Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney Switching To Netflix For Exclusive Film Distribution

Posted by Soulskill on from the future-is-finally-getting-here dept.

An anonymous reader writes "When Disney films leave the theater and head for TV, they currently go through the Starz channel first. That's going to change in 2016. Disney has signed a deal to give Netflix the first crack at its animated and live-action films. Even if you're not a fan of either company, this is a bit of a big deal; Disney is ditching a traditional pay-TV service in favor of online streaming. (It also includes properties from the recent Lucasfilm deal.) The article wisely points out that pay-TV in general isn't in danger until the live sports situation changes, but this is a big step away from the status quo."

87 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. A Positive Move by ohnocitizen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As more content providers embrace streaming, they are going to where customers want to buy their data. I hope more companies follow their lead, they allow for multiple distributors (sucks if you have amazon prime and not netflix and it is an exclusive deal), and distributors make sure they support the big three platforms. Hopes aside, this is a good step in the right direction.

    1. Re:A Positive Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, that's not how it works. It's grab the big bucks for an exclusive deal with one content distributor and F*** the people who aren't with that one. Other studios will get their big bucks from another distributor, so the only way consumers can have it all, is to pay for Netflix, LoveFilm (do they have that in the US?) etc.

      Then, of course, they wonder why the Pirate Bay was popular?
      Maybe it's because they have content from everyone, not to mention, in a format that plays on anything.

    2. Re:A Positive Move by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish that was the way it already worked.

      If I want to buy laundry soap, I can buy almost every brand at almost every store.

      If I want to buy, say, a video game -- I can only buy certain ones at certain places. Unlike buying groceries, I can't just take them home and use them however. So you end up requiring an account and a running installed client for Steam, Origin, GOG, D2D, Impulse, Green Man Gaming, Beamdog, Desura, etc. It's a fucking mess and it only is a problem because every mother fucker wants to be the god damn distribution king, at the expense of just making something and selling it everywhere people want to sell and buy it.

    3. Re:A Positive Move by DrXym · · Score: 2

      I expect they go where they can maximize their returns and screw the end viewers.

    4. Re:A Positive Move by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I like to think that end viewers are a variable in the maximized returns function. The variable may not be used how you expect it to be, but there is no way in hell that its not in there since they are the ones holding the money.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:A Positive Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that's not how it works. It's grab the big bucks for an exclusive deal with one content distributor and F*** the people who aren't with that one. Other studios will get their big bucks from another distributor, so the only way consumers can have it all, is to pay for Netflix, LoveFilm (do they have that in the US?) etc.

      Then, of course, they wonder why the Pirate Bay was popular?
      Maybe it's because they have content from everyone, not to mention, in a format that plays on anything.

      Not to completely invalidate your argument, however first off, Netflix streaming service is 8 bucks a month. Same as HuluPlus. Amazon is $79 per year. If you are posting on this forum you most likely have a device compatible with Netflix streaming. If not, a used Roku can be picked up for as cheap as $25 on ebay. If you were to get all three big streaming services (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu) it's still faaaaaar cheaper per month than cable television.

      As for Pirate Bay - I can walk to my TV, and in less than 15 seconds start streaming a movie on my Roku. That's not possible with Pirate Bay. Now I might not have access to everything, but as more and more stuff becomes available the need for Pirate Bay will shrink to oblivion. Besides, at least in the US most people in an urban setting have a Redbox within walking distance.

    6. Re:A Positive Move by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I agree this is great and i hope more jump on board. If you want the customers you have to give them what THEY want, which is easy, cheap, and convenient to use.

      THIS is how you actually fight piracy, not the 6 strikes and John Doe bullshit, but making your product so affordable and easy to get it becomes more of a bother to pirate than it is to just get it legal. I know plenty of pirates that have stopped, not because of litigation or draconian laws, but because between netflix, Steam, GOG, and all the channels beginning to put their shows online they simply have more than they could ever possibly watch, listen to, or play, so there really is no need to pirate.

      Let us hope that all of the media and game companies see that the net is the future and not something they should fight. Of course this will give the ISPs a heart attack, how will they throw off anybody that actually uses their bandwidth if they are all using legal services? Why they might even have to spend some of their profits to...gasp!...upgrade their capacity! The horror! Won't somebody think of the board?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:A Positive Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except if you live outside the US ofcourse. Because fuck those people.
      Even when those services expand outside US they have the same problems as any local player trying to do it. Lack of deals due to agreements locking everything in to random restrictions.

      The only way to get a good streaming service is to get a US proxy/VPN and go through that.

      Piratebay will continue to be popular where the studios won't let the users pay.

    8. Re:A Positive Move by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      You do know that games bought on GoG come without DRM and you don't need to install the downloader do download and play the games, right?

      (says that and updates his Steam and Origin clients *g*)

    9. Re:A Positive Move by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uhhh...since when did GOG have a client? They got a download manager, but you can use your browser just fine. As for the rest of those all of them put together don't make 10% of what Steam makes so i have a feeling in the next 2 to 3 years they'll all go by the wayside. Hell EA is up the auction block so obviously Origin didn't make the money they hoped, and I don't think I've ever met anybody that uses the others you've named, heck besides D2D I haven't even HEARD of any of them so I don't think they'll be long term.

      Everybody seems to forget their history, it was the same way when music first started being offered on the net, you had nearly a dozen companies, some used REAL, some used WMA for DRM, you couldn't find but a percentage of the artists (and rarely their full catalogs) on any one service, etc. Then the weak ones die off and soon you are left with only one or two with huge selections. If I had to guess I'd say Steam and GOG, Steam because it has the most users by far, GOG because of it being DRM free which means you can just buy the games and run them beside Steam no problem. The rest i figure will be DOA in a couple of years, maybe less.

      I mean Ubisoft even got rid of their always on DRM, if that don't show things are changing I don't know what does.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:A Positive Move by Seumas · · Score: 2

      True, GOG doesn't force it on you, but the others do. And GOG would obviously *like* you to use it, which is why I count it in the same list. They are the least annoying of every one, though.

      The comparison to music is fair enough, I suppose. Except that almost ten years into mainstream digital distribution, we are way on the other stream of where we were ten years into digital music distribution. And I don't like the solution you pose as the ultimate evolution of it, either. I prefer Steam and GOG (even though I don't care for Steam-ish DRM), but I don't want everything else to fail and for there to "be only one". I want them to act like a laundry soap manufacturer would. To make games and sell those games at every possible point of distribution possible. I don't want one single digital store selling every possible game. I want *every* online digital game store selling *every* possible game. Just like almost every grocery store sells the same products.

      They shouldn't be competing on "Ooh, only Origin has Dragon Age and Sim City!" or "only Beamdog has the Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition!". They should be competing on interface, speed, customer service, price, and community.

    11. Re:A Positive Move by Liambp · · Score: 2

      Even though I am a Netflix subscriber I completely disagree that this is a good move. My problem is with the word "exclusive". As long an individual distributors get exclusive rights to content it means that large groups of consumers (those who choose for various reasons to go with another distributor) are blocked from getting the content they would like. In my country for example I can't watch most HBO shows because HBO has signed an exclusive deal with a different cable provider but if I switched to that provider I would lose other stuff instead.

      This has a long term distorting effect on the market. Instead of distributors competing against each other by "being a better distribution service" they spend all their money trying to lock up exclusive rights to content and we customers are forced to put up with a crappy service just to see the content we want to watch.

    12. Re:A Positive Move by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      True, GOG doesn't force it on you, but the others do. And GOG would obviously *like* you to use it, which is why I count it in the same list.

      You wrote about services that *require* a running client.
      That is not true for GoG, so it's inclusion is outright wrong. No matter what they would like you to do.

      Also, I thought they only have a download manager and not a full fledged client? (I might be wrong here.)

    13. Re:A Positive Move by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it is typical that the more viewers a service has the more it is prepared to pay. But it might also be the case that a service *doesn't* have the viewers and is using the exclusive as a hook to attract more viewers, or steal them away from a rival. In that scenario, another service with more actual viewers is being deprived of the content. Or Disney might play off two services precisely for that reason, as appears to be the case right here. My understanding is that Starz used to licence stuff to Netflix and then it didn't, and now Netflix is doing a runaround to get the content itself and depriving Starz of it in the process. That's great for Netflix users, not so great for Starz users. It's too bad that content isn't licenced like patents, in a fair and non-discriminatory way so services could all licence it if they wished and could afford it.

    14. Re:A Positive Move by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      This has a long term distorting effect on the market.

      That's an unavoidable consequence of IP law as it is currently implemented. We could go with much shorter copyrights (so you only have to wait 5 years or so for the content) or use a stronger compulsory system, but as long as the law grants exclusive rights you will get exclusive deals.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:A Positive Move by DragonTHC · · Score: 2

      cool rant bro.

      Netflix is $9 a month. That's actually counter-piracy pricing. I happily pay that every month for what Netflix has to offer.

      This deal is a bonus. The only thing left is just waiting for an online streaming provider to get current television shows from all networks.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    16. Re:A Positive Move by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Except that Netflix (just like the BBC service offering their shows) hasn't studied the usage patterns of its customers.
      They often offer only 1 season, or sometimes a few seasons of a popular show but they never offer the whole thing unless the series is long dead it seems.
      When my wife and I want to watch a series, we will go through it from beginning to end. If its on Netflix (or the far superior but very limited apple BBC app), then its a no brainer. I am quite happy with Netflix generally but I get very irritated when they offer say 6 out of 10 seasons, but fail to offer the other 4 seasons at all. If they want to offer something they had better be prepared to offer the whole thing.
      Because the moment we run out of seasons on netflix its time to find the rest of the series. Usually we can get it at the library, but if not, then it might just be bittorrent time. In effect the 6 seasons offered with 4 missing provide an incentive to go download whats missing. If they provided it, no one would worry about downloading it when they would just watch the Netflix version.
      The BBC tends to be worse about this than Netflix even. I watched the pilot of an excellent show called Red Cap. They offered the pilot only. The rest of the series was not to be found, nor the second season. Off to the torrent sites - only to find its not available there either.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    17. Re:A Positive Move by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      that choice isn't Netflix's to make if the show is currently on TV.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    18. Re:A Positive Move by Amouth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that Netflix (just like the BBC service offering their shows) hasn't studied the usage patterns of its customers.

      I highly doubt that is at all a correct statement for Netflix.

      Your particular issue, is the same one i have, and if you actually look into why it is that way it is because the content owners don't want Netflix to have the full catalog. There is a trickle down pattern that the content creators/owners follow to maximize the revenue from a product, first it is broadcast fees for the live/first showing, then its DVD Sales/Physical rental income, then it's bargain bin distributions (which is what Netflix falls into for most of them).

      Disney switching to Netflix is a big deal, and i hope that if they see the value init other content owners will see it too and switch over to them.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    19. Re:A Positive Move by Thansal · · Score: 1

      His point isn't actually invalid, as it applies to Cable TV as well. If you want all of the new movies you have to pick up HBO, Stars, and what ever else there is, each at an additional charge per month. $271 a year (your math for netflix+hulu+amazon) is kind of expensive, and really a joke to do something like that because you would be buying the extras just for the sake of the couple exclusives they have.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    20. Re:A Positive Move by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      Except that Netflix (just like the BBC service offering their shows) hasn't studied the usage patterns of its customers.

      You REALLY think Netflix doesn't pay attention to what people watch on Netflix? They have no studies? No analytics? No reporting? No analysis at all? Just because things are missing (hint: online content deals are hard to cut) doesn't mean they aren't paying attention. PS: Everyone was up in arms when Starz and Netflix failed to cut a deal and tons of Disney stuff disappeared. Now, they signed a deal with Disney direct, and cut out Starz. You don't think they did that because they knew how many kids wanted to stream Disney movies?

    21. Re:A Positive Move by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      Why would people get that when thepiratebay is 0$ per month, is accessible from anywhere, and there is no digital restrictions management involved? Or even better to keep that money and purchase a new dvd every other month? At least a dvd can be ripped to the hard drive and copied as many times as someone wants. Paying 9$ per month for getting no value in return is ludicrous.

      Yes, because once EVERYBODY starts pirating, and NOBODY has to pay for ANYTHING, I'm sure there won't be any ramifications. People will keep making movies and TV shows for fun. Maybe we can develop some technology to blur out product placements, so we see NO advertising, ever. This way, we don't see commercials, we don't see product placements, and we don't pay for access to the content.

      I need to find a way to steal my neighbors Internet too, why do I pay for Internet, when I could get it for free?

      Some people (such as myself) pay for cable and Netflix because we perceive value in what we get, and would rather not just "take" it for free.

    22. Re:A Positive Move by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      And GOG would obviously *like* you to use it, which is why I count it in the same list

      GOG does not even have a client for you to run, so this statement is just plain wrong. The download manager makes it easier for you to download products because GOG typically bundles soundtracks, artwork, etc., with your purchases. With the download manager you can download everything together with the added ability of pausing and resuming downloads. I really do believe it's there just to make things simpler for the customer, because I've not seen them try to push its use on anyone who would rather just use their browser.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    23. Re:A Positive Move by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

      I'm a former Netflix customer. I'm now an Amazon Prime customer. Currently, Amazon is a better deal with a greater selection. It also gives the option to view new releases if you pay a little extra plus it provides free two-day shipping, discounts on select Amazon purchases and you can "borrow" an e-book on your Kindle for up to one month every month. I just order a Roku and with AP, it should kick ass.

    24. Re:A Positive Move by Liambp · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why the content producers go along with it. By giving an exclusive rights to one distributor they are cutting the audience for their product. Sure they can charge over the odds to that one distributor but ultimately the more people see your product the more money in total comes in so surely it would be better for them to distribute their content widely at a reasonable price than to rely on one big payment from one distributor.

    25. Re:A Positive Move by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 2

      Why would people get that when thepiratebay is 0$ per month, is accessible from anywhere, and there is no digital restrictions management involved? Or even better to keep that money and purchase a new dvd every other month? At least a dvd can be ripped to the hard drive and copied as many times as someone wants. Paying 9$ per month for getting no value in return is ludicrous.

      As a U.S citizen living in the U.S., I don't want to be sued by the MPAA or RIAA. BTW, with Amazon Prime, I pay only $7 per month and I get more than Movie & TV show streaming.

    26. Re:A Positive Move by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's simple - people will pay more for a scarce commodity. With "real" property, the commodity generally has some shelf life or cost associated with holding on to it. With IP and a near-infinite monopoly, it pays to restrict supply to keep the price high.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    27. Re:A Positive Move by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      easy netflix is legal, the pirate bay is illegal and you can be sued by the riaa/mpaa, netflix streams on demand you have to wait for torrents to download, bluray players televisions tablets phones and $30 streaming boxes from walmart come with netflix apps, netflix sends you dvds/blurays that you can rip return and get more, netflix has relevant movie recommendations the pirate bay has popups and porn ads.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    28. Re:A Positive Move by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      His point isn't actually invalid, as it applies to Cable TV as well. If you want all of the new movies you have to pick up HBO, Stars, and what ever else there is, each at an additional charge per month. $271 a year (your math for netflix+hulu+amazon) is kind of expensive, and really a joke to do something like that because you would be buying the extras just for the sake of the couple exclusives they have.

      How is that expensive compared to a Cable TV bill - which could be as much as $200/month without getting all HBO and Stars.

      Seriously, if you dropped your Cable TV subscription and just went with Netflix+Hulu+Amazon, then you would have it paid off inside of 3 months. Even if you only got basic cable - which can run anywhere from $20/month to $60/month, you'd still save money or at worse break even over the course of a year.

      Or you do like me and only have Netflix and no Cable TV - $64/year. Well...we've got Amazon too (technically)...and we're evaluating that on whether we save shipping over the holidays/birthdays/etc, not against TV usage.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    29. Re:A Positive Move by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Even the download manager isn't a "You must use this!" hell they don't even try to get folks to lean one way or another, they simply point out their download manager lets you throw everything in a queue and download them one at a time, along with allowing you to pause it. And since once you have your games using EITHER downloading manually or the manager that you never have to use or even have the manager installed? I really don't think its an apt comparison.

      This is why I think it'll end up being Steam and GOG, because GOG games can run next to Steam games without needing multiple clients, unlike origin, D2D, and the rest. And since Steam has more users than all the other ones put together, has huge sales, takes care of MP and chat and matchmaking its simply the better gaming service to have and when combined with GOG you have access to this huge library going back 30+ years and its as easy as "click here to get game" so its no wonder these two work great together.

      As I said we've all seen this dance before with music, we had over a dozen services by 2004 all using different clients and DRM schema, now we are down to iTunes and Amazon which together with Amazon selling CDs as well as MP3s you can get pretty much any music you want quickly and easily from these two services, so too will this come to pass for games and movies. You'll end up with 2 because nobody will want one company to hold that much control over a market and as Ubisoft and others have begun removing the DRM from their games they'll be able to have them on both services.

      If it continues as it has what you'll see is the games cheaper on Steam, with the choice of DLC and/or bundles, or if you want it with zero DRM you can pay a bit more at GOG but they'll throw in strategy guides and soundtracks and other swag to make up for the price difference. What matters is we'll have it all cheap, easy, and fast and IMHO this will be what ends up wiping out piracy, you'll be able to spend a few bucks a month and have access to pretty much anything you want at any time which is a win for consumers as far as I'm concerned.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    30. Re:A Positive Move by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Because NetFlix is cheap and easy.

      I used to pirate a lot of content, because the structure of cable and satellite is horrible. Since NetFlix streaming came along, that amount has dropped to almost nothing.

      The people who pirate everything do so either A) because they can, B) because they can't afford to do otherwise, or C) as a preview to determine if it's worth buying. I don't really know anyone who regularly pirates material who doesn't fall into one of those three categories. I'm sure they exist, but they're certainly not the most prevalent. In fact, the latter actually tend to be the largest consumers of entertainment in terms of dollars spent of any people I know.

      Of course, this is anecdotal, so it'll be readily dismissed by anyone who is already convinced that it's not true.

  2. 2016? by purpledinoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's eons away in the context of consumer electronics. By that time, they might be the last one switching to online streaming.

    1. Re:2016? by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Hopefully it will be in time for Finding Nemo 2.

    2. Re:2016? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's eons away in the context of consumer electronics. By that time, they might be the last one switching to online streaming.

      It is.... but this might be good strategically. This is a sign Netflix may be able to ink a deal that applies in the nearer future. If Disney was willing to sign for 2016, perhaps another deal/option/provision is around the corner that will come to effect sooner?

      Possibly Starz will be willing to reconsider, their current refusal to make any kind of deal with netflix, as they will become irrelevent.

    3. Re:2016? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      ..because they have contracts with other providers extending to 2016.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:2016? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Snow Dogs 2. Netflix is reportedly paying $300 million/year for the deal. That means squeezing out other content or raising prices to accommodate the excrement flowing from Disney's orifice. That's their choice, when it happens it is my choice to drop them.

    5. Re:2016? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      Netflix already has numerous Disney videos from tv shows to cartoons to Pocahontas, Aristocats, Dumbo, etc and those type movies. My guess is the closer to 2016, the more new content there will be but a large number of Disney related titles are already there.

    6. Re:2016? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      After looking into it further, I realized... part of the exclusive deal is delayed until 2016. However, Netflix immediately gets access to old movies, so there is a mixture of some delayed gratification, and some more immediate gratification.

  3. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    for 5-10$usd you can get a vpn or shell to ssh tunnel through from within the US.

    not that you're wrong to be annoyed, but there are reasonably low cost solutions out there to get around region based internet services.

  4. I just felt a tremble in the force by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    I think this will start working out well for Disney, and their execs will get the idea into their heads: "Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier if we just owned Netflix?"

    --

    Technoli
  5. Netflix vs. Starz ... by jabberwock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Netflix: $1.5 billion in revenues in 2011 and growing.

    Starz: $1.6 billion in revenues in 2011 and relatively stagnant.

    Pretty much explains why.

    1. Re:Netflix vs. Starz ... by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      Ever since Netflix left Starz I think they have gotten better. When they had starz I still have DVD service cause there was nothing to watch on streaming now I ditched my DVD services cause there is just so much to watch on steaming.

      --
      http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
    2. Re:Netflix vs. Starz ... by falcon5768 · · Score: 2

      Starz really fucked themselves by pullling out of their deal with Netflix. Now Netflix will have a good chunk of the popular movies starz airs while not letting all those exclusive series air for people who dont have cable.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  6. Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by TopSpin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't jack up rates to pay those Disney people. We'll just move elsewhere.

    — Your customers

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    1. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      The money has to come from somewhere--it's not as if Disney will simply give the streaming rights away. So if you don't want to pay more, you have to hope that Netflix is able to attract more customers because of this deal.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    2. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by Seumas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No we won't. I pay $8 a month for unlimited viewing of a ridiculous amount of content. If they could add even more (and recent) content to that, it'd be worth a lot more. I currently pay $13/mo for most of my entertainment ($8 for Netflix and $5 for MOG, where I get my unlimited music). Netflix is a steal at $8. It'd be a deal at $16. It'd be fair (but starting to push it) at $24/mo.

    3. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here I was thinking the opposite.

      It is getting harder and harder to find things that I actually want to watch on Netflix. To add to this, I decided to try and watch some classic dystopian movies that I either havent seen in a long time or have not seen as of yet. So I went to wikipedia to get a nice list of dystopian movies. Of the earliest made movies in that list, 16 of the first 20 (80%) are NOT available on netflix streaming:

      La jetee (1962), The Trial (1962), Privilege (1967), Punishment Park (1971), THX 1138 (1971), Silent Running (1972), Z.P.G. (1972), Sleeper (1973), Soylent Green (1973), Welt am Draht (1973), Death Race 2000 (1975), Logan's Run (1976), Sleeping Dogs (1977), Escape from New York (1981), Blade Runner (1982), Turkey Shoot (1982)

      I know that a few of these used to be available but now no longer are, such as Blade Runner and Escape from New York.

      This is not the service that I wanted.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by westlake · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't jack up rates to pay those Disney people. We'll just move elsewhere

      The cellar-dweller lives.

      The Disney brand name has been a marketing powerhouse since the 1920s.

      Disney and Warner Brothers were the first of the major studios to make the move into television production --- jump-starting the infant ABC television network: Disneyland and Davy Crockett. The Mickey Mouse Club. Zorro.

      Disney's move to NBC and full color production was headline news and an enormous driver of sales of color television sets.

      Disney was reluctant to move into home video --- but when it did move it came in with all guns blazing. It remains a safe bet that the Disney feature will reach the top ten lists in video sales and rentals through any all distribution channels, no matter how well or how poorly it performed in the theatrical market.

      Disney through acqusitions is Marvel Comics.

      ESPN. Rocky and Bullwinkle. The Muppets. LucasFilms....

    5. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Poor baby. They must all be on Starz or HBO then right?

      Most of them are available on Amazon Instant Video.

      To be specific, the only ones not available are:

      La jetee (1962), Privilege (1967), Sleeper (1973), Welt am Draht (1973), Death Race 2000 (1975), Sleeping Dogs (1977), Escape from New York (1981), Turkey Shoot (1982)

      So while Netflix offers 20% of the first 20 movies on the dystopian list, Amazon Instant offers 60% of the first 20 movies on the dystopian list.

      Not only that, just searching Amazon Instant for "Soylent Green" will include in the first page of search results (7 results) a total of 6 movies in the first 20 of the dystopian list that are available for streaming, and 3 of those are free with Prime (the movie not on the list, also free with prime.)

      In other words, there are services that offer vastly more content than Netflix does in general (3x as much in this sample), and also more content even under the umbrella of a cheaper ($6.67/mo for Prime) subscription rate.

      Netflix is dropping the ball. Its not the service people actually want.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      I watched Logan's Run recently. They do rotate through though, so maybe you missed the window of opportunity. I've also seen Escape from New York (I think) in the list though I don't believe I remember seeing any of the others. If you're looking for distopian, go older, say the 20s through the 50s and you'll find lots of options.

      I find the selection is reasonable for now and they've been getting newer releases more consistently now. Especially the Disney owned Marvel comics stuff. I think anyone paying attention could have seen this deal coming based on that alone.

      For all those complaining that there will be no other distribution, please read again. First run doesn't mean exclusive.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    7. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I agree 100%. As much as I detest Disney for things like breaking the copyright social-compact by "vaulting" movies to create artificial scarcity and their borg-like absorption of so much of my childhood memories, it is foolish to pretend that they are not a massive commercial success.

      We can pray for the company's implosion, but it ain't going to happen any time soon.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      The point is that Netflix's current system of content rotating in and out makes the user's perception of the value wildly changeable --- it wouldn't be so bad if they'd track things which you added to your streaming queue and when they drop off notify you the next time you log on to the web interface that you might want to get said shows on disk.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    9. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by peter_gzowski · · Score: 1

      Most of them are available on Amazon Instant Video.

      Most of them are available for rent (which you mention in passing later, I just wanted to highlight this). If we're comparing Netflix to Amazon's Prime Instant Video, they're largely identical movie lists (anecdotal experience only, no hard data). However, Amazon has an advantage in that it offers other films for rent. Netflix did away with its own advantage of "if you can't stream it, at least you can get it delivered on DVD" (Amazon's advantage is more instantaneous, but doesn't have the catalog of Netflix's DVDs, even for rent). I do wish Netflix had a "you can stream this other stuff for $2-3" but I think their customers would revolt (again).

      So for now I'm using both. Check on Netflix (better interface on XBox), then check Amazon Prime (which I have anyway for the shipping), then look for films on Amazon Instant to rent if there's something specific I want to see. We'll see if Netflix can distinguish itself with added content.

      --
      "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
    10. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      AC is being kind of mean, but he has a point... piracy still offers the best service, even without getting into cost. Google + Torrent or Usenet is still the best offering for content variety, timeliness, and quality in the online arena.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I agree. As much as I like Netflix and think it's worthwhile now, they really need to get some deals together so that their catalog is approaching something like "complete". I can understand not having new releases, but you should be able to count on them for movies that were released decades ago, and I'd be willing to pay a little extra to get that.

      Honestly, right now I pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus. On top of that, there are some shows that aren't on either of those services (e.g. "The Walking Dead") that I buy on iTunes. Then beyond that, I'll rent some movies now and then, because there are loads of movies that aren't on Netflix or Hulu. All told, I'm sure I spend at least $25/month on video content, and I don't mind that. Before I cancelled cable, my bill was closer to $100/month, so it's still much cheaper. If Netflix (or someone else) could get enough of the licensing worked out that I could replace all of it with a single service, I'd be willing to pay a little extra just for the convenience of having it all together. So that puts me around $30/month.

      So yeah, ultimately I'd be willing to pay something like $30/month for a service that I could count on to have every movie and TV shows, including new release movies and current seasons on TV shows. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry doesn't want anyone to provide such a service at any price.

    12. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      For that matter, it would be nice if they would notify us of which movies in our queue are about to be removed from streaming. Give us, maybe, 2 weeks warning.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    13. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I know La Jetee was on it, as was THX and Blade Runner. Seems Netflix is either doing some rotating, or other contracts expired as well.

      Don't blame Netflix, blame content providers. They hold all the reins here. Goes to show though how hard Netflix's position is: streaming services aren't black magic, and streaming abilities without content mean nothing. And since copyright provides a de facto monopoly position.... as said, I don't understand the hate towards netflix when it comes to availability of titles. That's all dependent on content providers.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    14. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

      Your post poses an interesting question. Could Disney be positioning themselves for another acquisition? I think that would be great situation for both Netflix and Disney. Not so great for Dreamworks who inked a deal with Netflix last year. Disney has a great track record for acquiring companies and not destroying them.

    15. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Most of them are available for rent (which you mention in passing later, I just wanted to highlight this).

      How is this functionally different than netflix, which doesnt guarantee access to things that you have previously watched later?

      The only meaningful distinction between "renting a stream" and "subscription streaming", aside from what content is available right this moment, is cost breakpoints... a totally different discussion.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    16. Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates by Optic7 · · Score: 1

      Eh, that's why you shell out the $16 to get both unlimited streaming AND unlimited one-at-a-time DVDs. That's one of the strengths of Netflix, and why they messed up when they tried to separate the services. Then you can watch the complete collection, as long as the movie is available on either DVD or streaming. By the way, La Jetee was on Instant Netflix previously as well. That's where I watched it.

  7. and marvel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    disney also owns marvel property rights this is a pretty big move as right now disney houses a large tent of what i enjoy watching

    1. Re:and marvel by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      But Marvel stuff is already on netflix? Personally, I'm hoping this means Studio Ghibli stuff will become available for streaming.

    2. Re:and marvel by porges · · Score: 1

      It is, but it's delayed. That is, all of the pre-Avengers films are streaming now, but the newest of those are over a year old. If the new deal were in place, Avengers would be on Netflix at the moment when, in the current system, it appears on Starz or whichever.

  8. Considering how broad Disney's portfolio is now by Chas · · Score: 1

    That's a HELL of a lot of content!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  9. Re:UK by WarJolt · · Score: 1

    If you have a buddy in the US you can both setup a VPN and trade BBC for Netflix.

  10. The Live Sports Situation..? by KaLeVR1 · · Score: 1

    Dude the live sports situation is awesome! I am streaming live NBA and NFL games and watching their archives directly from the respective sources. You don't need Fox or ESPN for anything besides college football right now.

    --
    Peace, K1
  11. Finally! by Liinux · · Score: 1

    Star Wars on Netflix!

  12. What about iTunes by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

    Interesting they didn't go all in with Apple and put it up on iTunes.

    --
    Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
  13. Sport soon to follow by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    There were lots of good streams of the Olympic Games, and not very good TV coverage. Sure there were some geographical blocks to things like BBC coverage, but that's a small technicality that would be easily overcome if the need/want was great enough (once TV dies). Sure Netflix might not be able to manage ALL the sports, but each provider might manage their own part.

  14. Live sports on mah streams? by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to be able to streammonstering the latest olympic events. #objectchucking #staged Kappa

  15. This is pretty unusual by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    This is pretty radical and suggests a significant management change of philosophy within Disney.

    Historically - with VHS, DVD, rentals, DivX, etc - Disney has *always* been a follower of tech advances, not a leader. In fact, it's appeared that they've been DRAGGED to every new advance, in a seeming effort to prevent their IP from moving to media that would allow piracy.

    For them to push out to a streaming company is both a huge win for Netflix and for, I daresay, the viewing public.

    --
    -Styopa
  16. Re:Netflix by CoonAss56 · · Score: 1

    You don't have a Blu ray player? Well shit, I guess you lose. Wake up, there is more than one way to watch Netflix than Windows and OS X.

    --
    Won't Bow.....Don't Know How
  17. Is streaming really all that rosy? by theascension · · Score: 1

    I'm always surprised at the positive comments on netflix here on slashdot. It's a drmd format and you're totally at the whim of netflix on whether content is removed/changed. Personally I'm quite happy we have physical discs so there's a backup of say.. star wars the unspecial edition on laserdisc somewhere out there still. What about the future archival of culture if everything becomes streaming/on demand and we're totally slave to our masters?

  18. Re:Netflix by aclarke · · Score: 1

    Or an American mailing address? Netflix is available in the US, Canada, Latin America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. However, it's streaming-only everywhere except the US. Granted, I imagine their US subscription base dwarfs all the other countries combined at the moment, but putting discs in the mail is an American offering, and is not the general growth area of their business.

    --

    www.clarke.ca
  19. Re:Apple by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Why the hell do people want an Apple TV set? What would that add to the equation? The Apple TV is already here and it's a small low-cost box that you can connect to ANY modern television or computer monitor.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  20. for the record by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Just in case you didn't know, Netflix used to carry Starz in its entirety like a year ago. Then content providers threw a big fit, saying they aren't allowed to sub-lease their content or whatever and that clearly that was 2 things for the price of one and forced them to break off.

  21. Re:WELL THEN HOW MANY PENNIES ?? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

    Actually, I think he intended it as an exponential growth function, rather than a linear growth function. Badly worded, though. where day 1 = 1, day 2 = 2, day 3 = 4, day 4 = 8, and so forth.

    in other words, f(x) = 2^(x-1), solve for the area under the graph from x=1->30. I'm lazy, however, and will just use wolfram alpha to solve it.

  22. Re:Netflix by Quila · · Score: 1

    And Roku, and Apple TV, and iOS iDevices, and Android, and PS3, XBox 360, Wii, etc... Even many TVs have it built-in.

  23. Re:Netflix by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

    And Netflix will actually run under WINE... install Firefox (or Chrome) for Windows in WINE, and then install Silverlight in WINE, and it does work. :)

  24. Canada by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Yeah, well try using Netflix Canada, which has about 1/4 of the US content.

    1. Re:Canada by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Blame the long contracts with other media providers, not Netflix.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  25. Re:Netflix by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 1

    people buy blu fail players in usa ?

    --
    Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
  26. Huge Win for Everyone by happy_place · · Score: 1

    Disney has been eying this space for nearly two decades, trying to find a way to monetize digital content streaming. Starz has been an impediment to content distrubtion, forcing content to go through pay-channel services first... Netflix has made a huge win here. The legalities of these contracts are insane too. They have release windows for TV, streaming, DVD distribution--it's all factored into these contracts.

    People don't want to lug around DVDs to watch movies, and now they don't have to with smart phones and tablets and other media rich devices. Personally I want to get rid of my DVD collection altogether--it'd free up a closet's worth of space in my house. I want to be able to log into my favorite website and watch stuff on my flatscreen tv, that's connected out there to some cloud activated device, or better yet put it in the display, more than just a cable service and get rid of the old model altogether.

    Hopefully Netflix can profit from this deal. Of course if they go under, I wouldn't be surprised to find a company like Disney buying them outright.

    --
    http://www.beanleafpress.com
  27. Re:Netflix by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

    Netflix = Windows and Mac OS X and i have none of them so i have to keep on pirating movies

    So get a Windows machine. Or a Mac machine. Or a TV with built in Internet apps. Or a BluRay player with built in Internet apps. Or an Apple TV. Or an Android tablet. Or an iPad. Or just about any smart phone. Or a $50 Roku box. Or a $99 Google TV box. Or a Wii. Or a PS3. Or an Xbox. Or a TiVo. There are other options, but I think the point is clear. It's stupid easy to have Netflix, but if you don't have just about any modern, mainstream connected device, then I guess you'll have to go without.

  28. Re:WELL THEN HOW MANY PENNIES ?? by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

    Do you mean from day one to day 30 or all days excluding the first 30 days (i.e. after 30 days)? The first step to solving any problem is making sure the specification is unambiguous and intended.

  29. Great News, Concerning Live Sports.... by Atticka · · Score: 1

    Its great to see content creators embracing the new paradigm!

    Concerning live sports, I recently discovered that this weekends UFC fight is available online as a live stream for $9.99. I've ditched cable\ satellite years ago and its nice to see some live sports becoming available online. As we see some of the bigger creators like Disney shift to services like Netflix its just a matter of time before we see networks follow suit.

    What I would love to see is networks offer online subscriptions that plugin to your device of choice, pay for a stream and receive content on your Roku or XBMX for example. There is no reason we need to be tied to a cable, satellite or phone connection specifically, its all data and I should be able to access it any way I choose.

    --
    No sig here...
  30. I'd pay more to get more by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    I for one wouldn't mind if Netflix added 'premium' channels for extra fees. they are only able to provide 'X' amount of content for their price, I want more content, and am willing to pay for it; but don't want to have to add apps; change streaming devices, etc. The biggest advantage with Comcast right now is their set up box Just Works. But I know they are taking more steps to lock out 3rd parties (encrypting basic cable for example)

    I want to watch Crunchyroll anime; Comedy Centrals Colbert Report/Daily Show; Adventure Time...