Slashdot Mirror


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.

30 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. I think Canadian Netflix already has this deal? by yellowcord · · Score: 2

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

  2. Re:USA only and no vpns allowed by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  3. Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil by Sperbels · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Star Wars clearly turned out for better because of Disney

  4. exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive by harrkev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    2. Re:exclusive content is evil and anti-comeptitive by Xest · · Score: 2

      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.

  5. Re: USA only and no vpns allowed by thundercattt · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  6. Re:USA only and no vpns allowed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Europe has The Pirate Bay.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  7. Re:USA only and no vpns allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  8. Cable channel syndrome by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Cable channel syndrome by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Cable channel syndrome by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Cable channel syndrome by bobm · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:Cable channel syndrome by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    5. Re:Cable channel syndrome by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  9. Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil by plague911 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  10. Re:Deals with Disney are deals with the Devil by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    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.

  11. Re: USA only and no vpns allowed by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

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

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  12. Re:Disgusting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re: USA only and no vpns allowed by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

    we have several.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  14. Re:Disgusting... by JustOK · · Score: 2

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

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  15. I'm conflicted about this by jd2112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    1. Re:I'm conflicted about this by Gilgaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  16. Re:Just not worth it any more. by maeka · · Score: 2

    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?

  17. Re:USA only and no vpns allowed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  18. Re:USA only and no vpns allowed by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3

    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.

  19. Re:HBO isn't trying to make your life complicated by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

    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.

  20. Re:USA only and no vpns allowed by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    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.

  21. Re:USA only and no vpns allowed by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

    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.

  22. Re:USA only and no vpns allowed by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

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