Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
Wearing pants should always be optional.
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.
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?
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
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.
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.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
$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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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...
Everytime I saw the Starz label, I cringed. They should have just changed to it "No HD."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
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.
Because it involves technology and stuff people are interested in which drives views to /. and its advertisements.
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
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.
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.
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.
And Netflix streams well enough that "crappy DSL" can handle it on my TV.
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.