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."

20 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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.'
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
  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 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. 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 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."

  4. 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 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.

    2. 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."
    3. 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....

    4. 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."