what's "fair") adds yet another layer of bureaucracy, easily swayed by overstatements (and understatements) of value. Think of the value, according to the RIAA, of a pirated song. Contract negotiations would be even longer and more expensive, because the owner couldn't back out, so they have to continue investing time and people to dealing with the negotiations.

As discussed above, State-run licensing does exist, and does seem to function (at least on a small scale). A large part of it is that it eliminates the contract negotiations entirely - one doesn't need a contract if one can go straight to a readily available licence. But yes, there is the big issue of valuing work (which is partly why most copyright laws long-abandoned a requirement of something being artistic). It will be interesting to see if anything happens with the UK's Digital Copyright Exchange, if it ever gets set up...

Perhaps the simplest way to get around this is just to cut back copyright to 5 years, restrict it to artistic works and give up on licensing? Only something like 5% of US-registered copyright works are commercially viable after 5 years, and copyright covers considerably more stuff than is ever registered - it wouldn't have a major affect on the vast majority of copyright owners...

Re:Really?

[Aeros]

Same here as far as the client. I did have it crash a couple of years ago but for at least the last two years it has been perfect. I am hoping this recent incident holds them on changing their prices. At least I don't think they have switched yet as my wife takes care of all the bills. uggg...im useless.

Re:Really?

[NeutronCowboy]

What do you think copyright is designed to do? It is designed to give a monopoly on the distribution rights of certain works. Yes, Ford has a monopoly on selling Ford stuff, but that's because of their monopoly on the use of "Ford" enforced through trademarks. The difference is that the products offered by Ford and Toyota under their monopoly brands are not different enough to create significant switching barrier. However, copyrighted works have to differ significantly to be able to be sold - if they don't, it's copyright infringement.

So yes, there is a monopoly at work here.

It's also a case of buyers and sellers negotiating a price, but realize that the market in which the negotiation takes place is not a free market. One side has significantly less bargaining power than the other.

Re:Really?

[grif_91]

It's actually not that hard to get your charter account I'm sure. And that is the last step of setting up your account. Give HBO Go a shot, it's like Netflix, but free (sort of). And they have quite a bit of content. I chose it over the illegitimate sources several times. I'm all for going the easier route with piracy if need be, but have some realistic expectations about what's "impractical".

Re:Really?

[Reverand Dave]

I've never had the client crash either no matter what browser I use or on the Wii. I can always find something to watch and more often than not it's not the "Starz" content. This is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. You have to take Mohammed to the mountain not the mountain to Mohammed in this case. Starz is a pretty minor player in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Really?

[BrokenSoldier]

Starz streams, but to be able to stream natively to the TV is why I have netflix. Now I have to do some sort of media server thing to get that content onto my TV rather than a computer screen.

Re:Really?

[KingMotley]

I think it's a great job. Starz has crap content anyhow, they can take it and go home... home with $0. Content providers complain that they are losing money, and yet they make enough to burn $300 million a year without a second thought? Lol! Good job netflix, please keep the content providers from raping you (and us by forcing you to raise prices to compensate). In fact, I agree with your stance so much, I just doubled the stocks I own in NFLX this morning.

Re:Really?

[bws111]

Just like you can get a car second hand, you can get a Disney movie on DVD (new or used, or rented). Starz does not have a monopoly on Disney films. They had an agreement with Disney for pay cable TV distribution. Somehow they found a loophole that allowed them to claim Netflix as one of their customers. Disney has now closed that loophole, and said anyone who wants to stream must negotiate directly with Disney.

As to your last point, so what? Do you some sort of inherent right to get a recent episode of Camelot? No, you do not. Anti-trust regulations are meant to protect consumers from harm - no-one is being harmed by being unable to stream Disney movies. If Starz (or anyone else) had a monopoly over the entire entertainment industry then there would probably be a reasonable reason for anti-trust action. But they don't.

Re:Really?

[bws111]

Yes, Disney has a monopoly on it's properties. Completely immaterial to the subject at hand. Your choice of Ford vs Toyota is exactly the same as Disney vs Universal. If you like one product more than the other, that is the one you want. And what the hell is a switching barrier? Do you mean that if you stream Disney movies there is some huge expense or technical thing preventing you from watching Universal movies? No - it is just a matter of your preference, and no-one is forced to make your wants a reality.

Please explain how one side has significantly less bargaining power in this case. If anything the consumer has way more power than Disney. Disney needs consumers. Consumers do not need Disney.

Re:Really?

[AngryDeuce]

I couldn't even activate the email account over the internet, I had to call customer service and talk to a live agent so they could set it all up before I could even begin the process of signing up for HBO Go, and due to the fact that I already have to deal with their customer service 3 times a year minimum due to service problems on a this "ridiculously overloaded node" (the level 2 tech's term, not mine) I was not going to spend another 30 minutes on the phone with them in order to do something I can do already, albeit illegally.

Why do I even need my ISP email anyway? Why is my ISP account number, name, and address not enough to sign up for the service, can they not even do the fucking verification themselves, they need me to do that for them , too, by accessing my ISP-given email account? Hell, the link on HBO's site didn't even work with my ISP's web site, I had to click through about half a dozen links just to find out what I needed from Charter in order to verify I really pay for HBO. Even if the process had worked, it's still a whole lot easier to just get the shit via torrent, and I get to keep it when I'm done watching to boot.

Re:Really?

[NeutronCowboy]

Yes, consumers do not need Disney. They also don't need the Internet, cable, a fancy house or even clothes. Let's just dispense with the discussion of need and say that someone wants something, and they have roughly identified what it is they want.

In this case, just for the sake of argument, let's say that that's a well-written animated movie that was released in the last 5 years, appropriate for kids and adults of all ages. Shouldn't be hard, right? Well, for a very large section of population, that's Pixar, and therefore Disney. For a lot of people, this means that a Netflix contract with Starz is the only way that they're going to get what they're looking for through Netflix. The switching barrier is that only one distributor has the story that they're looking for, and switching distributor is completely pointless.

Can you settle for something else? Sure. I mean, I can watch Star Trek for a couple of hours without noticing time go by. But I will have changed product. It's like walking into a hardware store looking for a hammer, and walking out with a saw because no one within 100 miles carries a hammer. Sure, they're both handy tools, but I'm changing my woodworking plans.

You can argue that the movie situation is similar to Ford versus Toyota, although I would say that you're missing the visceral connection that people have with stories, as opposed to with things. No one says "That Ford truck speaks to me". Many people say "That movie speaks to me".

Re:Really?

[kelemvor4]

In his defense he said effort, not results.

Re:Really?

[Duradin]

Because Netflix is evil because they don't support linux (and $OBSCURE_OS_TWO_PEOPLE_IN_TOTAL_USE) and they make you pay for it, whether you want it or not!

They should totally eat any increased cost of operations and not pass it on to us poor customers! Once they set their prices they should never have been allowed to change them, ever!

Re:Really?

[TheSync]

"Netflix basically just said, "Meh, we'll take the money we were going to give to you and give it to someone else for their content." Starz is not the only game in town. It's not even the best game in town. And now everybody knows how much is too much. It's just hardball."

I'd argue that Starz cut an incredibly cheap (and perhaps stupid) deal with Netflix that allowed Netflix to start an unsustainable business model with pricing to the consumer that is too low. Everyone in Hollywood felt the Starz/Netflix deal was too cheap.

Look at the cable retrans fees, ~$4/sub/month for ESPN, ~$1/sub/month for many broadcast networks. It is not surprising that Starz wants ~$1/sub/month for their movies.

Re:Really?

[mmarlett]

The biggest difference is that Netflix can say, "Ah, but only X number of our subscribers watched your content." That is, they can probably look Starz right in the eye and say, "Only two million of our 22 million subscribers actually looked at your content." Which I think would be about right.

Cable makes some assumptions about how much various services get used. Netflix can point to actual data, not assumptions. It changes the negotiations quite a bit.

And I know that as a Netflix subscriber, when I see that something is from Starz, I tend to avoid it. It tends to be low quality. If I wanted low quality, I'd watch it on cable.

Re:Really?

[spud603]

The netflix clients are phenomenal? How does a 'phenomenal' client max out my 2.8GHz processor to display a *paused* video? That and it routinely takes over a minute for the Silverlight-based client to even load itself, let alone start loading the content.

Re:Really?

[jythie]

And it is short sighted fighting like that which makes piracy so attractive. I think with a lot of consumers, it is not about the cost, but about getting a consistant service with the content they want and the knowledge that said content will still be there tomorrow. All of this 'well, maybe you will be able to finish watching that series IF someone we don't control says it is ok' just drives people away.

Re:Really?

[Junta]

Their Android client is flaky as anything. PS3 client works ok (though their UI redesign is atrocious). When it does handle network traffic at all, it tends to handle it well (though I wish it could be configured to wait for better quality from the get go instead of starting crappy and then upping the quality). They have been afflicted by EC2 outages more than I would like.

Re:Really?

[TheABomb]

And Netflix streams well enough that "crappy DSL" can handle it on my TV.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix is nowhere near a monopoly. Hulu, Amazon, Vudu—off the top of my head; there's probably others—all do the same thing. It just so happens that Amazon and Netflix are the only ones that do it better than quarter-assed.

But to say that they're a monopoly just because they're "the largest" would make Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and HP monopolies.

Re:Really?

[Golddess]

You misunderstand. Say for example a movie on DVD has black bars at the top and bottom, because it was shot in a wider format than 16:9. Were I to load that movie on Netflix, and it was being provided by Starz, the left and right sides would be cropped in order to display the movie in a 16:9 format without any black bars.

Re:Really?

[Wild_dog!]

Like the 60 billion wasted of the 240 billion given to private contractors in Iraq and Afganistan. That has been the largest fraud perpetrated on we taxpayers so far.

Government contracts aren't so much a joke as are the thieves who steal from the taxpayers and the government officials too embedded with multinational corporations to look after the interests of the taxpayers. We need better oversight for the citizens.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the real villain here is copyright. Not the law, but the idea that it gives publishers complete control over their works (rather than just being a way to help them make a reasonable return).

This isn't inherent in copyright. Other forms of content, most notably music, are subject to the same copyright laws and yet have compulsory licensing rates that allow people to stream the copyrighted work without prior approval.

What should happen is for the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) to set compulsory licensing rates for streaming video as they've done for streaming audio. Netflix would still be free to negotiate individual deals with various copyright holders, but they would be legally able to stream anything so long as they paid the statutory rate. Netflix should be pressuring congress to make this happen. If that were the case, Netflix could have two categories of streaming for its users...a premium category that included unlicensed content and is limited to a certain number of plays per subscriber per month and an unlimited category.

Re:Really?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

That's OK. They aren't losing high-quality content.

Just commercial superfluity from Disney and Sony.

Re:Really?

[bws111]

The problem is that people are using the term 'monopoly' with some even going so far as suggesting government action for something that is in no way a monopoly. Let's take the example of a real monopoly - Standard Oil. Time was, if you wanted oil, you had no choice but to buy Standard Oil. Not if you wanted 'Esso Oil', or '93 octane gasoline', or 'oil delivered directly to my house', or anything like that. Just oil - all of it. They got that way by various means designed to eliminate any competitors, such as buying and dismantling them, pricing deals with railroads, etc. This meant it was virtually impossible to be in the oil business if you were not Standard Oil.

Now look at what we are talking about here: Are you complaining about Starz controlling the entire entertainment industry? No. The entire movie industry? No. The entire well-written, family movie industry? No. The entire well-written, family, animated movie industry? No. The entire well-written, family, animated Disney/Pixar movies industry? No (you can watch them on TV, buy or rent DVDs, etc). The entire well-written, family, animated Disney/Pixar movies delivered via the internet industry? (No, Amazon carries Disney/Pixar movies). The entire well-written, family, animated Disney/Pixar movies delivered via the internet on Netflix industry? Bingo!

And what anti-competitive actions did Starz take to cause their big monopoly? None. Netflix is free to negotiate their own deal with Disney, they just don't want to.

Re:Really?

[the_fat_kid]

Do they have good benefits over there?
401k? What's parking like?

Re:Really?

[bws111]

Wow, a lot of bullshit in there, isn't there? Let's start with the "need to control" thing that has "crept in" to copyright. Yep, that is brand new alright. I mean there is nothing even vaguely like ability to control in this statement "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;", is there? If 'exclusive Right' doesn't mean ability to control, what the hell does it mean?

Since all of the rest of your bullshit arguments stem from that error, they are all meaningless.

Re:Really?

[Tetsujin]

Of course, the real villain here is copyright. Not the law, but the idea that it gives publishers complete control over their works (rather than just being a way to help them make a reasonable return). It means that publishers like Starz feel entitled to demand whatever price they want for their content, or flat-out refuse to license it - particularly if they'd rather you spent $10/mo on their service (even though you only want to watch the odd show), rather than paying Netflix $x/mo, of which only a fraction will end back at Starz.

Sadly, the only way around this (short of having very strict and rigorously-enforced anti-trust laws - which take a long time to work; the initial complaint against MS above was made in 1994 - an appeal is still pending) is compulsory licensing.

Actually, I was thinking: another equitable way might be if they set some kind of limit on how long an individual or party can hold copyright on a work. Like instead of the current system, where the copyright holder has exclusive control over the work in perpetuity, maybe copyright could be limited to 10 or 20 years... That way, content distributors would at least have plenty of older material to run. Copyright owners would still have some leverage with their new and recent material, but with competing material out of copyright, and limited time for them to profit on their new material, their position would be reduced from one of absolute power to something more reasonable.

Re:Really?

[Grumbleduke]

Just like you can get a car second hand, you can get a Disney movie on DVD (new or used, or rented). Starz does not have a monopoly on Disney films. They had an agreement with Disney for pay cable TV distribution. Somehow they found a loophole that allowed them to claim Netflix as one of their customers. Disney has now closed that loophole, and said anyone who wants to stream must negotiate directly with Disney.

So Disney is enforcing its distribution monopoly on its content... which is the problem, caused by copyright, that I was identifying as being at the heart of this issue. As for the renting issue, renting and streaming are legally very different (at least in the US) - renting is perfectly legal (provided the DVD was legally bought in the first place), but streaming requires a licence. This is why Netflix was able to set up in the first place; it just needed to buy a load of DVDs, no need to worry about getting licence agreements with Hollywood et al.. This contrasts with the EU, where renting *is* covered by copyright, and does require a licence, so legally I can't rent a Disney DVD without Disney licensing that.

However, Starz (the cable company) does have a monopoly on Starz (the film company) films. That's where the issue of competition comes in; you have one company acting as both publisher and distributor, meaning it gets favourable distribution deals, and will do what it can to block other distribution methods.

As to your last point, so what? Do you some sort of inherent right to get a recent episode of Camelot? No, you do not. Anti-trust regulations are meant to protect consumers from harm - no-one is being harmed by being unable to stream Disney movies. If Starz (or anyone else) had a monopoly over the entire entertainment industry then there would probably be a reasonable reason for anti-trust action. But they don't.

I certainly didn't wish to imply the existence of any inherent rights... but look at it from the other point of view; the episode exists, it is published, it can easily (almost without effort and expense) be made available to the public - the only thing stopping this is the government-given restriction, saying that only Starz (et al.) can do so. Similarly, I don't have any inherent right to drink water, but if a government decided to grant a certain company an exclusive right to give people water (outlawing any other way of accessing) that would certainly raise eyebrows...

The anti-trust comment was more aimed at the issue of bundling; i.e. to watch film A you must subscribe to service B (or to play game C2, you must use service O); where a company abuses its monopoly over distributing certain content (to which it owns the copyright or has appropriate licenses) by restricting the legal ways of accessing that content to specific services. Now, some people would say that that's fair enough, and their right; my point was the emphasise that this entire issue stems from an "unnatural" set of laws, which aren't doing their job properly any more (discussed further below).

Re:Really?

[TheSync]

""Only two million of our 22 million subscribers actually looked at your content." Which I think would be about right."

I suspect every one of the 22 million subs with kids has streamed "Toy Story 3"....the Starz deal provided new Sony and Disney movies. In fact, Starz accounted for half of the top 50 streaming movie titles for Netflix in 2009 and 2010.

Re:Really?

[Myrv]

Just like you can get a car second hand, you can get a Disney movie on DVD (new or used, or rented).

But you can't watch them via a streamed connection as the case against Zediva has shown. Zediva bought individual discs and streamed them on a one-to-one basis to users. For all intents the user had rented a real physical disc but because it was streamed over a network the courts deemed it a violation of copyright. So no, streaming companies cannot just buy used or new discs from just anyone. This would be the same as requiring all used car lots to buy their cars from the licensed dealer (no car auctions, no trade-ins, no private purchases).

Re:Really?

[Grumbleduke]

Ok, now we're confusing "means" and "end". So, let's start with the US Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

The "end" of copyright is to "promote ... useful arts". The means for doing so is by giving "for limited Times" certain "exclusive Right[s]." It doesn't say "To give authors control over their works..." That's a hint that this isn't about control.

Looking at pretty much any modern copyright law, there are three very clear ways to spot that the laws aren't about control. Firstly, they're time-limited. If copyright was about giving creators control, it would either last indefinitely, or as long as the creator lived - so they could control their work. This is particularly obvious in the early copyright laws were the duration was anything from 14 years to 5. In fact, in the Constitution quoted above, there's that "limited time" part, highlighting this.

Secondly, copyright isn't absolute. While the early copyright acts (the British Copyright Act 1709, US Copyright Act 1790) didn't contain them, defences to copyright cropped up fairly quickly (with "fair abridgement", the precursor to "fair use" being created in 1740, in Gyles v Wilcox. These days they tend to be enshrined in legislation (fair use is in the 1976 US Copyright Act and the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has a whole host of "permitted acts"). Again, if copyright was about control, why would there be exceptions and defences? This takes away control from creators.

Thirdly (perhaps the weakest argument) copyright is transferable or revocable. It can be bought and sold like any other intangible property (at least, in some jurisdictions; some or all of it in others are bound to the creator); this gives creators control over their works by allowing them to give up control over it. That seems a rather odd way of doing so.

Of course, when I wrote that comment I didn't have the US Constitution in mind; I was thinking of the original Copyright Act 1709 (8 Anne c.21, often referred to as simply the Statute of Anne), or to give it its full title:

An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.

Again, this is about "encouraging learning", not about giving authors control. In fact, if you read the text (which I recommend, it's a good read; particularly comparing it with modern copyright laws) the purpose it gives (along with the above) is to prevent booksellers and publishers from printing works to the "very great Detriment" of authors and the "Ruin of them and their Families." In order to fix this, it gives authors (or those who would become known as copyright owners) the "sole Liberty of Printing and Reprinting" their books for 14 years (subject to some qualifications about price and registration). [If it helps, the 1790 Act was mostly copied (ah, the irony) from the 1709 Act.]

To me, this implies that copyright was originally about money, not control. It was a means to ensure that authors had the first chance at getting a reasonable financial return on their books, not a means to give them complete control over their works.

Anyway, I hope some of this will help convince you that copyright isn't entirely about control (or wasn't originally), but by giving copyright owners some limited control (as a means to an end), has led them to feel entitled to greater control. Perhaps that might encourage you to revise your opinion of my post...

Re:Really?

[bws111]

How is Disney enforcing it's rights a 'problem'? It is the whole freaking point of copyright law. Disney (and the other studios) create those movies (which people apparently absolutely MUST have) for one and only one reason - to make as much money as possible. Do you really think that they would have made those movies (or will continue to make movies) if they don't have the ability to sell them for whatever price the market will bear? If so, you are incredibly naive.

I don't really care if Starz appears as a monopoly to Netflix or not. My discussion of DVD buying and renting was meant to rebut the case that Netflix/Starz have some sort of monopoly on Disney movies as far as the consumer is concerned.

Starz makes exclusive content? So what? So do ABC, NBC, CBS, HBO, etc. The fact that SOME of them may decide to license SOME of their content to SELECTED outlets doesn't change the fact that none of the have to do that. Your idiotic proposal would mean that NBC should be forced to allow CBS to air its shows, thereby negating the whole point of NBC existing in the first place. Netflix is perfectly capable of creating it's own content and not licensing that to Starz or Amazon if it so desires.

You are using loaded words like 'monopoly' and 'anti-trust' and 'abusing position' entirely inappropriately. First, to 'abuse your position', you must have an actual position to abuse. That is you must be completely dominant in an industry. No-one that is being discussed counts. No, having a so-called 'monopoly' on your own products does not count, ever. Abuse of position occurs when you use your dominant position in one area to engage in anti-competitive behavior in another area. If Starz was the ONLY TV network, then it could abuse it's position by only allowing it's own content to be shown, locking out other studios.

Re:Really?

[bws111]

I am not talking about what some company can do, I am talking about what consumers can do. And you can stream them, Amazon does it.

Re:Really?

[Grumbleduke]

How is Disney enforcing it's rights a 'problem'? It is the whole freaking point of copyright law.

Disney enforces its copyrights => Starz removes all its content from Netflix (a) => A large number of people lose their primary access to Starz (and related content) => Fewer people view said content, (b) => Starz makes less money => Starz is able to fund less new content.

So if, like me, you think that copyright should be about encouraging the creation and dissemination of artistic works... it's failed rather spectacularly.

Disney (and the other studios) create those movies (which people apparently absolutely MUST have) for one and only one reason - to make as much money as possible. Do you really think that they would have made those movies (or will continue to make movies) if they don't have the ability to sell them for whatever price the market will bear?

Which is, again, getting means and end the wrong way around. Copyright is about encouraging creation of works by giving creators the chance to make some money out of it, not about making it easier for companies to make more money (or it is in those places where art is about art, rather than a mere investment). Whichever way you look at it, here Starz have chosen to *not* make money from their content. The market (in this case, Netflix) isn't willing to bear the price they're offering, and so rather than offer a lower price, they're simply shutting down that revenue stream. This is an example of copyright failing utterly.

Starz makes exclusive content? So what? So do ABC, NBC, CBS, HBO, etc. The fact that SOME of them may decide to license SOME of their content to SELECTED outlets doesn't change the fact that none of the have to do that. Your idiotic proposal would mean that NBC should be forced to allow CBS to air its shows, thereby negating the whole point of NBC existing in the first place.

And again I find myself needing to note the difference between producers and distributors. I admit it is confusing as often (with TV) they are the same - which is why issues with competition arise. It's slightly different over here, where TV tends to be made by production companies and then sold to the broadcasters (we don't really have "networks"). Allowing CBS to show stuff created "for" or "by" NBC does not negate NBC; it means that you split up producer and distributor. The networks still get to choose what to show, when to show it, how to charge for it, how to package it etc., and so have to offer a competitive service to both producers (if they want 'better' deals than the compulsory licence) and to customers (who aren't forced into buying a package with a hundred channels if they want to watch a particular 30-minutes-a-week of programming).

First, to 'abuse your position', you must have an actual position to abuse. That is you must be completely dominant in an industry. ... having a so-called 'monopoly' on your own products does not count, ever.

This would be where I disagree; but as this is a disagreement in definition, and I'm not an expert in business terminology etc. or anti-trust law, there doesn't seem to be much point in pursuing this as I'm likely not using the terms in the correct, legal context and manner.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey.. a level headed and non-inflamatory analysis of the issue.. Hmmm .. how un /. - like

Re:Really?

[thePuck77]

Funny...it doesn't do that on any system in my house. That's two main boxes, 1 X-box 360, 1 Wii, and a laptop. My wife's box is a bootcamped i3 iMac running Snow Leopard and Windows XP, my box is an i7 running Linux and Windows 7 (mostly Linux). Not a single crash, not a single problem.

Don't know what to tell you, but I have had nothing but good experiences with Netflix streaming.

Re:Really?

[thePuck77]

Wait, let me amend that: I can't stream natively in Linux, I have to Wine it up or use a VM.

Re:Really?

[Smerta]

Hear, Hear.

Sorry, I don't know you, but I've just seen this "typo" (which it isn't, hence the quotes) too many times today. What, did someone on Cracked or Slate or something just print an article with this same mistake? Nothing personal. Just trying to clean the place up a little bit.

Re:Really?

[wjousts]

Fair enough. I was typing faster than I was thinking. Apologies.

Re:Really?

[Coren22]

Buy a multicore computer? Why are you stuck in 2007?

I have never seen the Netflix client max out even a single core on my C2Q.

Re:Really?

[Coren22]

Comcast purposely makes Netflix into shit on their network, so he could be a Comcrap customer.

Comcast refuses to allow a Netflix server on their internal network, and has perpetually maxed out internet uplinks which would make Netflix utter crap. They do this to avoid the competition with their premium streaming.

Re:Really?

[Coren22]

Disney has now closed that loophole, and said anyone who wants to stream must negotiate directly with Disney.

If that is the case, why was Starz trying to negotiate a deal with Netflix to stream Disney stuff for $300M? If Starz can't do that...you better let Disney know that they were trying, as this is what the story is about.

Next up: tiered pricing

[Lieutenant_Dan]

Thank you for selecting Netflix. Along with our basic package would like to upgrade to the following?

Starz Package - $5.99/month
Fox Sports Live Streaming - $12.99/month
Nickelodeon Package - $4.99/month
Slashdot Channel - £2.99/day
NFL On Demand - $14.99/month
NHL Prime Time - $0.99/decade

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[AkaKaryuu]

If the packages contained enough content and the base price for non premium was acceptable, this is still a cheeper option than major cable providers, with no commercials and no filler channels. Really its not about getting charged for what you use, because you'll happliy pay for that. What gets me is when they make you pay for what you wont ever use.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Noland150]

The Slashdot Channel looks vastly over priced by comparison.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Lieutenant_Dan]

Exactly.

The problem is that content providers are the mountain and Netflix is the "prophet". This means eventually Netflix will be stuck with a pricing model similar to what cable/satellite providers offer. The archaic business model will linger a bit longer, otherwise how many people will seriously want to subscribe to FoodTV, RaptorsChannel (we're in Canada), or ESPN Classic?

I got Netflix because it replaced some of the packages I had with my cable provider. I did it partly for the cost, but mostly on principle because as you stated the cable companies give you stuff that you never watch. I have 300+ channels, I'm interested in only about 3-4 of them, 3 of them having live sports. For the rest of the family we could get by with a dozen or so specific channels.

Overall the cost is not crazy cheap; one still has to fork out for a high-speed internet connection and all the ones in our area have caps.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[mrjatsun]

This would be much better than have to pay $70 and forced to get everything (i.e. like cable or directv)

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[rotide]

You're not thinking this through. They aren't going to _drop_ the price of the current plan, they would _raise_ the cost to get the additional stuff, even if it's the _same_ stuff you had before. In other words, exactly like cable/sat. Oh, you only want the basic channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS), that will be $15/mo. Oh you want extended basic to get TNT, FX, etc? That'll be another $15. Oh, you want the HD tier with Discovery Channel, etc? That's another $30. With the content owners holding all the cards and slamming Netflix with higher rates, expect this to happen to Netflix as well. Basic movies? $9.99. Oh, you want the TV show package? That's another $9.99/mo. Oh, the Stars Package? Another $9.99 a month. Now you're paying $30 for the same thing we have today. Wait, watch, and see.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[TheJabberwocky]

This is exactly why the Starz deal fell through. Starz was demanding a tiered upgrade for Netflix customers to access Starz content. It was their way of maintaining a premium image. Netflex said they refused to do that. I would never pay extra for a "higher tier" on Netflix so I'm ok with them taking that money and using it for different content that would be equally available to all subscribers.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[drfishy]

Dude, don't be knocking FoodTV... Alton Brown has a lot of fans on Slashdot...

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[maxwell demon]

The Slashdot Channel looks vastly over priced by comparison.

Why? You get premium content there. To name just a few highlights: The First Post series. Goatse & Rickroll. Soviet Russia Jokes. Imagined Beowulf clusters.

And reruns (called dupes) of the best stuff!

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

you're probably right. The cable companies and premium channels have wised up that Netflix is essentially another cable company that just delivers over the internet. Unless something really drastic happens, Netflix will probably be forced to start pricing like a cable company if it wants to maintain its streaming service.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Grizzley9]

Thank you for selecting Netflix. Along with our basic package would like to upgrade to the following?

Starz Package - $5.99/month Fox Sports Live Streaming - $12.99/month Nickelodeon Package - $4.99/month Slashdot Channel - £2.99/day NFL On Demand - $14.99/month NHL Prime Time - $0.99/decade

Interestingly enough, a good sports package would actually put a huge dent in cable as that is mainly why a lot of people still have it. If ESPN was somehow available via another channel (PlayOn with ESPN3 live streaming for me), many more would be dropping cable. It might even be enough if like your example Fox Sports was offered.

ESPN could come up with their own "cable box" like a Roku type player and then really hurt cable, that or piggy back off things like Netflix or have an app for the ever growing number of net connected TV's/BR players.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[galfridus73]

I demand a CowboyNeal option for $99/minute.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[kvothe]

True that! I'm all about his detailed explanations and pithy comments on good eats, and my wife just loves the frantic cooking on iron chef.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[rwa2]

No, three pounds per day is what you get just by exposing yourself in posts.

<pound>

And maybe if you opt-in to advertisements you'll get more!

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[lindoran]

this will never work....

one of the great things about netflix is the fullness of selection, unfortunately netflix is now discovering what being a content provider is all about getting screwed by the content owners ... have fun being a cable company netflix it was fun while it lasted.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Golddess]

Wait, why is Slashdot Channel listed in GBP?

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[iluvcapra]

We'll get there some day, the pricing will eventually align with the higher rungs on the value chain.

In the meantime, FYI, you can find many first-run and catalog Sony films at Crackle.com (they even have a Roku channel if you're in to that sort of thing). Crackle is Sony's Hulu-wannabe for their content. No, I don't know why it exists either.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Lieutenant_Dan]

I couldn't figure out the symbol for bitcoin.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Golddess]

Ah, I was thinking it was some sort of word play. Pounds as currency vs pounds as unit of weight.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amusing that you are upset they have clipped out stars from their service. Obviously because now there is a higher percentage quality content netflix feels obliged to increase the price of their offering.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I get [single channel I'm interested in that is bundled with a bunch of crappy ones I don't want] separately?

If the answer was "yes", then I would still consider it an advance over cable.

[Oooooh, Slashdot Channel! Sign me up!]

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, we have that. I have Hulu for $7.99/mo to watch new shows, and I have netflix to watch commercial free stuff for another $7.99/mo. I'm still saving almost $200 compared to what I paid for my cable subscription, and I'm watching significantly less commercials, almost nothing that I don't really want to watch (not just putting something on because everything else is worse, if I put something on now, it's because I want to watch it.) and I'm generally happier with the whole experience. I have things on demand and available to FF and rewind like a dvr, INCLUDED in the price! What you're telling people we can expect, is almost exactly like the A LA CARTE options the public have been asking for for YEARS!!! Where yeah, each channel/package adds up costs, but you can choose only the ones that you want, and don't have to pay for the rest. I'd be more than happy to pay $20/month for live/onDemand football games for the whole football season to watch games on Netflix... now that I don't have cable, I can't watch any games that aren't over the air without going someplace else for it. I'd pay $20/month, but the extra $180 I was paying to Comcrap just plain wasn't worth it.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Nox3173]

This is why cable tv is so expensive - you are already paying for tiered pricing, you just don't realize it. Cable TV is $30 to $100+ per month. Netflix streaming is $8. Companies are losing money by giving their content to Netflix. Blaming netflix for this is tantamount to blaming a grocery store for the price of orange juice. They don't make the stuff, they just sell what they get from their providers and since people don't want to pay as much money for netflix as they would for cable tv, there won't be any content to watch or rent in a timely fashion.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[rotide]

Again, think it through. If all you want is the "Stars Package" do you really believe Netflix will let you pay only $9.99 for just that portion? More likely than not, they will follow the example Cable has laid out and charge you $9.99/mo for general Streaming and then another $9.99 on top of that for Stars. Then if you want the Stars stuff in HD, you'll have to pay an additional $6.99 on top of that. The whole point here isn't that Netflix wants to be the cable company, but those with all the goods are going to force Netflix into taking that model to stay in business. It's honestly coming down to, "Charge what cable charges or you will have zero content". I don't blame Netflix for this, but they sure will stop getting my money if they start with tiered packages.

If you don't believe me, Netflix already went from allowing you to pay something near $10/mo for streaming AND DVD(s). It's now $10/mo for one _or_ the other. You have "choices" now, but if you want both, you pay double. Which isn't a choice, it's taking out something you had before and charging you for it.

For the record, I rarely watched Stars content. There were a couple movies, but I can live without Stars. The writing is on the wall however.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Geraden]

I would GLADLY pay $10 a month for ESPN's offerings via the web.

I would likely pay MORE than that for online offerings of the NCAA football season, streamed over the web.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[grapeape]

Actually $30 would be about $50 cheaper than the cheapest cable package I can get locally that includes Starz. I would have no problem with ala carte programming if I could truly pick and choose my channels at a reasonable price. I'm not much of a sports guy for instance...dropping ESPN and Fox Sports from my cable bill according to known rates charged by the networks per viewer would drop my bill over $20 a month, but currently I can't get even basic cable without the espn tax. I like BBC America, but I can't get that without subscribing to the highest digital cable package.

The thing that made me drop cable was tracking my families viewing habits over a month, it turned out we watched a total of only 17 channels but paid over $170 a month for our cable package, I ditched tv went with the standard internet only deal and subscribed to netflix and hulu plus, I can't watch some of the shows I enjoy, but save enough monthly for a couple of season sets on dvd every month and still have money left over.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[krelvin]

That is exactly why Netflix didn't come to terms with Starz... they don't want to do that.

They were willing to pay $300 Million for continued access. Starz wanted them to use tiered pricing.

According to Netflix, Starz only makes up around 8% of content used by Netflix subscribers now and that is dropping.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

The Starz package would be worth nowhere near $6. Starz made up 8% of Netflix streaming viewership last quarter, headed toward 6% in 1Q2012. Meanwhile Netflix is adding new content left and right.

Because of its enormous body of viewership data, Netflix knows far more about the real value of Starz content than Starz does. Netflix has always promised not to overpay for content, and I'm glad to see that proven here. The Starz termination notice, as it came 6 months before the end of the existing contract, was probably occasioned by a term notice clause in the contract; though the additional press release is probably a negotiation tactic. Not a big deal.

I wouldn't want to be in Starz's shoes right now. Netflix, the darling of consumers, is left with $300 million to spend on new content that it knows is better than what it would get with Starz, while Starz is walking away from an offer for 20% of its revenue. And it's not like the existing contract is exclusive. If Netflix's competition wanted Starz content, they would already have it. Maybe Hulu (or whoever is seeking to buy Hulu) is waiting in the wings to overpay for Starz so they can have something to offer against Netflix. In which case, good luck with that. All this to try and elevate the Starz brand and remove Starz content to a more expensive domain? Not a play I'd want my money on. If Starz is smart, it'll play out the negotiation but come back to Netflix.

Shane
(long NFLX, short the more-expensive content domain)

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[jedidiah]

Starz just isn't something that has ever had a "premium" image for me. It's not something I would pay a separate fee for or buy an overpriced "package" to get.

Starz is just full of themselves.

They need to get over themselves.

People cut the cord to avoid their egomania.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[TheABomb]

That might work for ESPN, but anything else (an MLB package, and NFL package, etc.) would be absolutely worthless to anyone other than the fantasy sports-playing douches when it became clear that the $90 price tag only bought every game that your local team WASN'T playing.

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[kat_skan]

This would be much better than have to pay $70 and forced to get everything (i.e. like cable or directv)

Which in itself would still be better than having to pay $70 and forced to pay extra for the things actually worth watching (i.e. even more like cable or directv).

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem with that is we already see Cable ISPs blocking services like ESPN3 to prevent people from dropping Cable to get their sports fix. I used to live in Lincoln, NE and Time Warner blocked ESPN3 to its users

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Convector]

And now that Good Eats has ended, there is officially no reason to watch that channel any more. All they have now is "reality" shows, and all the actual cooking shows have moved to the Cooking channel. Didn't this happen to MTV 20 years ago?

Re:Next up: tiered pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you don't need to get a fucking basic package that includes PBS and local stations that you can already get for free, and bullshit channels that everybody but really nobody watches.

Wow....

[O('_')O_Bush]

This will surely hurt business after splitting the Instant plan. Some of their best (some of their few blockbuster/A titles) were available through the STARZ offerings. I'm a huge fan of netflix instant, but between only carrying half-series of Shonen-jumps for months before completion(if they do get completed) and now this, I'll seriously be reconsidering my membership.

Re:Wow....

[jhoegl]

Yeah, it is sad.

But it is a long time from February, and this may be a move by Starz or Netflix for publicity on the issue.

Or, they could land another company like HBO.

Re:Wow....

[Midnight Thunder]

If you want Anime, then check out Crunchy Roll.

Re:Wow....

[drinkypoo]

Why would you try to watch anime on netflix when it's so easy to download? Especially since there's so many titles they won't even let you watch in Japanese?

Re:Wow....

[Ark42]

Some people care about doing it legally. A lot of random sites on the internet probably aren't licensed to distribute the anime. Half the time it's only subtitled bullshit anyway, or 240i quality. Netflix is easy, legal, and integrates with people's TV/blu-ray players without any trouble.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because not everyone is a subtitle fanatic? Because maybe some people feel like the creators deserve credit for what they do? Because maybe some people don't like to be leeches on a marginally profitable niche market? Because maybe some people aren't okay with pirating things that are legally available on the cheap? Because maybe not everyone speaks or wants to listen to Japanese?

Please don't take this as an attack on you specifically. People do need to realize that not everyone has the same ideology as they do. I watch things in both English and Japanese. I see the benefits of both. I assure you, the Japanese also watch some American shows dubbed in Japanese.

Streaming is already dicey...

[damn_registrars]

I've seen lots of good titles disappear from instant streaming with little or no advance warning. Now they're dropping all the Starz-provided material? I'll have to - at the very least - go and record all the 30-second-bunnies clips.

Re:Streaming is already dicey...

[garcia]

Use Instantwatcher. It tells you exactly how many days are left before "good titles disappear from instant streaming."

Re:Streaming is already dicey...

[omnichad]

Watching the 30-second bunnies clips is pure agony with a 20-second starz intro, 20 second starz outro, and buffering time. I only made it through a few because it took too long.

Re:Streaming is already dicey...

[damn_registrars]

The good clips are more than worth the wait. Of course, some of them are mediocre, but there are plenty of gems in the collection.

Re:Streaming is already dicey...

[Tetsujin]

Watching the 30-second bunnies clips is pure agony with a 20-second starz intro, 20 second starz outro, and buffering time. I only made it through a few because it took too long.

That 30 seconds in the middle isn't so great, either.

I don't think I am going to have enough time

[Moe Taxes]

To watch the 100 or so episodes of "Have Gun - Will Travel" that are left in my queue.

Re:I don't think I am going to have enough time

[Nick Number]

To watch the 100 or so episodes of "Have Gun - Will Travel" that are left in my queue.

I can't look right now, but aren't most of those available for free on cbs.com?

useful

[Haven]

Netflix is a wonderful supplement to piracy.

If it isn't on Netflix, it is popular enough for a torrrent. If you cannot find it through nefarious means, it is old enough to be on Netflix.

Re:useful

[berzerke]

I like the quote: "...Starz, in a statement, called its decision "a result of our strategy to protect the premium nature of our brand by preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging" of its content...". Translation: We think we can gouge Netflix now that they are big enough and if we pull our content, then people with just buy it elsewhere. Piracy doesn't exist.

I can't help but wonder if this is just hard-ball negotiating tactics and as Feb 28 approaches, some deal will reached.

Re:useful

[PixelScuba]

I used to download gigs of movies to watch with before streaming Netflix. It was so convenient I never bothered to torrent any movie because I could just boot the XBox and watch them. Torrenting was never really about wanting it free it was about the quickest and most cost effective way to watch movies. Netflix is reasonably priced and easy to access... any other streaming service I tried was a nightmare or outrageously priced (Hulu was OK, but I wasn't really impressed with their streaming selection) With all the providers pulling their content because they feel they can either 1.) start their own streaming service and believe I will also "subscribe" to that or 2.) force Netflix to give them more per film. I'd be willing to pay twice what I pay now for Netflix if it meant they could significantly improve the size and quality of their online catalog but it seems the media companies are going to go for greed on this one and drive me back to torrents.

Any good sites for finding movies now?

Re:useful

[maxwell demon]

Seems that Starz confused "premium" with "overprized" ...

Re:useful

[maxwell demon]

Seems that Starz confused "premium" with "overprized" ...

Oops, overpriced, of course.

Re:useful

[AngryDeuce]

Any good sites for finding movies now?

Yes...google "[name of movie or show] torrent" and pick one.

Re:useful

[Anonymous Coward]

https://binsearch.info/

Re:useful

[sgbett]

You know what, that is *exactly* the point. It's not all about piracy and getting stuff free. If it was, then people wouldn't pay $35 month for giganews subs.

This is over 4x the current netflix price. Funny that.

Never mind crap like "Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country... yet"

Re:useful

[RogerWilco]

Never mind crap like "Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country... yet"

That's exactly my problem. I would like paying for these things. But nothing is willing to sell it in my country. No iTunes Moves/Series, no Netflix, no Hulu, no Amazon.com movies, Google TV or anything. And I'm not living in some backwater. My country (The Netherlands) has the highest average broadband speed in Europe and 4th highest worldwide.*

I think the Dutch equivalent of the MAFIAA has something to do with it (BREIN and BUMA/STEMRA). I hope the European Commisioner or Digital Agenda Nelie Kroes will enforce that media needs to be available to all the countries in the common market under the same conditions.

*) http://gigaom.com/broadband/state-of-the-internet-what-are-the-fastest-cities-in-the-world/

Re:useful

[nschubach]

Both of those work in this case.

Re:useful

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be willing to pay twice what I pay now for Netflix

If you have both streaming and DVDs from Netflix, you're about to.

Re:useful

[misexistentialist]

If Netflix added porn it would be more competitive...

Re:useful

[Anonymous Coward]

"Netflix is a wonderful supplement to piracy."

Yeah, especially if you have Handbrake and AnyDVD. Oh wait, you said supplement. Nevermind.

Re:useful

[Tetsujin]

Any good sites for finding movies now?

Yes...google "[name of movie or show] torrent" and pick one.

I tried this and wound up with a 3GiB password-protected RAR file and a text file telling me to fill out an online survey and to give my cell phone number as part of the last step...

That's legit, right?

Re:useful

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but just so you know, it's entirely possible that the password was contained in plain text in the HTML source of that page. Did you check?

Re:useful

[blair1q]

as Feb 28 approaches, some deal will reached.

Only if it involves Netflix caving to Starz and paying its asking price.

As you noticed, bits are fungible, and there are lots of online outlets.

Netflix effed up by raising its streaming prices. It's going to be jacked up by content providers, and it's going to lose customers as rebuffed content providers go elsewhere for their pipes.

Re:useful

[Tetsujin]

No, but just so you know, it's entirely possible that the password was contained in plain text in the HTML source of that page. Did you check?

HTML source? Huh, didn't think of that. I guess I just assumed that either the file was entirely bogus, or the maze between me and the cheese was more well-constructed. Well, maybe I'll give that a try next time.

No big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney sucks anyway.

More like the Canadian catalog.

[Jeltz]

Most Canadians were hoping that the catalog offered to us would become more on par with the US catalog. This isn't the way to go about it though.

DVD plan

[dj245]

When Netflix raised their 1+streaming plan to $16, I went to the 2DVD plan. This was based on the very limited streaming selection, plus my wife's first language is not english so she needs subtitles. Despite our owning a Roku and a Toshiba TV that support Netflix streaming, neither of these devices support the Netflix streaming. Netflix is really screwing the streaming customers. I feel pretty validated with my decision after hearing this.

I haven't heard many people going to a DVD-only plan. Most people were planning on canceling, or doing the streaming plan +Redbox. Does this change anyone's plans?

Re:DVD plan

[dj245]

Damn, I should have previewed one more time. Roku and my Toshiba TV do not support Netflix Subtitle streaming.

Re:DVD plan

[Derek Pomery]

Wait. There's a DVD only plan? I should check to see if we can get a cheaper one.
Streaming isn't Linux compatible anyway, and we signed up long before they had streaming.

Re:DVD plan

[Anonymous Coward]

i switched to redbox/blockbuster depending on convenience for dvd's but honestly for what $8 a month it's a better deal in my opinion i've had the same movie for 5 days and still haven't watched it... that's only $3 short of being able to keep it all month or watch maybe 5 to 6 dvd's a month with netflix...

Re:DVD plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix is going to lose out to other streaming providers like EpixHD, Hulu and Amazon.

Re:DVD plan

[Jason Levine]

Yes. Netflix recently separated their DVD and Streaming plans. Streaming costs $7.99 a month. 1 DVD at a time costs $7.99 a month. 2 DVDs at a time costs $11.99 a month. If you want 2 DVDs and Streaming, that would cost $19.98 ($7.99 + $11.99).

Re:DVD plan

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't heard many people going to a DVD-only plan. Most people were planning on canceling, or doing the streaming plan +Redbox. Does this change anyone's plans?

I switched to a DVD-only plan. I was working my way through re-watching Babylon 5 via Netflix streaming, when they dropped the episodes from their streaming. Plus, since I prefer documentaries that mostly aren't offered via streaming anyway, waiting for the DVDs is not that big a deal. So screw their streaming.

I also dropped the BluRay option; one too many special rental-version of a BluRay movie filled with 20+ minutes of previews for other movies that you can't skip.

Re:DVD plan

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you want 2 streaming, 1 LaserDisc at a time and a transcript of last night's news? How much is that?

Re:DVD plan

[grasshoppa]

And their streaming content providers won't pull the same shens as Stars is with Netflix?

Hollywood and the content companies learn through pain. They have to shoot themselves in the foot at least a dozen times before they begin to realize that their current activity may be hindering their profits, not improving. Streaming content in particular seems to be taboo. They do it, because market forces have essentially forced them to, but they don't understand it and will fight it every step of the way.

Re:DVD plan

[drinkypoo]

I haven't heard many people going to a DVD-only plan. Most people were planning on canceling, or doing the streaming plan +Redbox. Does this change anyone's plans?

Nine times out of ten when I see "STARZ PLAY" at the beginning of a movie I know it sucks ass and I won't actually finish it.

Streaming is the best way to rent movies EVER because so many of them are such total shit. I actually watch less movies to the end than I stop watching them in the first fifteen minutes. Going to the 2-DVD plan would be idiotic for us because we're already having trouble finding anything we want to rent. Of course, we're also having trouble finding stuff we want to watch streaming.

Re:DVD plan

[rwa2]

I dunno, if it was just me, I'd rather go with the DVD-only plan, since it's much more likely to actually have the content I'm looking for. That said, my wife uses the streaming a lot because it's much more convenient than using torrents or whatever, and the quality is better (we don't have a blu-ray player for HD stuff... actually we don't even have a TV).

OTOH, I don't really watch movies or TV all that much, so we'll probably end up dumping the DVD plan :-P I have enough of a Futurama backlog to appease myself with streaming the few times I'm bored enough to turn to the tubes, and could just as well turn to the torrents or 'gasp' traditional DVD rentals or maybe even the library for the rare occasion that I wanted a particular movie that wasn't available on streaming.

Re:DVD plan

[Lando]

I'm kinda in the same boat here. It's hard to find something I actually want to watch on Netflix anymore. I used it vigorously for about one month, after that it was hard to find anything I wanted to watch past that point. Most of the shows I did watch during that first month were movies that I have on dvd and just found it more convenient to call up netflix and hit play with than actually new material. I don't think that it's really netflix's fault, it's just the entertainment that is produced generally tends to be crap. Preferably they would start offering subscriptions to specific shows. I know I would pay a couple of dollars for new issues of Firefly, but generally, I wouldn't be interested in buying any of this filler material that networks and studios call entertainment.

              I just loaded up netflix today to see if there was anything new worth watching and basically found nada. It's nice to have netflix when my kids come over so that if they want to watch television I just pull up something that's suitable; however, for myself, I'd rather look at some of the MIT OCW videos, play a game or two, or work on a program rather than spend money on crap. When netflix split the pricing, I decided to go with streaming option rather than mail since I'm more into instant gratification; however if the price increases beyond about $10.00 a month, they will go the way of my cable bill... Thanks for the offer but no thanks.

              I bought a few frames from that Australian film making company that was producing a movie a couple of years ago, wasn't very interested in the show, but liked the concept. Not sure if they ever produced anything. Cable is even worse than I remember it, having to pay to see shows and then having to sit through commercials as well is unacceptable. Hulu and crackle apart from having poor broadcasting technology, lost me within a couple of shows as they pumped commercials into my viewing time. Even CNN and other news reporting agencies requiring me to watch a 60 second advertisement before their 2 minute clips, piss me off. Theoretically, I have about $30.00 a month to spend on television/movie entertainment, but if they can't provide the convenience I was with no commercials, I really don't have the time to waste.

            Anyway, we'll see what happens. As long as Comcast and other "entertainment" companies don't get the government to mandate me paying for their service, eg Canadian blank media tax, I'll be happy enough to disregard the crap they put out.

Re:DVD plan

[Derek Pomery]

Damn. I've been overpaying then. Need to get the 2 DVD plan until some sort of agreement on DRM for Linux is worked out.

Re:DVD plan

[Anonymous Coward]

the new Roku2, released about a month ago, does support english subtitles in the netflix channel.

http://www.roku.com/netflix-partner

Re:DVD plan

[antdude]

I am waiting for Netflix to go non-subscription based since I rarely watch movies and old television/TV series. I love Redbox for being cheap and paying when I want to!

Re:DVD plan

[dzfoo]

According to the article, their STARZ licensing contract allowed them to offer Disney and Sony movies for streaming, because the STARZ network is their exclusive distributor.

They are losing more than STARZ content. Much more.

      -dZ.

Re:DVD plan

[Chibi]

The Roku 2 supports subtitles for Netflix. Of course, the titles have to have subtitles in the first place, but that seems to be constantly improving.

http://www.roku.com/roku-products

I own an original Roku, and I was debating buying a Roku 2 for the subtitles. I'm going to wait to see how their streaming library changes down the road. I also own a PS3, which supports subtitles, so if you've got that or an XBox360, maybe that'll work for you.

Re:DVD plan

[Anonymous Coward]

I immediately went for the DVD-only plan. I like the extras that come with the discs. I augment my experience with the ".iso bandwidth/latency enhancement" package.

Re:DVD plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Roku + Playon = Netflix streaming AND so much other stuff...

Re:DVD plan

[ckaminski]

Spartacus. That's it. That's all the Starz I think I've ever KNOWINGLY watched.

Starz made more money off of me BECAUSE of Netflix - I also have the DVDs of Spartacus. That wouldn't have happened without Netflix.

Re:DVD plan

[jafac]

When they raised the price, we decided to tough it out and stick with streaming, because we have fairly robust AT&T DSL, and watch on a Sony BlueRay DVD player, that does Netflix streaming. (also a Wii; the pick-interface is much better; sometimes we watch on a laptop, because the kids are watching something on the TV).

Sometimes . . . I only have like a half-hour to kill. Time-wise. And it takes me that long just to find something worthwhile to watch. Seriously. Even then - I'll get 10-15 minutes into a movie I've never heard of, (after spending 10-15 minutes browsing through the myriad of choices) - and then I'll realize, I just wasted a half-hour.

The problem with the DVD service is - when I find out I've got a dud, I have to mail the dud back, and wait for the new potential dud to arrive.

Frankly - I think the biggest problem with Netflix is - I have seen too much crap. I have a 56" TV, + 5.1 surround, and I have no desire to watch a damn thing on it, 90% of the time.

Re:DVD plan

[Lord Byron II]

Thanks for the correction. I was wondering what kind of Roku device wouldn't do Netflix streaming...

Re:DVD plan

[Derek Pomery]

Thanks for heads up. I was on $14.99 for unlimited streaming and 2 DVDs. So was wasting $3 on a service we'd only used once or twice due to all machines in house being linux (virtualbox is just a pain).

Signed the petition and shifted to the $11.99 plan.

Re:DVD plan

[whitelabrat]

I had a 2 Bluray plan and dumped it for streaming only. My kids like the kiddie show and I don't like them watching commercials so I don't care much about selection. I now rent from either Redbox or Vudu. Netflix seemed to be doing pretty well, but someone really fsck'd up in my opinion.

Re:DVD plan

[the eric conspiracy]

Seriously, Netflix streaming is crap compared to the DVD plan. With the DVD or DVD/BluRay plan you have 20x the content available and the playback quality is far superior.

The only negative is that you have to plan ahead a bit. But if you have the ability to do that it is THE way to fly.

Re:DVD plan

[Kunedog]

I haven't heard many people going to a DVD-only plan. Most people were planning on canceling, or doing the streaming plan +Redbox. Does this change anyone's plans?

I went to DVD-only after the latest price hike (which turned out to be a cut for me). I posted here about it (accidentally as AC) here:

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2341822&cid=36843532

I never cared much about streaming, only DVDs, so for me this amounts to a price cut of $4/month (and gives me an idea of how much I've been paying for the streaming I never wanted). Here's the email I got (I'm on the 3 at a time plan for $20/mo).

We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into two separate plans to better reflect the costs of each. Now our members have a choice: a streaming only plan, a DVD only plan, or both.

Your current $19.99 a month membership for unlimited streaming and unlimited DVDs will be split into 2 distinct plans:

Plan 1: Unlimited Streaming (no DVDs) for $7.99 a month

Plan 2: Unlimited DVDs, 3 out at-a-time (no streaming) for $15.99 a month

Your price for getting both of these plans will be $23.98 a month ($7.99 + $15.99). You don't need to do anything to continue your memberships for both unlimited streaming and unlimited DVDs.

These prices will start for charges on or after September 1, 2011.

My take on it is that due to the threats to net neutrality (ISP bandwidth caps and MAFIAA), Netflix's streaming business is getting squeezed all around. Its costs are rising and there's every reason to believe things are going to get even worse in the future.

By all rights, streaming should cost almost nothing compared to mailing physical DVDs. Netflix's original plan was to piggyback (i.e. force) streaming onto everyone's DVD plan, under the assumption that the more DVD rentals it rendered unnecessary, the better. Eventually it might have even become Netfix's primary business.

But streaming is probably becoming so expensive that this piggybacking isn't viable anymore. They know they have to raise prices on the bundled plans, and that makes two price hikes in one year (my plan was $17/mo until February). Customers will scream bloody murder over that, so in an attempt to lessen the fallout they're separating the two services, limiting the (perceived) price hike by allowing customers to pay for only what they use. This means neither DVD-only nor streaming-only folks have to subsidize the other side so much anymore, but the tradeoff is that there's no longer any money to be saved by bundling. So the customers hurt the most are those who use both services, and I bet this really sticks in Netflix's craw because those are exactly the kind of customers they've always wanted to attract (and create) the most.

Re:DVD plan

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to DVD only. I find their streaming selection and the video quality terrible. The one annoying thing is how they've allowed the studios to blackmail them with streaming related issues into waiting to release new movies on Bluray...

I wish a Netflix replacement that was DVD only would come along...

Re:DVD plan

[Fear the Clam]

My wife and I have done Netflix since '04. Started with 3 DVDs, then moved it down to 2 when they raised the price (and I realized that the third disc always just sat around).

The streaming was barely okay (we have lousy DSL) and the selection is a small subset, so it wasn't a difficult decision to reduce the plan to two DVDs.

Re:DVD plan

[jonwil]

The #1 reason the studios HATE streaming content is because more and more people are replacing cable TV (or premium cable TV options) with internet based content (including Hulu, BitTorrent, YouTube, Netflix, iTunes and others).

Netflix...for kids now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else noticed an astonishing lack of decent content lately? All the new things they seem to be adding have been childrens shows, bad cartoons, and anime... oh and more shitty B movies then i can wrap my mind around. Starting to think they are screwing stuff up on purpose. The new HORRIBLY laid out website being the first blow (damn thing wont stop showing me stuff i have repeatedly told them i have NO interest in). Amazon Prime is starting to look better and better.

Re:Netflix...for kids now?

[Anonymous Coward]

working out well though for me since I mostly watch B movies anyway

Re:Netflix...for kids now?

[Segisaurus]

Same here. I like Anime and the B-Movies. And an A -List movie just means the actors are overpaid. It says nothing about the quality of the story or how much I will enjoy watching it.

Hard to resist the gravitational pull of stars.

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix simply needs more mass.

That's interesting about the Roku

[brokeninside]

I've been thinking about getting a Roku. But not supporting subtitles for streaming would be a deal breaker for me. Which generation Roku do you have?

Re:That's interesting about the Roku

[Curien]

The recently-released Roku2 reportedly supports subtitles for Netflix Streaming. I know first-hand that the Wii app does also (but I don't know about the other consoles).

Re:That's interesting about the Roku

[_xeno_]

According to the Netflix FAQ, no Roku device supports streaming subtitles.

I'd link to the FAQ, but there doesn't appear to be a way to do that, so instead, here's the list of devices that support subtitles:

* PC/Mac
* PS3
* Wii
* Google TV Devices such as Logitech Revue and Sony Internet TV
* Boxee Box by D-Link
* iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch

Note that on the PS3 at least, you have to turn on subtitles before starting to stream, and if subtitles aren't available, the option is just missing entirely.

Re:That's interesting about the Roku

[demonbug]

According to the Netflix FAQ, no Roku device supports streaming subtitles.

I'd link to the FAQ, but there doesn't appear to be a way to do that, so instead, here's the list of devices that support subtitles:

* PC/Mac
* PS3
* Wii
* Google TV Devices such as Logitech Revue and Sony Internet TV
* Boxee Box by D-Link
* iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch

Note that on the PS3 at least, you have to turn on subtitles before starting to stream, and if subtitles aren't available, the option is just missing entirely.

So they claim that the PS3 supports their streaming subtitles, and yet I haven't seen a single movie that actually offers streaming subtitles. Hong Kong movies - dubbed. Anime - dubbed. Girl w/ Dragon Tattoo (all three) - dubbed. Where is this mysterious subtitled Netflix content available? It drives me crazy - even when they have things I want to watch, I can't (well, won't), because they insist on only offering dubbed versions. I wish there was a feedback button for every originally foreign language movie they have saying something like "Give me subtitles!" Instead I always say that audio/video were out of sync. Somehow I don't think they get it.

Re:That's interesting about the Roku

[_xeno_]

So they claim that the PS3 supports their streaming subtitles, and yet I haven't seen a single movie that actually offers streaming subtitles.

I've yet to see any movies that do, but I verified that the PS3 does indeed support streaming subtitles before posting (before I was going to mention that as far I could tell the streaming subtitle support was a complete lie) via the TV show Psych. Which has English subtitles. And English audio. (They're really the Closed Captions.)

I think it may have also had Spanish subtitles, so there's that.

But, yeah, anime is basically unwatchable via Netflix streaming, even though they support multiple audio streams and subtitles. (Which, again, I only know from watching episodes of Psych, because the menu option to enable subtitles is just flat-out hidden if the movie doesn't support them.)

I wish there was a feedback button for every originally foreign language movie they have saying something like "Give me subtitles!" Instead I always say that audio/video were out of sync. Somehow I don't think they get it.

Their feedback system is a joke. There's no way to offer real feedback, you just have to use the options provided.

Hopefully they'll be able to look at my history and figure out that I restarted an episode of Psych five times on my TiVo before giving up and streaming from the PS3 because the TiVo kept on screwing up the video stream. (Green bands kept appearing, and it kept missing key frames, causing some really weird effects.)

Somehow, though, I doubt they'll get all that from "video was blurry."

Re:That's interesting about the Roku

[jazzmans]

dunno where you are, but in Nevada, all the millenium films (Girl with the dragon tatoo;played with fire;kicked the hornets nest) were in swedish, with english subtitiles streamed through my ps3.

I agree I wish more anime was in japanese with subtitles, there's something about the original language, that a lot more emotion carrys through then english dubs.

odd.

jaz

Re:That's interesting about the Roku

[jonwil]

I suspect the reason you dont see more Anime in the original Japanese with subtitles is because the Anime hasn't just been dubbed, its been edited and redone to suit a mainstream western audience (including removing things not appropriate for children because of this perception that cartoons are for kids)

Often the Japanese company that made the show and/or the US company that did the dubbing and editing have agreements in place that the original Japanese version will not be made available in the US. (I do know for a fact that Nintendo will NEVER make the original Japanese Pokemon cartoons legally available in the west)

Replacement Content?

[Fnord666]

Netflix spokesman Steve Swasey said the company was "confident we can take the money we had earmarked for Starz renewal next year, and spend it with other content providers to maintain or even improve the Netflix experience."

Good luck with that. What content would that be exactly? Losing access to Sony and Disney will be a fairly large void to fill, especially for the amount Netflix has "earmarked" for it. On the other hand I wonder how much of a "bonus" Starz might be receiving from cable or satellite providers to play hard ball with Netflix?

Re:Replacement Content?

[Anonymous Coward]

YES! We can get more Veggie Tales!!!!!

Re:Replacement Content?

[XxtraLarGe]

On the other hand I wonder how much of a "bonus" Starz might be receiving from cable or satellite providers to play hard ball with Netflix?

Hard to say. Chances are if you have Netflix and watch it on TV, you have cable. I realize that's not always the case, but it seems like that's the majority of broadband subscribers. We have Comcast with Starz as a part of our package, so whenever we want to watch Starz content, we watch it in HD on OnDemand instead.

Re:Replacement Content?

[QuasiSteve]

With DirecTV, Starz is an optional package. A package a friend of mine canceled shortly after getting a Roku box, considering that had Netflix and she can watch movies through that.

Personally, I was already disappointed with the streaming Netflix offering (see older comment), but with this change it's just going to be much worse.

Soon Netflix's streaming offering will just be one 'recent' half a year old) A title with the rest filled with B and C titles, the odd A title from 5+ years ago, and a lot of anime series.

The Roku box is still great to access content in general, but Netflix? Humdrum.

Re:Replacement Content?

[Rockoon]

Netflix already has a content deal with Disney (signed in December 2010) and thus does not need Starz in order to show Disney/ABC titles.

Sony on the other hand has been playing serious hardball, but Starz will not have Netflix revenue to throw at Sony any longer. Their deal ends in 2014 so the best move for Sony is to start grabbing revenue directly from Netflix, essentially "double dipping" for 2 to 3 years.

Re:Replacement Content?

[Curien]

>Netflix already has a content deal with Disney... ... for TV shows and direct-to-video movies ("Aladdin 4: Jafar's really mad this time"). I can watch Phineas and Ferb thanks to the Disney deal, but I can't watch Aladdin. I can watch Tangled and Princess and the Frog, but that's only because of the license with Starz.

Re:Replacement Content?

[drinkypoo]

Disney doesn't really want you to be able to watch their movies any time, though, so they probably planned for this deal to fall apart anyway. They want to be able to sell you exorbitantly-priced DVDs (etc) so they don't sell them all year. Or is that over now? It's been their traditional model, artificial scarcity. Which means the internet must scare the living piss out of them. When's the last time you saw a Disney movie (and not a PIXAR movie, but a Disney movie) that had the palpable quality of Peter Pan or Cinderella? Oh yeah, when you saw Peter Pan, or Cinderella.

Re:Replacement Content?

[iluvcapra]

Netflix already has a content deal with Disney (signed in December 2010) and thus does not need Starz in order to show Disney/ABC titles.

I believe that deal last year was for television eps and catalogue films, Starz handles Disney's first-run theatrical titles. That's what we're losing.

Re:Replacement Content?

[iluvcapra]

Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Lion King... Remember they had that string of Menken and Ashman musicals and many of those are easily on the same level as Cinderella and Peter Pan.

Peter Pan, and Pinocchio, and Cinderella are great, but they aren't holy relics and they aren't perfect.

Re:Replacement Content?

[drinkypoo]

I didn't say they were perfect, but look at the time and effort and downright artistry that went into those pictures... whereas the Disney of today is engaged primarily in stamping out new pictures as fast as they can manage, based on the same old plots, with the same old dark-skinned bad guys beating up on the lighter-skinned good guys. zzzzz

Re:Replacement Content?

[jackbird]

I thought the early 90's run starting with Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast,Alladin, etc. and ending abruptly with the disappointment that was Hunchback of Notre Dame can go toe to toe with pretty much anything Disney's put out except for Snow White and Fantasia. I also thought Tangled was absolutely brilliant, and is hopefully the start of another good run.

Re:Replacement Content?

[McKing]

Am I the only one who is still relatively happy with Netflix? When I can't watch a show or movie on streaming, I just watch one of the other hundreds of items in my queue. I find myself not caring if something is "recent" or not. I pretty much only watch 2-3 movies a year in the theater, rent about 1 or 2 every couple of months on Redbox, and wait for the rest to hit Netflix DVD or Streaming.

Really, no movie or TV show is so mind blowing that I can't wait a while to watch it....

Re:Replacement Content?

[lewiscr]

No, it's not just you. I'm happy with NetFlix; there's plenty of older material I haven't seen that NetFlix does stream. Even if NetFlix loses half of it's current content, it's still a much better deal than cable.

Re:Replacement Content?

[iluvcapra]

whereas the Disney of today is engaged primarily in stamping out new pictures as fast as they can manage, based on the same old plots, with the same old dark-skinned bad guys beating up on the lighter-skinned good guys.

Walt didn't exactly have the reputation of a slow-cooking perfectionist, either, particularly after he bought the studio lot; his was the studio that made about 6 features a year, like Bedknobs and Broomsticks, That Darn Cat!, Babes in Toyland, all perfectly serviceable but not very good films.

The bulk of Disney's output post World War 2 was, year to year, predominantly mediocre but always family-freindly -- it's approach to quality has been in "good enough for gospel" mode for decades. And the modern company is a reflection of that more than any other factor, like the absence of Walt, his brother, or the corporatization of the company in general.

Re:Replacement Content?

[Jimmy King]

Nope, I'm the same. I don't care about seeing most movies "right now". I'll watch them when they're available. Until then, I'll watch something else or do something else entirely. For the last 1-2 years I've honestly mostly been watching old to old-ish, TV series' that I always liked when I did see the shows, but never watched consistently due to not being home when they were on. Now I can watch them when it's convenient for me.

Re:Replacement Content?

[XxtraLarGe]

Am I the only one who is still relatively happy with Netflix?

My wife likes to watch the Nat Geo stuff, and there's plenty of other content too. We were planning on upgrading to disc delivery too until they changed the pricing.

Netflix Starz Lacked HD and 5.1

[mgmartin]

Although the content offered by Starz on Netflix was good, I was always disappointed the encodings were not high definition or even with a 5.1 surround sound channel. I won't be missing Starz ( too much ).

Re:Netflix Starz Lacked HD and 5.1

[Anonymous Coward]

While the streaming selection could always be better, I find the service to be well worth the $8. The starz content was always encoded very poorly to the point where I refused to view it. If this frees up money for Netflix to license viewable content then I am all for loosing starz.

Re:Netflix Starz Lacked HD and 5.1

[elrous0]

Everytime I saw the Starz label, I cringed. They should have just changed to it "No HD."

Per Event

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want is to be able to buy individual events. Buying a package is so 80's (think big dish).

Say I want to watch the V8 Supercars event. Why can't I buy just that from whoever is producing it and watch it live?

Or say you DVR something while you are gone, and the power goes out for a few hours and you don't get it. Why can't I just buy that event and watch it after the fact?

That is something I've never understood. They have already paid to produce the content, putting it up for streaming is a trivial expense that can add more profits.

Re:Per Event

[The Snowman]

Why can't I just buy that event and watch it after the fact?

It is more profitable for the content provider to charge you a lot more money for crap you don't want that happens to include something you do.

True on-demand content would essentially impose a free market on the system, which does not benefit the copyright cartels.

Re:Per Event

[CastrTroy]

On the other hand, think of what it costs to produce a TV episode, and then try to imagine how much it would cost if it was only pay per episode, with no advertisements. Let's just take the example of the Friends TV Show. Each of the 6 main actors was getting paid $1 million an episode at it's height. This means it would cost at least $6 million just for the main actors salary. Throw in salaries for writers, producers, directors, and you are probably easily at $10 million. The finale, was watched by 50 million people. Now, assuming 2 people per TV (i'm averaging here), that's about 25 million paid views. which would bring the cost per episode somewhere around 40 cents, just for a single half hour show. and that doesn't even count any money going to service providers like NetFlix. So while I think the model could work, we're going to have to see the amount of money that actors, directors, and others make decrease by a significant margin if we ever want to be able to only pay $10 a month for all you can handle streaming TV.

Re:Per Event

[DinDaddy]

So while I think the model could work, we're going to have to see the amount of money that actors, directors, and others make decrease by a significant margin if we ever want to be able to only pay $10 a month for all you can handle streaming TV.

OK

Re:Per Event

[ckaminski]

Simple - the insanity of paying someone a million dollars for a single weeks work. I know plenty of people who could have pulled off Friends for 1/1000th the price.

Just like US Elections, our entertainment is getting way too expensive.

Re:Per Event

[zero0ne]

Toss in ads to that model, a la HuluPlus.

Say for the 23 minute episode, they insert 4x 30 second ads, bringing the show to 25 minutes total.

they can now auction off a 30 second spot for a show THEY KNOW is being purchased by 25 million viewers.

Instead of charging a company 400K for that 30 second spot, they could do a few unique things with it:
- Split up the stream into demographic niches, allowing one company to purchase the 30-50yr old single male viewers, and maybe advertise eHarmony, etc.
- Charge on a per view basis to the ad companies. @ 400K, the one company was only paying $0.016 per view. They could increase that to $0.10 per view, while offering the tighter niches, and even if they only sold 5 million of those views, they already beat the 400K they made from the bulk sale.

Don't care. Won't affect me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to install Silverlight on my computer and I get almost all my movies for free anyway. Sony/Disney can just suck it.

Re:Don't care. Won't affect me.

[cyn1c77]

I refuse to install Silverlight on my computer and I get almost all my movies for free anyway. Sony/Disney can just suck it.

How is your fear of Silverlight and admission of media theft relevant to this discussion?

Re:Don't care. Won't affect me.

[Anonymous Coward]

In much the same way that your admission of digital prostitution by whoring your devices out to whoever wants to install their buggy piece-of-crap software in exchange for some entertainment, and your confusion of "theft" with "copying" is relevant to the discussion.

Let me guess... you also have QuickTime, ITunes, Safari ('cause the QuickTime updater or ITunes installer said to), RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, Adobe Reader, Shockwave, Flash, half-a-dozen browser toolbars and ActiveX plugins, and fifteen different versions of the Java runtime (did I forget anything?), all with their default configurations, and permit them to run whenever your computer asks you to. And you refuse to use any ad-blocker since that would be "stealing" web pages without compensating their owner. No regard to the fact that banner ads can be, and have been, infected with malware that uses Flash/Java/Reader exploits to compromise your machine.

I hereby honorarily revoke your username, "cyn1c77", on grounds that you're not a cynic (and you used leet-speek).

The other side?

[ksdd]

Everyone seems to be commenting on how this is bad for Netflix, but I'm kind of wondering how the Starz brass thinks leaving anywhere between $250-$300 million on the table is a good idea, or who they're going to receive better offers from. The content is OK, but I somehow doubt their stuff is as premium as they like to think it is...

Re:The other side?

[hellop2]

hulu

Re:The other side?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good point, even on cable Starz is only sold as a piece of a package. I have never known any to get Starz by it self. It is usually buy HBO, get Starz included. They only have one series worth anything, Spartacus.

Re:The other side?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're probably hoping everyone who has been watching their content on Netflix is now going to run out and buy a Starz-equipped package from their local cable provider. If so then they're dreaming.

Perhaps they should add another subscription plan IN Netflix that covers the Starz content? As long as it is reasonable (i.e. MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper than getting 80 channels I'll never watch from my cable company) some people may even consider signing up for it on top of their Netflix subscription.

Re:The other side?

[Anonymous Coward]

If hulu pays more, it'd be even dumber than the old Howard Stern deal for Sirius -- paying way too much for way too little increase in subscribers. Not to say that hulu aren't desperate enough to do it, but hopefully they're not that dumb and Starz will be left out in the cold. I applaud Netflix for not giving in.

Re:The other side?

[Anonymous Coward]

The content is OK, but I somehow doubt their stuff is as premium as they like to think it is...

TFS says they have rights to first run Sony and Disney movies, if that isn't, what the hell would you consider to be premium?

Re:The other side?

[MimeticLie]

Hulu is for sale. I could see Starz buying them and trying to start its own streaming service. I don't think it would work, but I could see it happening.

Re:The other side?

[TheQuantumShift]

And for me, it makes no difference. I already avoid all the Starz titles anyway. ~380i in 4:3 pan and scan? F that. It's weird, I've never been able to find one person who likes the cable TV structure as-is. Every single person wants a la carte, and less ads. Yet nothing is changing, except cable is moving to the net for distribution.

Re:The other side?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the public facing side of a negotiation. Starz probably wants $400-500 million or they'll take their ball home. Netflix is saying that $300m is plenty to find other balls to play with. There is a distinct possibility of a 'last minute deal' for maybe $325-350m.

Now I See

[BigSes]

I'm glad that now I know my extra money for the recent fee increases goto Netflix themselves, not to pay for content. I've been a NetFlix member for more than 10 years now, but I'm not so sure how much longer thats going to last.

THIS is why people torrent

[Peter Simpson]

Because it's easier. Honestly, if I could find a dependable source, with as broad a selection of US *and* foreign material as, say Pirate Bay, at a reasonable ($1.99 per title?) price, I'd sign right up. But no, that source doesn't (legally) exist...due to the seemingly constant bickering over licensing, and who gets how big a cut of the rapidly diminishing pie. Maybe one day the media companies will get a clue, but apparently that day isn't here yet.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Jason Levine]

I don't torrent, but I agree. If Netflix announced tomorrow that they had come to an agreement with the major studios to put all movies on streaming, say 90 days after the DVD release, then tons of people would sign up for the service. Netflix and the studios would both win. They could even raise their Streaming plan to $10 a month and it would still be a great deal. Instead, the content providers complain that if people access their titles on Netflix they won't buy the DVDs when many people will either 1) Go without the movie or 2) pirate the movie instead.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[themightythor]

Maybe one day the media companies will get a clue.

You know, I've always wondered what this proverbial clue would look like. That is, what model could the media companies adopt make the people who make this argument as an argument for stealing actually use it? As it is, you can go to your local Redbox and get a DVD for $1/day. What is wrong with that? Selection you say? Okay. So what you're looking for is some company who will somehow have literally anything that you're looking for available instantly for a nominal price? I think the logistics behind that are mind-boggling. Seriously, work up some numbers. Since you've implied that it should be easy to do, you should have no problem coming up with a model in which everyone wins. When you do that, go ahead and put yourself in business and make millions. You're welcome.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

What model could the media companies adopt?

Uh, how about the Netflix model?

"Ok, but ignoring the model that lets anybody anywhere get instant access to any movie ever made for a reasonable cost, what possible way could it ever work?"

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Hatta]

So what you're looking for is some company who will somehow have literally anything that you're looking for available instantly for a nominal price?

Yes.

I think the logistics behind that are mind-boggling. Seriously, work up some numbers.

It exists today for 0 dollars. Surely it can be done for slightly more than that.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I stopped downloading mp3's after I got a rhapsody "to go" subscription. I can dump as much music as I want to my mp3 player without having to bother hunting it down, renaming tracks, worrying about encode quality, etc.

I don't even really care that I don't 'own' the songs, because with hard drive failures and tiring of tracks I end up cycling my library out anyway. I have a cabinet full of CDs I'll never listen to again, so who cares.

Netflix isn't there yet. They don't have enough content, it is hard to sort out the quality stuff from the oceans of low budget crap because their interface is pretty horrible, and the streaming option sucks for TV because you don't get new episodes and oftentimes have "disc" only episodes or get the wrong episode when you try to watch because they have a bad mislabeling problem.

Why don't they rent games yet?

Rhapsody (for me) gave me a legal avenue that also provided enough additional value over piracy that giving them money seemed like a bargain. Just providing the content isn't enough, because we already have access to it. There has to be an incentive to switch. Give me something that makes watching TV and movies easier or better than sickbeard and xbmc and I will gladly open my wallet.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. First its hard to find a movie.I'm looking for on Netflix. As they don't have it up at the time... but the ones I do watch, about 60% have started with the stars logo.... which for me (more so the movies my one year old watches) are going to be severely reduced. I may be another person dropping the Netflix streaming and doing the 1dvd a month and burn a copy or quitting Netflix all together and just hitting redbox when needed

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Lando]

Hmmm,
        As posted this service already exists as various pirate file sharing sites can attest to. Doing it legally is another matter entirely as companies depend on a force monopoly over works produced and demand premium payment for show that have already more than paid back their production costs, even if the accounting says they haven't, eg look up babylon 5 accounting practices and why babylon 5 still keeps racking up debt even though the show hasn't been in production for quite a while.

      It comes down to simple greed in my opinion. I might be a little more lenient except for the fact that these same "businesses" got their "honest" politicians to rob my information, ie public domain, from me by extending copyright and also grandfathering all previous copyrighted material into a new monopoly that I will probably be dead before ever seeing another piece of copyrighted material fall into the public domain.

      We all build from our past experience, but today's rules for copyright do not even allow you to use material you are bombarded with as a child. I suppose somebody out there agrees with the current copyright law, but if today's media companies are so enamored of it, why do they sing "He's a jolly good fellow" instead of "Happy Birthday" in movies and television shows?

        Take out asinine copyright laws and a bit of greed and I'm sure you could actually set up a system where all information/entertainment was available at reasonable rates within a reasonable time frame.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell I would pay quite a bit more than 10 bucks a month if I could stream newly released DVDs. Sure I wouldn't be buying DVDs as much, but they would be getting a recurring royalty from me pretty much indefinitely. Fact of the mater is, I don't buy DVDs anymore as it is. Ive got a huge collection of 400+ dvd's that are a pain in the ass to store, I dont want any more! I want to download all of my content, and yes I am willing to pay for it if it is easy and works on all of my devices without all the petty licensing bullshit that comes with drm content these days.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Chibi]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, there are a lot of services now that let you rent and then stream/download the movie. I know Amazon does this, and there's some service on the PS3, too. The biggest catch is "reasonable price." Unfortunately, what you personally want to pay and what studios want to charge are obviously not in synch right now, and it's possible they never will be.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

This would not be a win for studios, people are watching on Netflix instead of buying DVDs, which is a much more profitable end strategy for movies and TV. It would be a win for consumers though and I don't think this will magically make people buy more DVDs, I just think people will torrent more. The technology people have in their pockets now is a lot different than 5 years ago, people can probably queue up a couple torrents on their home machine from work via their iPhone with the right app and said app will be braindead simple to use.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[kimvette]

It exists today for 0 dollars by amateurs in their spare time using spare hardware. Surely it can be done for slightly more than that.

I fixed that for you to fully illustrate the issue. :)

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[bored]

Unfortunately, what you personally want to pay and what studios want to charge are obviously not in synch right now, and it's possible they never will be.

Yah, the ~$6 to rent a movie on the roku from amazon is about $4 to much for my taste. Its basic economics, and you would think that the fact its $5 more expensive than redbox might give them a clue...

Its to bad that netflix hasn't figured out a way to stream the DVD library and avoid the resulting lawsuit. That way instead of mailing you a DVD they simply rent it for the two hours it takes to play. This of course is one of the 100 things wrong with copyright/content providers. They should not be able to control the distribution method once they have given you a license to something.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[jedidiah]

The economics of the situation already means that I can BUY some of these movies for less than streaming rental services want to charge me.

Many of the prices industry is trying to charge are simply out of touch with the reality of the market. Never mind pirates.

There's a glut of content out there and it's all got to compete with every thing else for a limited chunk of the nation's disposable cash. Every bad remake needs to compete with the original.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect Netflix doesn't rent games because the discs scratch too easily. I had a Netflix disc subscription several years ago and all of the discs I got looked terrible although they almost always played fine (a couple skipped at parts, but not enough to be a problem). If there's an unrecoverable error in a game disc, then the game crashes. You can't just skip over it.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

there are a lot of services now that let you rent and then stream/download the movie. I know Amazon does this

Before anyone wastes times checking out Amazon, let me help out a little here. What Chibi says is true but doesn't tell the whole story. Every single time that someone mentioned this, and I had forgotten about it and so I went to check out Amazon's offering, what I found was that 1) It requires the flash player and will not work with normal players (e.g. mplayer/xine/vlc) 2) there either isn't really a download (it's just streaming) or else the download is hidden.

There is no service, for any amount of money, that is even 1% as good as piracy. Amazon could give away what they offer for free, and pirates could charge me $5 per movie, and the pirates would still have a better deal.

The for-sale video offerings are that fucked up.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I don't pirate movies either but I agree. It's a pain to rent/stream stuff anymore, and no Hollywood, most of the stuff you make is not WORTH buying. When you make the game complicated and annoying, don't be surprised when people break the rules.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

That would make sense if GameFly didn't exist. I wish they would just buy them out and let you pay an extra dollar or two a month to have game rental added to your plan.

Re:THIS is why people torrent

[Jonner]

Because it's easier. Honestly, if I could find a dependable source, with as broad a selection of US *and* foreign material as, say Pirate Bay, at a reasonable ($1.99 per title?) price, I'd sign right up. But no, that source doesn't (legally) exist...due to the seemingly constant bickering over licensing, and who gets how big a cut of the rapidly diminishing pie. Maybe one day the media companies will get a clue, but apparently that day isn't here yet.

This certainly reduces the likelihood I'll sign up for the streaming service, though I may get the DVD service again. Not only does Netflix streaming not work on the device I use (my GNU/Linux Mythbox) but it has an ever-changing subset of their DVD selection, while I can find a torrent of almost anything I'm interested in. I used to use torrents because I was cheap, but now I don't want to give up the convenience and control I've become accustomed to.

Is there a list somewhere?

[hal2814]

Is there a list somewhere of what exactly is in the Starz catalog? I see it includes Disney movies but what about Disney Channel or ABC Family? What else is in that catalog?

Re:Is there a list somewhere?

[LoSt180]

I'm curious about this also. I watch netflix using the App on my Vizio TV, I haven't noticed any indication that something is from "Starz" vs anywhere else. My kid watches tons of Disney Channel shows, and we've been doing fine the past year without cable.

Re:Is there a list somewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Log into your Netflix account, at the top click on "Watch Instantly", then below that click on "Starz Play".

It's about 39 pages of stuff, mostly old movies.

Better content sources for netflix.

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix pays Starz to show Sony & Disney.

Sony pulls their content anyway.

Spend the cash somewhere else.

People Should Cancel Instead of Bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

I just pulled the plug on my Netflix account 2 days ago. I had the 2 DVD + Streaming plan, and we used it a lot, but they pissed me off with the rate increase...so I voted with my wallet. It's the only way to make an impact at all.

Re:People Should Cancel Instead of Bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a better idea: let's do both.

Partly to make sure that Netflix knows why they're losing customers in droves, but more importantly to make sure that anyone thinking of becoming a Netflix customer knows why they shouldn't.

The free market only works when the people buying are informed. One of the ways to ensure that potential customers ARE informed is to bitch about things like Netflix deciding to randomly raise prices while dropping content.

So, yes, vote with your wallet, but ALSO make sure everyone else is informed so that they can ALSO vote with their wallet.

Re:People Should Cancel Instead of Bitching

[mu51c10rd]

For those of us who don't bother with cable/satellite TV, an increase of 6 dollars still places their service under 25% of the cost of a basic TV plan. That is why the rate increase did not bother me and I have no plans on cancelling.

You forgot DVDs by Mail

[Kamiza Ikioi]

They recently "upgraded" their DVD model as well.

DVDs by Mail - First Born Male Child

Ditto

[localroger]

I got Netflix in the first place because my most reliable option for high speed internet is wireless 3G, thanks to the crappy wiring in an inaccessible alley behind my house. And it's capped at 5 Gb/month, and video stalls frequently during periods of high usage. So I did the same thing, switched to 2 DVD's, and I'm getting a lot more content for just a little more money. Thanks, Netflix!

Netflix's response

[whoop]

How can you have this story without Netflix's response? Google it for a good read.

Spoiler: Basically Netflix said thanks for what they had, but with all their other studio agreements, Starz only accounts for 8% of what people watch now. Not much of a loss, and they'll spend that on deals with other studios.

Re:Netflix's response

[RulerOf]

Starz only accounts for 8% of what people watch now.

Gotta love the obstinate party in a negotiation that simply can't fathom how someone else's statistics can royally fuck their argument.

Re:Netflix's response

[Anonymous Coward]

8% is a significant amount when you realize that any one content provider accounts for about ~10%. In other words if 4 more providers leave that's ~50% of netflix's content. Content providers are gonna leave in droves with in the next year or two because that are all losing money on netflix.

Re:Netflix's response

[MaXintosh]

No one is losing money on Netflix. Deals with netflix doesn't cost them a single red cent to follow through on, since all the media exists on Netflix's end. The only thing they could be losing is the opportunity for additional contracts (if they have an exclusivity contract with netflix) or the opportunity to make even more money from netflix. Even if no one watches a single move of theirs on 'Flix, they would still be making profit.

Re:Netflix's response

[Junta]

No one is losing money on Netflix.

Opportunity cost. Not *just* about exclusivity. If I can stream a movie from netflix witch confidence of continued availability, I'm never going to buy a disc copy. If netflix gives me everything I want for $8/month, I am not going to be feeding money into a cable company. Starz may have seen a significant decline in cable subscriber revenue more than the amount they considered likely to get from Netflix. Their choices are either change Netflix's behavior to mimic the cable revenue or make an effort to prop up the more profitable cable model they have going on and keep people from unsubscribing.

I say this not because I think it's just peachy keen, but watch for the reluctance of providers to impact Netflix more and more as well as any effort by Apple, Amazon, or anyone else to pull off all-you-can-eat ad-free streaming plans for third-party content.

lol

[Charliemopps]

This is what you people get for paying for your content. Suckers.

Spartacus

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'm torrenting the next season of Spartacus: Blood and Sand.....

Jerks.

You missed a few

[mu51c10rd]

You forgot to add the WD TV Live series, Samsung devices, and Vizio TV's to that list. They all support subtitles as well.

Re:You missed a few

[_xeno_]

I didn't, that list is straight from Netflix's horrible support site. I think the devices you list fall under the "Google TV" group, but I don't know.

I did notice that the FAQ answer on the controls for the PS3 streaming client was out of date, so it wouldn't surprise me if the list of clients that support subtitles is wrong too. But it's Netflix's list, and if they can't bother to update it...

Starz content sucked ass anyway

[elrous0]

I've been using Netflix streaming since it came out, and I hated seeing the Starz label on anything (it got to where I wouldn't put anything from them in my Queue). Why? Because none of their stuff was in HD and all their prints were for shit. That's all fine if you're watching Netflix streaming on your old 4:3 Philco, but their stuff looked like shit on HDTV or a decent computer monitor. So, while I hate losing ANY content on the great Netflix streaming service, I can't say I'll be too heartbroken to see that it's Starz.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch the first season of Louie and the entire run of Battlestar Galactica, both in HD, on my $7 a month service that people complain is overpriced.

Re:Starz content sucked ass anyway

[omnichad]

Thanks for being the first to say it. Their content was all converted in a very lousy way. Plus, there was an intro/outro. There was a series of 30-second shorts I wanted to watch on Netflix via Starz. It was a 25-second intro for Starz, the 30 second content, and then the 25-second outro. Watching 50 seconds of crap for just 30 seconds of content. And that's in addition to the fact that even their SD content is outright blurry on an HDTV.

Re:Starz content sucked ass anyway

[Chibi Merrow]

You talking about the Bunnies stuff? I tried showing them to my in-laws, got through about the second one, and said "Are these guys fscking stupid?" and went and found them on the web instead...

Re:Starz content sucked ass anyway

[omnichad]

Yes. I completely gave up. The rest of the Internet doesn't stream on my Blu-Ray player, and as a matter of convenience, I gave up.

Sucks

[SphericalCrusher]

Oh, investors expected this deal to take place? Oh so I guess that takes priority over the millions of Netflix users who expected it to take place? This is a big deal to me. My wife is a stay at home mom, and yeah she spends a lot of time with my boy playing outside and inside away from the TV, but when they finally sit down for a minute -- the same as when I get off of work, I want to sit down and enjoy a good selection of content. Now without those Disney movies, well, I will honestly probably go right back to piracy since I can't afford to buy every Disney movie that comes out. (I know not every movie was on Netflix) Sure, I can rent discs from Netflix, Redbox, Blockbuster, or I can rent and copy them. Yes, this attitude I have towards making illegal backups of their movies I thought was long gone. Thanks Netflix. Hopefully they strike a deal with another large company to bring us some better movies or I'm cancelling. We mostly use it for Disney movies anyway.

Re:Sucks

[danomac]

You've just outlined the problem of not having physical media in your hands. Someone else decided it's too expensive and you pay (suffer?) for it.

Re:Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

What Disney movies does Netflix have? My wife is studying film and recently was required to watch several of them, including Pinnochio, the Little Mermaid, and one or two others. None of them were available on Netflix streaming or iTunes. Am I missing something? They had non-Disney versions (which were probably more true to the original story, but not what she was required to watch), but not the Disney ones.

Re:Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I will honestly probably go right back to piracy since I can't afford to buy every Disney movie that comes out.

Because the only logical alternative to paying for something is stealing it. Wow. I guess your excuse it they made you do it, huh?
I can't afford a new BMW, so they MADE me steal one.

Stealing is stealing.

Re:Sucks

[Tetsujin]

I will honestly probably go right back to piracy since I can't afford to buy every Disney movie that comes out.

Because the only logical alternative to paying for something is stealing it. Wow. I guess your excuse it they made you do it, huh?
I can't afford a new BMW, so they MADE me steal one.

Stealing is stealing.

The copyright system seriously undermines the normal market forces of competition, erosion of value over time, etc. which allows content creators to dictate terms for their content for a term on par with the length of a person's life. Generations come and go, and there is apparently no point at which we collectively take ownership of these works that become significant elements of our culture.

Breaking the rules partially restores these market forces: degrading the value of works and breaking copyright holders' exclusivity over the works. It's not fair, but I don't think copyright law is fair, either. So in moral terms I don't have a lot of qualms about media piracy.

Re:Sucks

[Garwulf]

Well, you had my sympathy right up to: "Now without those Disney movies, well, I will honestly probably go right back to piracy since I can't afford to buy every Disney movie that comes out. (I know not every movie was on Netflix)."

Now you just come across as spoiled and self-entitled. By your own admission, you have at least two other easy and legitimate sources for this content - so use them.

Complain to Starz

[mu51c10rd]

If anyone wants to let Starz know what they think, Liberty Media's contact information is here. Netflix was willing to offer up to 250 million...yet that was not enough to Starz who previously was providing their library for 30 million. Seems blatantly obvious who is at fault for the lack of renewal here.

Re:Complain to Starz

[sl4shd0rk]

If anyone is interested in a boycott, Liberty Media (Starz) also has investment* in the following businesses:

- Liberty Interactive group (Nasdaq: LINTA, LINTB)
- QVC
- Provide Commerce
- Backcountry.com
- Celebrate Interactive
- Bodybuilding.com
- Evite
- Expedia
- the Liberty Starz group (Nasdaq: LSTZA, LSTZB) and the Liberty Capital group (Nasdaq: LCAPA, LCAPB)
- Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc.
- TruePosition, Inc.
- SiriusXM Radio,Inc.
- Time Warner Inc.
- Live Nation.

[*] - http://www.libertymedia.com/

Re:Complain to Starz

[blair1q]

Yes. You are, for not cancelling your Netflix subscription when they announced their own cash-grab.

Re:why the HELL is this on slahsdot ?

[Sponge Bath]

Because it involves technology and stuff people are interested in which drives views to /. and its advertisements.

Boo freakin' hoo

[tgd]

Starz' content was poor quality, and old movies that you'll find on TBS or some other cable channel if you really cared.

Good riddance. It sucked having to page over their junk, and if it frees up money for places with real content, more power to Netflix.

The funniest thing is that Starz seems to think their "brand" has any value.

Re:Boo freakin' hoo

[jkmartin]

I think I've watched 2 of the Starz films offered on streaming: Toy Story 3 and The Other Guys. Sorting the selection of Starz films by rating shows the top 15 films were all made prior to 1995. I will not miss Starz.

Re:Boo freakin' hoo

[MaXintosh]

For me, when I see the starz logo, I know that it's going to be low quality, poor audio, and probably 20 years old. Not that there isn't good 20 year old movies, but that's definitely not what I'm on 'flix for. I'll miss Starz because it let me know what not to watch.

Irrelevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

My family has found that the value of YOUR content is now $0.00. It only has value in a scarcity economy (or whatever the term is for it). Between current offerings, back catalog, and future availability, my entire family (wife and kids place much higher value in TV than myself) could not watch everything interesting in 10 lifetimes. Having access to "entertainment" is now worth no more than $20 aggregate in a month - it's the access that's important, not the actual content.

Same goes for music - with Pandora, internet radio, radio, my diverse taste in music, ownership of music has zero value to me personally. And with books - Gutenberg.org and cheap/free ebooks plus widely available web content (some of it is actually good, you know) and the value of my reading material is the time savings of electronic delivery (nearly free).

If any one (or even half dozen) content providers pull their content I can only respond with a tepid "So?"

Surely I'm not the only one who feels this way?

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney and Sony content pirating increases.

This sounds familiar.

[nege]

Not too long ago I was thinking to myself, "You know, I haven't really pirated anything in a while. Most of what I want is on hulu or netflix." I also noted that many of the things I watched on Netflix started with the Starz logo. Perhaps very soon it will be time to go back to TPB. Why don't media companies get it? I don't *NEED* to buy their product, I can have it for free because there is no scarcity in a world of 1s and 0s.

So in other words

[kimvette]

So in other words, Netflix streaming will soon be no better than Amazon Prime? I subscribe to Prime for the shipping services, but almost never use the streaming. If Netflix doesn't go back and kiss Starz's ass, why should I not go to a disc-only subscription, buy a Roku XS and use Prime instead?

Re:So in other words

[MimeticLie]

Another mark in Prime's favor: it doesn't use Silverlight, so it works on Linux.

they don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

they are trying as hard as they can to get my money and i'm trying as hard as i can not to. Netflix was the last bit of legal way of getting the shows. Not that they want to kill that too, i'm not gonna even bother with movies. No big deal, most new ones suck anyways. Unless they come to my house and mug me they ain't getting a cent from me.

Good riddance, I say.

[gblues]

Starz content on Netflix Streaming has always been horrible quality. Fire up Tangled, skip to the scene where the dam breaks, and listen in horror to the audio compression artifacts. I've got pretty low standards of quality, and even I'm embarrassed for Starz.

Re:Good riddance, I say.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it was there as an option to watch- do you think kids care much about compression artifacts? Options, even if they're sub-optimal, are better than no options.

Re:Good riddance, I say.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, when I see the STARZ intro play on a title I immeadiately hit the back button. Assuming all STARZ content on netflix has that same intro in front of it, I can safely say I never watch anything from them, so good for netflix!

Re:Good riddance, I say.

[Anonymous Coward]

Starz content on Netflix Streaming has always been horrible quality. Fire up Tangled, skip to the scene where the dam breaks, and listen in horror to the audio compression artifacts. I've got pretty low standards of quality, and even I'm embarrassed for Starz.

I'm sure the average 6 year old cares.

Booo

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Starz was the distributor for a couple shows I wanted to stream. This sucks :(

and HP

[gearloos]

sounds like Netflix and HP CEOs are drinking buddies after all. Talk about corporate suicide. Hp and Netflix both haha.

In other news: Netflix streaming to still suck

[sl4shd0rk]

Netflix pisses me off. We used to do the snail-mail CDROM but then got a boxee box so cancelled the CDROM delivery. Found out later you can't get the same titles streaming as you can through the mail (WTF!?). Then, I find out about Starz but most of the offerings are grade-b crap that was out prior to 1996.

I know Netflix is trying to stay above water and offering a lot of titles for a low price but c'mon. I can drive down to the video store in 5 minutes and pick up a newer title than what I can get off Netflix. If Starz leaves, it's not like the selection is going to get any worse.

No more Torchwood Miracle Day on Starz Live?

[Frogking]

I ALMOST cancelled my Netflix account when the price for disc & streaming went up. Then I found Starz had a live stream of their network channel on Netflix. I really started to get into Torchwood Miracle Day and decided not to cancel Netflix. Now I'm pretty sure I will be closing my account, and go to a "friend" to get the show for me online for free.

Fun thing though...

[Junta]

The cry against cable providers is 'arggg, give me a la carte, I don't want to pay for all the crap'

But the prospect of that becoming a reality 'tiered pricing' is met with equal amounts of rage.

Yes, the obvious difference is in the former, cable overcharges by a ton and in the latter it means a price hike, but it seems amusing.

I presume it can't be as simple as "They were willing to pay $300 Million for continued access. Starz wanted them to use tiered pricing". Starz probably wouldn't accept $300 million and proposed tiered pricing as a recovery mechanism for netflix to afford whatever Starz wanted, or Starz was willing to assume the risk for the chance of that extra revenue topping $300 million.

No big surprise!

[TheSync]

No surprise here. Netflix has been getting an incredibly cheap deal on the Starz content, and the whole deal was a little "creative" in the first place from a legal point of view.

Hollywood wants money for its content...Netflix may need to double prices to be able to sustainably offer the kind of content that its users demand.

booo!

[sixsixtysix]

and i JUST canceled starz from my cable service as it was available via netflix.

Two different issues

[brokeninside]

Roku supports both subtitles and closed captioning.

Apparently, Netflix doesn't support either on the Roku.

Just because a device supports feature x does not mean that a third party service supports feature x on that device.

Fuck Crunchyroll

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Crunchyroll.

I became a member on a Friday morning before setting off on a nine-month trip, thinking it would be nice to have. What a waste of money. SD videos would load, but required frequent buffering. Anything requiring more bandwidth was unwatchable due to needing to buffer for 2 minutes per 30 seconds of playback. And this is plugged in at hotels or people's homes, not over 3G or on a plane.

Over the course of the first three weeks, I tried multiple machines, multiple browsers, over a dozen connections including a couple of locations with 50 Mbps FiOS lines. Nope, not a problem on my end. Friday rolls around, I'm getting pissed, but I have my first quiet weekend lined up, so I resign myself to sitting down and researching the issue on their forums.

Turns out it is a massive issue with their infrastructure, many threads, thousands of posts, but no real information coming from CR at all. It had been a known issue for months. No notice on the front page, no notices to free account holders, no notice to premium account holders. The only way you'd figure it out is by actively seeking answers on their forum. Okay, so I contribute what information I can to the threads to help along a speedy resolution.

Before I knew it, four or five months had passed before I had enough downtime to relax with some mindless anime. Still no word from CR. At all. I try contacting their official support. No response. The forums are alive with angry posts about cancelled memberships and demands for reimbursement. The threads I had bookmarked are deleted. There's no official posts anywhere to be found. I smell censorship, so I try a polite post asking for an update on the issue. A few "I'm having this too" responses and a day later the thread is deleted. I'm guessing damage control, so I again try to reach CR directly. No response.

At least by this point, the SD streaming seems to work fine, but even 480p was still unwatchable. Unfortunately, I had just been billed for my sixth month, but I cancel immediately. My account still exists, so I submit to get it deleted. No sense paying for what I can still get for free.

I just went searching through their forums and found nothing about the incident. If HD streaming works for everyone now, great. But I paid for a service I did not receive, and so did hundreds of other people. We were not compensated and we certainly never got any answers.

Fuck Crunchyroll.

Re:Fuck Crunchyroll

[AmbushBug]

Wow, sucks to be you I guess. I've been watching tons of anime off crunchyroll for the past few months and haven't had any problems. It even works well on my phone and tablet. I loves me some crunchyroll...

Re:Fuck Crunchyroll

[rhsanborn]

A minor quibble, but most hotel internet has been pretty poor in my experience, often to the point of being almost unusable, especially in the evenings and early mornings when everyone is using it.

Netflix Convinced Me To Watch Movies Again

[monk]

If it's not on Netflix I probably won't bother.

February 28, 2012

[Ngarrang]

The deal expires in 2012. February 28th, to be exact. They now have 5 months to play out the drama, point fingers, etc. In the mean-time, Netflix will sign other deals. When Starz realizes their stock value will also go down after losing Netflix's potential revenue, they both kiss and sign a new contract.

And in the end, nothing will be different.

In the business world, many enemies work together for the common good of money.

who came up with this number, the Mad Hatter?

[Gravis Zero]

The original deal with Netflix and Starz was negotiated for $30 million a year four years ago. Now with a new deal between Netflix and Starz analysts would expect it to cost around $200-300 million.

10 times the cost from previously?! doubling the cost would be a bit much but 10 times the previous amount?! saying you will go as low as seven time the previous amount is really shitty negotiation tactics. i'm glad Netflix turned them down because this level of greed is INSANE.

Re:who came up with this number, the Mad Hatter?

[kramerd]

Netflix started over a decade ago, charging 4bucks a rental, plus 2 bucks postage, with late fees. Today, its 8 bucks a month for unlimited (based on your isp) streaming. Of course, now, netflix has about 25 million subscribers. They didn't hit 10 million until 2009. The value of the starz deal is based on viewers and expected growth (yes, netflix will get even more subscribers in the future). You also have to factor in exclusivity (does starz sell out to anyone but netflix, and how much of the netflix user base turns down the alternatives in favor of netflix based on price/quality/availability) and on a related point, corporate cannibalism.

You can not claim that 200-300 million is an unreasonable price simply because you personally are bad at math.

Re:who came up with this number, the Mad Hatter?

[Gravis Zero]

in what way is starz being with netflix exclusive? they are on every cable network.

anyway, unless they are providing more content or production costs have increased, it's 10 times the price for the same thing.

popularity != value

this is purely greed and if you think that $270 million of pure greed is ok then you are just morally corrupt.

Re:who came up with this number, the Mad Hatter?

[kramerd]

Logic fail. My morals are not in question here. Starz is a business, which has the stated goal of creating as big a return as they can, because they have shareholders. If it were a non-profit, you might have a complaint.

On the other hand, popularity = value. Its pretty much a basic tenant of economics, increase in demand, without change to any other input, = increase in price. The customer base of netflix is actually a lagging indicator. It measures the number of people who pay for netflix, not the number of people who (specifically) watch Starz content. Netflix gets to promote the ability for users to view starz content, Starz has to figure out not only how many people are going to watch it on netflix instead of elsewhere (redbox, cable, dvd/bluray purchase, thepiratebay) and the monetary risk; but also the benefit to netflix. Starz can then price accordingly, so that Starz gets as much money as possible, without asking for so much that netflix decides to get content elsewhere (or pay their shareholders). The term greed doesn't fit here, because neither company is trying to get more than their fair share.

Starz is also providing NEW content (which, assuming the old content is still available, also = more). The last time I checked, new content that people want to want to watch is particularly expensive to create, even more so now than years ago.

Its a higher price, buts it is not the same thing.

Monopoly / Monopsony

[alexander_686]

Ford does have a monopoly - on Ford Focus – nobody else can make them. But you are right – Toyota makes the Corolla which is a close substitute for a Focus – both are small cars that will get to where you need to go. If you go to a rental agency hoping to rent a Focus and all they have are Corollas - most people would not complain too hard and would rent the Corolla instead. I know few people who pine for a Focus. Bently is another matter.

Starz’s has a monopoly on streaming Pixar’s Nemo. Netflix could go and steam Dreamwork’s Shark Tale – another children’s animated movie. Is this a close substitute? I think not. If I want to watch Nemo and they offer me Shark Tale I would decline.

Is Starz a monopoly? For our perspective - the consumer - no. We have choices – other steaming services, a new DVD, a used DVD, etc. Or, heck, different entertainment options.

From Netflix? Yes – it is. They can’t buy used DVDs of Nemo and steam them. They can negotiate a deal with Starz or try to convince their customer’s that Nemo is just not that important.

Which takes me back to my original point. Is Netflix / Starz a monopoly / monopsony? No – but their relationship share characteristics of one.

Re:Monopoly / Monopsony

[bws111]

Why can't Netflix (or anyone else for that matter) make a deal directly with Disney? Other streaming services have done it. They didn't make the deal with Starz because the HAD to, they made it because they WANTED to, because it was cheaper and easier than making the deals with the individual studios. There are no characteristics of a monopoly in there anywhere at all.

Re:Monopoly / Monopsony

[alexander_686]

Well, they could - but look why the deal fell apart in the first place. Disney was leaning on Starz to crank up the price for Netflix. You are just going futher up the ladder.

If Disney offer's it's movies on DVD then anybody can buy and rent them. Disney can't discriminate [i.e. charge a higher price] against Netflix.

Streaming is a different matter. Disney can, and does, charge different prices to different companies. See the forced content licenses discussions floating around this thread about alternatives to current practices. And the ablity to price discrimination is one of those classic monopoly characteristics. Which why Netflix is in a bind.

double whammy

[schlachter]

first the price increase and now less content? frustrating...
makes pirate bay and/or cable seem more appealing.

Not a sentence

[Tetsujin]

To watch the 100 or so episodes of "Have Gun - Will Travel" that are left in my queue.

That is not a sentence.

Re:why the HELL is this on slahsdot ?

[mehemiah]

i guess its because of the large volume of content that one of the largest digital distributors is loosing right? Help me out here. Otherwise its just a content retailer loosing the right to content. Netflix lost its novelty to me after youtube started distributing movies.

netflix managed by morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix management must be staffed by ex-banking executives. If they had thrown streaming customers a bone of some sort and then raised prices maybe they might have preserved some sort of customer loyalty. Now they've lost a big chunk of their streaming content which was mediocre to ok in quality to begin with. Was there a business strategy in there that I missed?

Interesting...

[DaVince21]

Since I had never, EVER heard of Starz before this article, I thought it was rather trivial. Interesting to know how many licenses they apparently own.

Now that they've broken up...

[jseale]

Starz might switch to another CDN such as XBox or Roku, or maybe both (like Hulu is doing now). Epix, the subscription movie channel currently available through Roku, would most certainly leave and then make itself available via cable TV (it actually is however, just not widely available).