September: Netflix Will 'Become Exclusive US Pay TV Home of Films From Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar' (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The licensing deal between Netflix and Disney for the rights to all new films that hit movie theaters in 2016 is nothing new. What is new is when exactly the deal will come into effect. "From September onwards, Netflix will become the exclusive U.S. pay TV home of the latest films from Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilms and Pixar," said Netflix content chief Ted Sarandos in a blog post. This will only apply to new theatrical releases because separate licensing deals are in place for other Disney content. The exclusive partnership with Disney does also extend into original programming. Netflix's partnership with Disney is part of a bigger plan to host more unique content that rival services do not offer.

Comments

I think Canadian Netflix already has this deal?

[yellowcord]

I'm thinking there is going to be a merger/buyout of ABC/Disney at some point.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[OrangeTide]

Maybe you should complain to your European representatives and solve this through regulation instead of complaining about it on /. ?

Re: For those of that don't have fast access avail

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in downtown Seattle, and I don't know anyone with a connection fast enough to stream Neflix. This does suck.

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[Sperbels]

Star Wars clearly turned out for better because of Disney

exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive

[Anonymous Coward]

exclusive content deals should be illegal. It only serves to form monopolies, reduce choice for customers, and generally drive up prices. That was never the intent of the copyright laws.

In fact companies should not be allowed to operate in more than 1 of these markets:
1. Content creation.
2. Content distribution.
3. ISP/data transportation
because experience learns that the concentration of power WILL be abused.

Re:exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive

[harrkev]

I hate to say this, but Amazon started this ball rolling. Try finding Downton Abbey or Doctor Who streaming from anywhere but Amazon.

Amazon's e-book business is not much better, from what I hear.

Re:exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive

[KiloByte]

Actually, the initial intent of copyright laws was raising money for the king via selling monopolies. Which indeed reduced choice for customers and massively drove up prices.

Re:exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive

[dryeo]

That and censorship. Once that King was deposed the modern copyright was introduced as "An Act to Promote Learning" with a 14+14 year copyright length (IIRC a 35 year grandfather clause). 28 years later when copyrights started expiring and works falling into the public domain, the courts ruled there was no Common Law right to copyright.

Re:exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive

[Xest]

That's only really part the problem, the whole Disney situation highlights a flaw in capitalism - the larger a company gets, the more it can afford to buy, and the more it can afford to buy, the more it reduces competition in the market, and the more it reduces competition in the market, the less well free market capitalism can work - it's basically a self-defeating system in this respect.

As such it can only work with legislation, we have anti-monopoly laws for this purpose, but I'd argue they don't go fair enough - it shouldn't just be a problem when you get to a single entity in a particular market, it should stop much sooner than that. A company like Disney should be recognised as a major market force, and major market forces should not be allowed to just sweep up Marvel, LucasArts, and Pixar. The reason this exclusivity deal is such a problem is because Disney has been allowed to buy so many major content producers in the first place - if Disney had been forced to stop at Marvel then this wouldn't be such a big deal as rival services could bag Pixar and LucasArts ensuring competition.

There are laws for this in some industries in some countries - i.e. some countries have laws on media plurality that make sure there are a decent number of independent newspaper or TV companies in the country and that no one person can up more than a certain percent of the market but it needs to be much broader than this and encompass all industries.

Exclusive content is a pain, but it only really becomes a serious market problem as in cases like this precisely because one company is allowed to own so many important IPs in the market in the first place.

Re:exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive

[Xest]

The problems I described are really industry agnostic and apply to even non-copyright industries, but I believe copyright is an artifact of the freemarket - the less regulated a market, the more incentive there is for growth by doing whatever is necessary, and that includes lobbying governments to get favourable laws passed. Copyright duration will end up as a balance between how tenable it is to get elected as a politician by changing them and how well corporations do at lobbying.

Personally I believe that just as religion and politics should be kept separate, so should business and politics as far as possible, that is, lobbying should be as much a criminal offence as bribery is, because they're really just the same thing with a different face.

Re:exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive

[JackieBrown]

Syndication has always been like that.

Re:exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive

[Xest]

Don't you think another option is transparency though? Frankly I think if legislators are suggesting it's okay for security agencies to track us, then it makes perfect sense for the private accounts and any incoming transactions to someone taking office are made public, or at very least, audited by a truly independent body.

Even with cryptocurrency if they can't cash it then they're still screwed.

The problem as I see it now, at least here in the UK is that the disincentives are negligible, hence why the incentives are high. Even when people have been caught they've had little more than a slap on the wrist and been made to repay it, rather than seeing jail time for fraud which is what should actually be happening - when we had our MPs expenses scandal a few years back and it turned out 100s of them were taking the piss, only an absolute handful actually went to jail (2 or 3 I believe) when the number should've been closer to 50 or 60, it was pretty clear that buying a duck house worth a few thousand pounds wasn't a legitimate use of expenses and was a case of defrauding the public purse yet I think that MP was one of the ones who didn't get prosecuted where if they had done this in any other industry they would have.

Re:exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive

[Xest]

"Your game theory is technically valid, but were any of these corrupt MPs re-elected?"

It was really a mixed bag, about 100 actually stood down, some were re-elected. It was ultimately a gentleman's agreement with the state - I'll step down if you don't jail me for the fraud which I'm guilty of.

"Cashing out cryptocurrency isn't very difficult. If they did this even now it would raise suspicion and incur high taxes, but the government couldn't prove that any law was broken or that the coins came from lobbyists. The hard part is accepting the bribe anonymously, not laundering it once it's already held anonymously anywhere in the world."

But isn't that sufficient? Shouldn't it just be a case of these people proving the source of the income to the auditors? If they can't show that a £100,000 payment really did come from their grandma's will, then just flag them as having high amounts of unannounced income and hence therefore not eligible to hold office. If you want the power of office, you should be forced to accept the accountability of transparency. The problem is they want the power without the transparency or accountability that is necessary to make sure that power doesn't corrupt and that's what ultimately must be tackled. We know that power corrupts, so we must make sure we get the accountability and transparency to counter that. To be fair, the Freedom of Information act (I understand you have it in the US as well) was quite a watershed moment in this respect, and whilst it's flaunted and far from perfect, it's still ultimately a game changer in this respect, we just need more of it.

Re: USA only and no vpns allowed

[thundercattt]

They blocked my VPN from Canada. Been over a week now. I set my account to cancel. Back to ye ol torrents.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[AmiMoJo]

Europe has The Pirate Bay.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[Anonymous Coward]

Why spend time complaining when pirating is still so easy? And free? And now I have the movie / TV show forever?

Cable channel syndrome

[goombah99]

Soon you will choose your phone by the content you want. Like ESPN, well that's a Sprint Exclusive. Like HBO, well only on android Phones.

As it is I have Netflix (canceled my DVD after the price hike) and amazon because I want prime anyhow. But it galls me to then have to shell out for HBO to see one show (GOT). And Starz to see one show (Black sails). etc... Splintered content.

Verizon, At&T, Tmobile, comcast are all trying to defeat net neutrality. Things like binge-on that don't count against data caps are just a way to play the gatekeeper to their private internet. Same with facebooks internet.org.

If someone told me that this is how they finally make a profit after years of loss leaders to build market share I'd like to hear that argument. Is it really the case that paying $1.99 an episode would not get me something like Game of Thrones or the other golden age of "TV" shows? Or is it that they just see they can make money by splintering things?

Too bad things like popcorn time are illegal. It sure takes the frustration out of this. I want one market place for everything be it amazon, or itunes or google play.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[Dunbal]

Soon you will choose your phone by the content you want.

Wanna bet?

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[goombah99]

By the way. I thought I'd mention that an alternative to netflix for DVD content is an interesting new service called VidAngel. Their model is you "buy" the DVD from them, they play it for you (stream), then you sell it back for $1 less than you bought it for. Thus you can get things only available on DVD sooner as a stream.

This scheme was developed for another purpose, buy having you own the media, even if it's temprorary, this allows you to Bowlderize it (remove anything offensive). Streaming companies are not allowed to alter the movies. But if the movie is owned by the end user they can do as they please. So one if effectively paying VidAngel to Bowlderize your videos professionally for you. You of course don't have to edit. You can watch it raw too.

Thus VidAngel gets you DVDs at a price less than netflix DVD and they come instantly when you want to stream them rather than wait for the mail to come or the disk to be available. Their limitation seems to be selection is more like Redbox and they don't have a deep catalog like netflix.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[qubezz]

Screw that site, it's another "app" site that has no information, just wants you signing up or installing before they even show you a thing about what they are doing..

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

"Their model is you "buy" the DVD from them, they play it for you (stream), then you sell it back for $1 less than you bought it for."

That seems like it would be vulnerable to the same sort of thing that killed Aereo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo#Legal_challenges . "The courts" have not yet been persuaded by the entirely reasonable argument that such services are just providing a _very_ long A/V cable to the customer's private residence.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[UnknownSoldier]

> and they don't have a shallow catalog like netflix.

FTFY.

DVDs / BlueRays / BitTorrents are a deep catalog (, etc.). Everything else is a joke in comparison.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[AK Marc]

With Netflix DVD, I'd get a 100+ deep queue, and never keep a movie more than 1 day. If I didn't watch it the day it came, I'd rip it that night, and return it, then watch it at my leisure. Getting the next in line on its way ASAP. The DVD replacement services don't seem to ever actually replace a DVD with an equivalent, where I can trivially save a copy.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[phantomfive]

Soon you will choose your phone by the content you want.

It will be a long time before that happens, because none of the content owners want it to happen. They know you will go where you have to for the hit.

Re: Cable channel syndrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is to simply give up on watching content. Find other things to do with your time. It isn't hard. And it saves you money. Stop being a slave to media and live your life.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[fahrbot-bot]

As it is I have Netflix (canceled my DVD after the price hike) and amazon because I want prime anyhow. But it galls me to then have to shell out for HBO to see one show (GOT). And Starz to see one show (Black sails). etc... Splintered content.

Stop caring so much about watching TV. Problem solved.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[bobm]

I just checked, it's a dollar if you redeem in 24 hours then the price changes. The web site doesn't say how much it changes but they do say that there is a floor.

So it's a dollar or more depending on when you trade it back in.

The cool thing about netflix is that I can sit on a disk if I don't want to watch it right away. I pay a flat price and I'm happy with it.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[ryanmc1]

I signed up for VidAngel a couple weeks ago, but never used it. The other day they sent me an email offering me a free $20 credit to watch a movie on their site. So I watched an HD one, and after I was done I sold it back to them for $18, now I have an $18 credit and I didn't have to spend a penny.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[luis_a_espinal]

Soon you will choose your phone by the content you want. Like ESPN, well that's a Sprint Exclusive. Like HBO, well only on android Phones.

As it is I have Netflix (canceled my DVD after the price hike) and amazon because I want prime anyhow. But it galls me to then have to shell out for HBO to see one show (GOT). And Starz to see one show (Black sails). etc... Splintered content.

Verizon, At&T, Tmobile, comcast are all trying to defeat net neutrality. Things like binge-on that don't count against data caps are just a way to play the gatekeeper to their private internet. Same with facebooks internet.org.

If someone told me that this is how they finally make a profit after years of loss leaders to build market share I'd like to hear that argument. Is it really the case that paying $1.99 an episode would not get me something like Game of Thrones or the other golden age of "TV" shows? Or is it that they just see they can make money by splintering things?

Too bad things like popcorn time are illegal. It sure takes the frustration out of this. I want one market place for everything be it amazon, or itunes or google play.

I've been thinking along the same lines (about having to fork extra money for exclusive content.) Cable syndrome indeed :/

I have Netflix, Hulu and Prime. The former two make it easy to cancel and rejoin at any time without penalty. So I have been considering regularly cancel one provider (either Hulu or Netflix) and funnel the "liberated" funds to pay for exclusive content while I binge-watch it. Once done, I either rejoin the former or sign up for another exclusive content provider.

Obviously this works only if the providers allows to cancel and rejoin at any time without penalty. Otherwise, we are back to the cable world clusterfuck.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[TangoMargarine]

So you relax by watching a show of complicated political intrigue?

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[Gr8Apes]

The netflix deal for disks is pretty much the best deal out there, with the least issues. If I wanted to make separate trips to the post office, I could easily get 12 or more per month given the PO's schedule, but 9-10 a month is fine. I don't waste time, the quality of the picture/sound can't be beat until 4K UHD discs become standard next month or so. That won't do me any good for a while though, so I'd rather stay with my current deal.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[rochrist]

As it is I have Netflix (canceled my DVD after the price hike) and amazon because I want prime anyhow. But it galls me to then have to shell out for HBO to see one show (GOT). And Starz to see one show (Black sails). etc... Splintered content.

If only someone would think of aggregating content onto one service!

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[goombah99]

Well that's just it. I don't watch a lot of TV. this is precisely why I target just a few shows. If I was a couch potatoe then bellying up to the HBO buffet and scarfing down General Tso's chicken or whatever slop was served would be an all you can eat nirvana. but I just want one show because I don't wathc that much TV.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[Zibodiz]

Thank you for pointing that out. This service offers exactly what I've been looking for; I have written an addon to VLC that automatically mutes offensive words based on subtitles, but that only works on DVDs, and Netflix has gotten expensive for how little we watch. Having an alternative that allows the same capability in a streaming service is fantastic.

I've found that asking for help in my endeavor seems to trigger some sort of extreme anger with a lot of people. I've even been told that it's 'criminal' for me to try to prevent myself from hearing things that I don't like. It's great to see that someone actually offers the service I'm looking for, now.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[Agent0013]

Actually you can browse their selections. I read that in their privacy statement, that you can browse without making an account, but they don't put a link to the browse page. A google search for vidangel and browse found it though. I found the search bar the same way.

Re:Cable channel syndrome

[thegarbz]

Soon you will choose your phone by the content you want.

People have been telling us to do that since the iPhone came out and app store was bigger than Google Play.

So no redbox either?

[Truekaiser]

Does this mean they won't allow redbox to rent these movies?

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[plague911]

It turned out better because George Lucas is no longer part of the process. You could have stuck about any ass clown in charge and done a better job.

Disgusting...

[urdak]

These "exclusive deals" are disgusting... Imagine that we had the same thing in stores: You would have to go to one store to buy Coca-Cola and a different store to buy Pepsi, or to one store to buy yogurt and a different store to buy cheese, and so on. Basically, every time you go to a store you only would find there 1/2 or 1/3 or whatever of the products on your shopping list, so you need to visit several of those stores to buy everything you want. Wouldn't this be extremely annoying? Doesn't it sound ridiculous?

So, why should we accept this disgusting practice from TV companies? If my favorite two series are each "exclusive" in a different provider, why do I need to use both, and have two sets of hardware or software, and of course double the payment?

In the old days, your two favorite series could have been on two different TV channels. But switching between those was trivial (just a click on the remote). They also didn't increase the cost of cable (or adding a channel increased it slightly). But switching between two different cable/netflix/amazon/etc. provider is not as trivial. And costs WAY too much (each service costs full price even if you want it just for watching a single missing series).

Of course, there is one alternative which carries all the content - BitTorrent. It looks like the TV providers are really encouraging us to use this alternative... Not just because it's cheaper (this is not a big issue for people with a job) but because it simply has the content I want, and none of the other providers do (and will have even less in the future as this exclusivity arms race continues).

Re:Disgusting...

[Anonymous Coward]

These "exclusive deals" are disgusting... Imagine that we had the same thing in stores: You would have to go to one store to buy Coca-Cola and a different store to buy Pepsi. . .

Most restaurants have been like this since. . .forever? The sell Coca Cola products or Pepsi products. Not both. Same with movie theaters.

. . .or to one store to buy yogurt and a different store to buy cheese, and so on. Basically, every time you go to a store you only would find there 1/2 or 1/3 or whatever of the products on your shopping list, so you need to visit several of those stores to buy everything you want. Wouldn't this be extremely annoying?Doesn't it sound ridiculous?

Actually, if you are shopping for high-end foods this is often the norm. Bakery. Cheese shop. Butcher. Vegetable stands. This was far more common in the not-too-distant past. The convenience of one-stop-shopping was traded-off for more specialized knowledge of each product category. I still visit on average 3 stores go get the ideal mix of quality and price for my particular tastes.

However, this deal reminds me much more of the old days of cutthroat console gaming competition, where one console or another would lock up a "killer app".

Anyway, the Free Market will surely solve this by inspiring some other company to create their own Star Wars franchise to offer on a competing platform. Mark my words. Start holding your breath.

Re:Disgusting...

[JustOK]

try to get pepsi at burger king http://www.businessinsider.com...

Re:Disgusting...

[NormalVisual]

Or a Coke at Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, or KFC.

Re:Disgusting...

[NormalVisual]

Okay, actually looked at the link now. Our local Papa John's only offers Pepsi products, so this may not be a nationwide thing.

Re:Disgusting...

[coofercat]

These "exclusive deals" are disgusting... Imagine that we had the same thing in stores: You would have to go to one store to buy Coca-Cola and a different store to buy Pepsi, or to one store to buy yogurt and a different store to buy cheese, and so on.

Apart from your coke/pepsi thing, the fact you can buy (coke|pepsi) and cheese in the same store is because coke and pepsi both realised they needed to be in as many outlets as they could to get market share. They figured this out maybe 100 years ago or whatever. The movie industry... not so much.

You know... it's really easy - JUST DON'T WATCH TV. I mean, you don't have to go cold-turkey, but you know what, you'll still go to sleep and wake up in the morning if you don't watch $show or $film. Maybe phone someone for a chat instead? Read a book? Do some sort of hobby? Watch something else? If these companies don't want to sell to you, you don't have to buy - simple as that.

Re:Disgusting...

[JustOK]

type of franchise, possibly

Re:Disgusting...

[NormalVisual]

Could be. We don't get Coke as an option on the website either, but that might use a geolocated IP to determine what gets shown.

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[alvinrod]

It turned out better because George Lucas is no longer part of the process.

Which happened because Disney bought the rights from him. Therefore it turned out better because of Disney.

Re: For those of that don't have fast access avail

[Dunbal]

I live in Panama (that's Panama - the latin country with the canal, not Panama City, Florida) and I can easily stream Netflix while downloading games from Steam. Oh and I don't have a monthly cap - unlimited still means unlimited down here. Must suck to live in the "first world" lol. Seriously you guys are getting screwed. Maybe you should do something about it.

Re: For those of that don't have fast access avail

[ArhcAngel]

I suspect they are all fast enough but your ISP may not like the VOD competition.

Re: For those of that don't have fast access avai

[110010001000]

Actually CenturyLink covers most of Seattle and the suburbs with gigabit now. Internet is great here. Probably because of the proximity to Microsoft. I can confirm AC's post.

Re: For those of that don't have fast access avai

[110010001000]

I live near Fremont and I get 1Gbps. I don't get the bundle. So can confirm AC is right.

Re: For those of that don't have fast access avail

[110010001000]

Actually that guy is trolling. Seattle has some of the fastest Internet in the world. So fast!

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Well, they killed the Expanded Universe support and schismed the fanbase. So, yay?

Re: USA only and no vpns allowed

[OrangeTide]

Canada has their own government, if I'm not mistaken.

DisPixLucMar.

[darthsilun]

Or PixDisLucMar.

That rolls right off the tongue; not. And it's not nearly as much fun as saying Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.

Why don't we just call it Disney and be done.

And after seeing the big Amblin Entertainment logo at the end of Avengers Civil War or whatever that piece of carp was called, I guess I'll just sit and wait for PDLM to swallow Amblin up too.

Re:DisPixLucMar.

[darthsilun]

Avengers Civil War or whatever that piece of carp was called

You know what the movie is called, and you eagerly went to see it multiple times. Now you're just trying to expunge your self-loathing and nerd shame, and it isn't working. You'll do this again when you buy the movie on Blu-Ray, and it won't work then either.

That sounds like the voice of experience. Now you're trying to project your own feelings of inadequacy and self loathing onto others.

No, I didn't see it multiple times, and I won't buy it on blurry-disk, or even on DVD.

But thanks for playing.

Re:DisPixLucMar.

[NormalVisual]

Pixdis Lucmar - isn't he a character in one of the new Star Wars productions?

Re:DisPixLucMar.

[drinkypoo]

Pixdis Lucmar - isn't he a character in one of the new Star Wars productions?

Sounds more Trekkish.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[OrangeTide]

And without consequences! (oh shit, wait)

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[sexconker]

EU was trash, and I'm glad they unceremoniously flung it off the cliff.
The Clone Wars is shit, though, and now it's "officially" canon, as are the new books, the new milk-it-harder spinoff, the upcoming live action shit, etc. etc.

Disney Star Wars is pretty awful. TFA was a terrible story that did nothing original. And they're hard at work milking the shit out of it. It used to be such that I could ignore the spinoff shit and only watch the films, but it seems like the new spinoffs will bleed into the films, and if you want to know what's going or who the fuck that guy is you need to be aware of the spinoff shit.

Lucas Star Wars was good despite his attempts to make it worse and worse as time went on. Doing a complete rewatch before TFA, I hated much of the prequels. But they at least felt like they fit in the storyline and in the universe. TFA didn't - it was as cheap and lazy plot-wise as Jurassic Park, Rocky Balboa, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the new Star Treks, etc. TFA felt like fanfiction.

I call these things deboots. Plot-wise and character-wise they're basically reboots, creatively they're basically remakes, but officially they're new, original sequels.

Re: USA only and no vpns allowed

[JustOK]

we have several.

Re: USA only and no vpns allowed

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix Canada has had the Disney exclusive for a few months - didn't you notice all the newer release Disney movies appearing: Captain America The Winter Soldier, Tomorrowland, The Aristocats, some interesting Pixar stuff etc. Netflix announced a while ago that The Force Awakens would come to Canada before the US.

Pay TV only, that is

[wonkey_monkey]

September: Netflix Will 'Become Exclusive US Pay TV Home

All releases will still be available via the usual free channels, worldwide, downloadable without streaming, and likely to work on any device you might care to copy them too.

Re:Pay TV only, that is

[mattmarlowe]

Realistically, however, for many of us - if it isn't available on amazon instant video, the shows or movies will never be seen - even if they are free or widely popular on netflix or theaters. cost/value isn't the issue - distribution medium and software/hardware/content aggregation is.

I wonder if this is why

[rsilvergun]

the Netflix app on my phone is asking for permission to do in app purchases? I can't imagine Netflix getting to stream many Disney movies for the regular $16 bucks a month I pay. But I could see them doing PPV.

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[AK Marc]

People are upset because they didn't use the Zahn books as the basis of 7-9. They were good books, but there were plenty more stories to tell. Part of the point of 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9 is each trilogy is about a generation apart, with all the changes that can happen. So they are almost reboots of each other, rather than a single 9-part story, which is where the Zahn books (and some other EU) covered.

Re: For those of that don't have fast access avail

[AK Marc]

Centurylink Prism 1Gbps is available in downtown Seattle. You are a cheap bastard who only knows cheap bastards. That doesn't change the fact that really good connections are on your street, you are just unwilling to pay for it.

Re: USA only and no vpns allowed

[Livius]

we have several.

We have too many.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[Darinbob]

Or ask European representatives to promote local European television streaming services.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[Darinbob]

And illegal?

I'm conflicted about this

[jd2112]

On one hand I'm not too keen on these exclusive deals. On the other hand at least Disney isn't opening their own streaming site and making their content available only through them.

Re:I'm conflicted about this

[Gilgaron]

It does make me wonder if Disney might just buy Netflix, though.

Re:I'm conflicted about this

[thegarbz]

Streaming? Like On-Demand content?

That doesn't sound like the Disney I know

Re:I'm conflicted about this

[samwichse]

I just shuddered IRL.

Seriously. Skin. Crawl.

Re: USA only and no vpns allowed

[thundercattt]

Actually Netflix will shit the bed in Canada. The local cable companies offer free Netflix type streaming. If you are a Shaw subscriber, they give you a free login to Shomi. Which is like Netflix but more content.

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[rtb61]

Cheeky, just because they did does not mean you should call Jar Jar an ass clown https://www.google.com.au/sear...

Slashdot Faux Fox News For Nerds.

[westlake]

Let's be clear about what Neflix has here

Exclusives are never exclusive forever in this business:

Essentially what this means is that right after movies hit the shelves on DVD and Blu Ray, they will make their way to Netflix and will never make it to other streaming services as long as the deal is in place. The movies will be available exclusively to stream on Netflix for the same period of time that they would usually be shown on standard cable TV, so though the movies will eventually find their way to more traditional outlets, it will be an even longer wait than usual.

Netflix Gets Disney, Marvel, Star Wars Exclusively in September

I am not crying any tears for Amazon. Films from the Disney collective have dominated home video sales since their first release on VHS. Zootopia will be released on June 7th and pre-sales of the DVD/Bllu-ray/Blu-ray 3D have already made the film a top ten/top 100 bestseller.

Though things could get interesting when Disney makes its move in 4K.

Just not worth it any more.

[westlake]

All releases will still be available via the usual free channels, worldwide, downloadable without streaming, and likely to work on any device you might care to copy them too.

I am not going to waste my time searching the P2P nets for a serviceable rip when the HD or 4K stream is one click away on Netflix. Not after having made the investment in theatrical quality sound and video and the Netflix app is on screen.

Re:Just not worth it any more.

[maeka]

I am not going to waste my time searching the P2P nets for a serviceable rip

What has gone wrong with your life that in 2016, 15 years into the BitTorrent era, someone with a six digit Slashdot UID does not yet have a membership on a private tracker where all rips are serviceable, for all are clearly market Scene releases of known providence?

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I'm sure you meant Jurassic World, not Jurassic Park. Creed redeemed Rocky (which was nice). But there's no fixing the Crytsal Skull or the new Trek reboot.

EU had a lot of really bad stuff in it. But, also, a lot of really good stuff as well. Certainly the better stuff (like Zahn's) would have made a better basis for a movie than JJ Abrams's imagination.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[DivineKnight]

That's because you hide all the good European stuff from us Americans. I mean, sure, some stuff makes it over here...but most of the time, it requires some real work to get anything out of you guys.

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[sexconker]

Yes, I meant Jurassic World. I haven't seen Creed (yet).
EU may have had a lot of good stuff, I wouldn't know because I didn't see any, but it's possible. The problem is that you have to take all the trash with it, if you want the whole picture, as it has the same level of validity.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Regulation to order Netflix and Disney to offer stuff through other channels? I'm not sure how that would work.

Re:So...

[drinkypoo]

Subscribe to Netflix and then pay again to see something decent?

Or perhaps just pay per-movie without even subscribing, in the future, in addition to the subscription plans. Amazon is going to be offering Prime in one-month chunks now, and already offers individual sales/rentals.

Re: For those of that don't have fast access avai

[Rob Lister]

Wave G offers gigabit service to a select group of condos and apartments in Seattle. They [were] the fastest in Seattle according to Speedtest.com
http://www.speedtest.net/award...
Here's a list of the buildings and services. https://gowaveg.com/our-buildi...
Nothing for $29 though. Cheapest they offer [that I could find] was $60 for 100Mb and $80 for 1Gb
I suppose if you can afford rent in one of those places you probably don't care about the difference between $29 and $80.
Still, $80 is pretty cheap for 1Gb

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[luis_a_espinal]

What's the use of having an IQ of 150 if you cannot get away with doing illegal things?

And that, ladies and gents, is what we call a sociopath.

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[TangoMargarine]

What do you mean by "TFA"? The Fucking Article? The Force A-something?

And the early EU novels were quite good. If you're judging the whole sphere on what they released in the last 5-10 years, don't. Anything by Timothy Zahn ('91-'98), Children of the Jedi trilogy (1995), Black Fleet Crisis (1996), for example.

Re: For those of that don't have fast access avai

[ColdWetDog]

My brother lives on 73rd in Ballard - he gets 5 up / down on a business line. It's expensive, but so is the rest of Ballard. He justifies by telling me he doesn't have try to drive to work all that often (he's a programmer). I'm pretty sure it's CenturyLink.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[OrangeTide]

Example: If a company both streams and still wants to still sell dvds/blu-ray in Europe, they could be required to offer streaming according to whatever terms EU defines.

There are lots of ways to solve the problem, with various amounts of carrots and sticks.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[JackieBrown]

Because in Europe, they apparently need to wait for the government to do it for them

Re: USA only and no vpns allowed

[JackieBrown]

I just tried it and they don't serve to the US or to Europe either.

Re:HBO isn't trying to make your life complicated

[JackieBrown]

I don't know how many people complained abut unbundling channel packages and just picking the channels they like. You are actually taking that even further and saying they should unbundle the shows on the channels you want?

Well, they do that. It's called DVD/BluRay releases.

Monopoly?

[martinfb]

Correct me if I'm wrong, yet is this not along the lines of a monopoly? What if I prefer Amazon Prime, or Hulu? Now I have to have Netflix , too?! How about if Disney just make their content available to ALL providers. Let the market compete for the content. It's the American way, isn't it?!

Re:Monopoly?

[nicholasjay]

Correct me if I'm wrong, yet is this not along the lines of a monopoly? What if I prefer Amazon Prime, or Hulu? Now I have to have Netflix , too?! How about if Disney just make their content available to ALL providers. Let the market compete for the content. It's the American way, isn't it?!

The market had the chance to compete for the content. Apparently Netflix offered Disney a better deal for the content than Hulu, et al. Disney doesn't make movies just to make us happy. They do it to make money. That is the American Way.

Re:Monopoly?

[martinfb]

... Apparently Netflix offered Disney a better deal for the content than Hulu, et al. Disney doesn't make movies just to make us happy. They do it to make money. That is the American Way.

Acknowledged on the money thing. Yet, my question is: Why cannot Hulu, et al, also have the same deal simultaneously? Or, perhaps a different deal? How is it different that I should have the right to choose my ISP? I get that different ISPs offer different packages (i.e. speeds, etc...), yet it is still access to the internet and all the content there in it's multitude of forms. Seems to be a grey area here.

Re:Monopoly?

[nicholasjay]

Acknowledged on the money thing. Yet, my question is: Why cannot Hulu, et al, also have the same deal simultaneously? Or, perhaps a different deal? How is it different that I should have the right to choose my ISP? I get that different ISPs offer different packages (i.e. speeds, etc...), yet it is still access to the internet and all the content there in it's multitude of forms. Seems to be a grey area here.

Because Netflix, etc wants exclusive deals. Remember that their goal is to have content that will drive membership. They make money by getting people to subscribe to their service. If you can get the same content elsewhere, then you have no reason to sign up for Netflix, thus vastly reducing its worth to Netflix.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[Flea of Pain]

Only if I want the whole movie. If I download the soundtrack only I'm perfectly OK...at least in Canada. Odd times we live in where we are allowed to "steal" music but not video. Oh well, it's the bed the music industry made, and now we get the benefit of sleeping in it.

If only someone could convince the T.V./movie industry to leave some loop holes open for us Canadians to get access to the one show we would like to watch without paying over $100 for a cable subscription we don't need or want.

OH WAIT! Maybe they could just make their shows available for a small fee on a per show basis? Oh wait, that makes too much sense.

Re: For those of that don't have fast access avail

[JackieBrown]

I live in Panama... Must suck to live in the "first world" lol. Seriously you guys are getting screwed. .

I have pretty good internet speed and no caps... but seriously. I wouldn't move to Panama just so I can get a faster internet speed.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[SuricouRaven]

Lots of things are illegal but still commonplace and largely socially acceptable. Perhaps this indicates the law is in need of revision to better reflect changes in society.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[Darinbob]

The changes in society being a younger generation that thinks stealing is ok if the product costs more than they want it to?

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[Agent0013]

What's the use of having an IQ of 150 if you cannot get away with doing illegal things?

And that, ladies and gents, is what we call a sociopath.

I think the real sociopath is the one who agreed to put their work into the public domain for a limited time of protection, but then reneged on the deal to keep their stuff out of the public domain forever. Funny how the biggest culprit of this is the very company this news is about.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[luis_a_espinal]

Because all illegal things are always wrong. Women voting, smoking marijuana at home, gay marriage, etc.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a straw man fallacy.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[luis_a_espinal]

What's the use of having an IQ of 150 if you cannot get away with doing illegal things?

And that, ladies and gents, is what we call a sociopath.

I think the real sociopath is the one who agreed to put their work into the public domain for a limited time of protection, but then reneged on the deal to keep their stuff out of the public domain forever. Funny how the biggest culprit of this is the very company this news is about.

It's their work and they can do with it as they please. That it inconveniences you in some way or another does not necessarily vindicate the way you see things.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[Agent0013]

It was their work until they released it to the public for viewing. They got copyright in exchange for it passing into the public domain. If they don't keep the deal then there is no reason for us to keep our side of the deal either. That is why BitTorrent is legit.

Since when is a monopoly an acceptable thing anyway. If you want to sell it to a distributor to show it, you should be required to sell it to all distribution channels for the same price.

Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil

[Sperbels]

And despite all that, it still managed to be better than all three prequels.

Re:USA only and no vpns allowed

[SuricouRaven]

How about a younger generation that no longer accepts that information can be owned in the same way as physical property?

Re: USA only and no vpns allowed

[alexandru_preoteasa]

We have a totally libtarded "Prime Minister" whose only qualification seems to be whose son he was, and that his mom blew a bunch of rockers in the 70s. And a great head of hair, gotta give it to him.

Everyone seems to be going along with it too, goddamn it...