Slashdot Mirror
Online Streaming As Profitable As TV, Disc Sales By Charging Just a $15 Flat Fee
Lucas123 writes "A new report shows that if movie production houses charged a $15 monthly fee to just 45% of the world's online subscribers, they could rake in just as much cash as they currently do through TV downloads and disc sales. That equates to $29.4 billion. 'Movie producers have little to fear from online distribution in the long term,' the report states. 'It is the distribution part of the movie business that should be worried because online distribution will replace a sizable portion of their current industry.' According to the report's hypothetical model, the $15 fee would offer open access to all movie content — meaning instant online access to all movies that have been ever produced, 'along with new releases as they come out.'"
That's the excuse MPAA will use now.
With this, then they can't double dip. They wouldn't be sell the popular ones, while dumping the unpopular ones on netflix for the fees. And there might be incentives other than spectacle and marketing in the development of movies, and we can't have that either.
the $15 fee would offer open access to all movie content — meaning instant online access to all movies that have been ever produced, 'along with new releases as they come out
That's not going to happen
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If movie producers got a flat, monthly paycheque, there would be zero incentive to make *good* movies.
Are people in China going to agree to this? 45% of the entire world's internet subscriber base strikes me as absurd.
Sure if Photoshop sold for $3 to every single person who owns a PC they would make way more money than if they sold their software for several hundred dollars. But it's not going to happen.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
I would gladly pay $15 per month to access all movie content. I don't think I know a single person that wouldn't pay that. It's considerably more than I pay to production houses right now. My only movie expense currently is Netflix. $8/mo and production companies have to split that with Netflix.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
for $15/mo I would pay but I want EVERYTHING. ANYTIME. ANYWHERE. For Decades. they won't give me that. They'll drop some shows, they'll only last for a while. they'll block it in Canada offer different choices in Europe. It won't work in Trinidad. And without all that I'm not paying.
Just another second banana
"Online subscribers" is defined by the article as everyone in the world with Broadband, and 45% of them are the 348 million broadband customers who would have to pay $15 annually to watch movies. Here's the problem. Of those 773 million people, 174 million are Chinese, which are 22% of the broadband users. I was just reading an article how China has not even been releasing Box Office revenue from foreign films showing at theaters. I don't think there's much chance of milking any considerable amount of money through video streaming out of that country at this point in time.
I think any studies like this can only realistically look at US and similar western broadband markets as potential customers for video streaming service, as opposed to this study which includes every single broadband customer on the planet.
Better known as 318230.
What I can't figure out is why they're not offering two downloadable, DRM-free versions of their content: one that's free-as-in-beer but contains ads, much like peole get from their cable subscriptions now, and a second 'premium' version that is ad-free for a nominal charge. Make both versions easy to access via a hosted torrent site, with value-added tools such as offering the ability to track new episodes of favourite programs, or notify / auto download when available for upcoming titles. Not only would the end-user love it, the distributors could track the popularity of shows/movies even before they're released and negotiate ad revenues accordingly.
Sure, the premium version will get shared around somewhat, but at least the average Joe has a place where they can go to directly support shows/movies they like, and in the end they have a useful commodity that they can actually say they own: can back up as often as they like, play on any device, can alter it if needed / desired, or can lend to a friend or family member without hassle. I would pay for such an unencumbered file in a heartbeat, if it were reasonably priced (say a buck or two for an episode, up to $5 for a movie...approximately $2 per hour of entertainment sounds about right), and I'd use the free ad-supported versions to review new shows and see if I'd like them...I would easily spend over $15 a month just on the shows I like now :)
The proposed streaming model is great...if your customer has access to reliable, unlimited broadband wherever they might want to watch your content, and is willing to only watch the content on devices that work with your particular streaming protocol. Thing is, with people getting more and more tech savvy, even the theoretical average Joe is starting to realize that they don't have to put up with that crap if they don't want to...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
I run Linux. Tell me again about that iTunes model giving me what I want.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Pirating is a pain in the ass.
I download the movie and its a DVD screener or cam...
I download the movie and its got hardcoded subtitles...
I download the movie and it has NO subtitles but have the people in the movie are speaking Russian...
I download the movie and get an annoying email that I now have to delete...
My ISP feels justified in throttling me because what I'm using my bandwidth for could potentially be piracy...
I'd pay $15/month to rid myself of those annoyences. But the industry has to give me what I get with piracy for free.
1. I can get any movie I want, from any point in time.
2. The video doesn't have 30min of previews before it starts.
3. The video will play anywhere. No silverlight BS
4. The movie is available soon after it leaves theaters... not years later... and no location locks.
5. I can save the movie to disc and do not have to stream it during peak times just because they're terrified that I might make a copy of it.
Of course, everything above they see as revenue generating so it'll never happen. They don't want to use the internet to make as much money as they are making now... they want to use the internet to make ALL the money. As illogical as it seems, declining profits are just as bad as bankruptcy to them. They just keep throwing the ball long hoping someone catches it. All this nonsense about working your way down the field and first downs isn't something they want to think about.
Yeah, but I doubt most people would pay $1 an episode. You have to get them on a subscription package, because at the end of the day, once you start asking them for money every time they want to watch a show, they'll opt to not watch it at all. They're only watching it because their cable bill is a sunk cost, and your show happens to be the best thing on. If they now have to choose paying you $1 to watch the show, and spending $0, and watching some other show, or just watching stuff on Youtube, the vast majority of people will just choose to not spend the $1.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
> If this wasn't true the Beatles wouldn't be the most pirated band in the world.
The Beatles? Really? You must be joking.
Any of their stuff is likely OLDER THAN YOU ARE.
That's not even real piracy. That's just the public domain being taken back by the masses.
You picked a piss poor example of the "injustice of piracy".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.