Disney Ditching Netflix Keeps Piracy Relevant (torrentfreak.com)

Yesterday, Disney announced its intent to pull its movies from Netflix and start its own streaming service. This upset many users across the web as the whole appeal of the streaming model becomes diluted when there are too many "Netflixes." TorrentFreak argues that "while Disney expects to profit from the strategy, more fragmentation is not ideal for the public" and that the move "keeps piracy relevant." From the report: Although Disney's decision may be good for Disney, a lot of Netflix users are not going to be happy. It likely means that they need another streaming platform subscription to get what they want, which isn't a very positive prospect. In piracy discussions, Hollywood insiders often stress that people have no reason to pirate, as pretty much all titles are available online legally. What they don't mention, however, is that users need access to a few dozen paid services, to access them all. In a way, this fragmentation is keeping the pirate ecosystems intact. While legal streaming services work just fine, having dozens of subscriptions is expensive, and not very practical. Especially not compared to pirate streaming sites, where everything can be accessed on the same site.

Comments

Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix started becoming close to an end to piracy. They were getting a great selection of content (US still had a better selection than most) and I was happy to pay for it as I always found something to watch for a reasonable cost. Not that I watched Disney products but inevitably others are going to follow suit.
I am not a huge fan of paying multiple companies monthly to watch their content. Suddenly it becomes less value for money. Piracy is looking appealing again...

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney, in a sense, effectively pirated the public domain. As far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fair play.

Re:Shame

[renegadesx]

This, I refuse to subscribe to HBOGo, I happily pirate Game of Thrones. Im on Netflix and Hulu and will not subscribe to a third. Same goes for Disney. I am happy to torrent whats not available on the main streaming services. Disney and HBO have the ability to take my money, but in trying to extract more out of me they will get none.

Re:Shame

[renegadesx]

Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Cinderella, Repunzal, yep fair point!

Re: Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty much only the US that had the Netflix Disney movies anyway. There's only a few recent Disney releases in EU Netflix, so this won't really affect me. I'll just keep downloading Disney movies instead.

Re:Shame

[Hans Lehmann]

Did you create content that's now owned by Disney? If so, then it's no longer yours to be stolen.

Re:Shame

[VernonNemitz]

That's not what the other poster meant. One of the recent revisions/extensions of copyright law was called the "Mickey Mouse Law", because it allowed Disney to keep MM under copyright, instead of that character getting liberated into the public domain.

Regarding the other issue, of companies streaming content with fees, an alternative that works is advertising. Major networks like ABC and NBC and CBS and Fox all offer their broadcast programs on the internet for some weeks after the broadcast, and those streamed programs are interspersed with advertisements, just like the broadcasts. When we think about ancient TV programs that are still in syndication, broadcast still with interspersed commercials, it should be obvious that any content-production company should be able to offer its content via streaming practically forever (well, at least until it finally enters the public domain), if it always added some interspersed advertising. The companies would never need to charge viewers fees, but their programs would still be making money. And only the most die-hard of pirates would insist they have some kind of right to view commercial-free content.. Most folks are used to commercials, after all!

Re:Shame

[clupean]

+ Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel, etc.
and I like The Jungle Book!

Re:Shame

[Calydor]

Are you absolutely sure you didn't watch Disney stuff? Disney is more than their animated movies today - it's Star Wars, it's Pirates of the Caribbean, it's Marvel and all their shows. The list goes on. Disney is essentially an umbrella corporation today.

Re:Shame

[Maritz]

Disney, in a sense, effectively pirated the public domain. As far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fair play.

Yep. If you want Disney, pirate it. They're dickheads who are fucking around with copyright law and public domain. Don't fund them.

Re:Shame

[Wootery]

Ah, the old I don't like the pricepoint, so I'll just not pay.

You'd come across as far more righteous if you just refused to watch GoT.

Re:Shame

[jabuzz]

Hum Rudyard Kipling died in 1936 and Dinsey's Jungle Book was released in 1967. I must be missing something here about the copyright expiring. Now on the other hand if we where to talk about Pinocchio we would be on the mark. Here Dinsey waited just exactly the 50 years from the death of Carlo Collodi before bringing out their bastardised version.

My favourite idea is that any copyright extension is "retrospective". So if Disney want's more than 50 years better start paying a lot of money to the estate of Carlo Collodi for example to cover the period during which Pinocchio would now have been covered by copyright.

Re:Shame

[stealth_finger]

Disney, in a sense, effectively pirated the public domain. As far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fair play.

I pirated the last two star wars films from them and still felt ripped off. I'll probably pirate the new ones just to delete them.

Re:Shame

[stealth_finger]

I'm surprised you think that's cool. I'd be pretty peaved if someone stole my work.

If I made some work then purposefully removed it from the place where everyone can access it in order to put it in my own place (with only my own stuff) to make more money I wouldn't be surprised when no one turned up.

Re:Shame

[Letophoro]

Hum Rudyard Kipling died in 1936 and Dinsey's Jungle Book was released in 1967. I must be missing something here about the copyright expiring

The Jungle Book was first published in 1894. The copyright laws of the time had a much shorter duration. If I remember correctly, it was 14 years from date of publication with the potential for one optional extension of another 14 years.
Disney's version was taken from the public domain.

Re:Shame

[JonnyCalcutta]

I've been told several times on this site that no-one is owed anything (for example, poor people are not owed a way out of poverty). So surely that applies to content makers?

Re:Shame

[Applehu Akbar]

Disney, in a sense, effectively pirated the public domain. As far as I'm concerned, turnabout is fair play.

An increasing number of ordinary people, far beyond the original 'hacker' culture, are coming to the same conclusion.

Re:Shame

[Wootery]

That's a particularly stupid strawman, and you know it.

You might as well try to argue it's fine to steal from retailers.

Re:Shame

[nine-times]

I'm guessing, but I think that the reality is that a lot of the executives in the entertainment industry aren't actually very worried about piracy. They know it happens. They wish it didn't. They'll complain vocally about it. But it's not something that keeps them up at night.

The issue is control over distribution channels. Decades ago, studios were concerned that VHS sales would cut into theater ticket sales, and then that VHS rentals would cut into VHS sales. For a while, Disney even refused to release movies to VHS. Fundamentally, it's the same issue, and it's about control. When you went to the theater, not only did they get ticket sales, but they controlled when and where you saw the movie. They controlled how many people could see it with you. They controlled what you ate, and made money from selling junk food. The simple shift to allow you to purchase the movie and store it in your own home stripped all that control away. Not only did it change the nature of the transaction, but now the video store controlled the nature of the exchange, and the experience of the purchase.

So the shift to streaming presents a similar problem. Right now, Disney has a bunch of different distribution channels, and all their leverage and control of distribution comes from which channel they allow to have which products. Exclusivity allows them to drive up the price. Right now, they can tell Netflix, "Pay is $X or we'll release this movie on Starz instead." They can make sure the streaming companies promote their movies over other new releases. They can do cross-promotional deals. They have all kinds of marketing levers they can pull.

So the reality is, they simply don't want to push all of their movies onto all channels. It's not a money issue. There's no amount of money that Netflix could pay to get access to all Disney movies, because even with an excessive amount of money, Disney would have lost a lot of control. On the other hand, if they want to keep the control without splintering their catalog over a bunch of different services, they can open their own streaming service. Pulling all of their content from other streaming services to put it onto their own service would reduce their flexibility, since they wouldn't be able to form some strategic partnerships. However, it would maintain control.

Re:Shame

[Gr8Apes]

That's not what the other poster meant. One of the recent revisions/extensions of copyright law was called the "Mickey Mouse Law", because it allowed Disney to keep MM under copyright, instead of that character getting liberated into the public domain.

There were some arguments put forth that while yes, MM movies would enter the public domain, MM himself, being a Disney trademark, would only allow others to distribute the original movies. One could not create derivative works, thus Disney would only lose the ability to not publish or benefit from the existing (now PD) material.

Re:Shame

[mysidia]

I am not a huge fan of paying multiple companies monthly to watch their content.

That IS important, but there is another issue: Infrastructure and delivery.... Software on my set-top box devices ONLY supports Netflix, Youtube, and some other standardized apps.

So If I need to use a new streaming service, then you're basically saying I must chunk my set-top boxes and spend a few hundred $$$ on new ones...... that or stream from a media server such as Plex.

But if I go through all the trouble of having a dedicated media server, then shouldn't I just go the rest of the way: Add bulk storage, and fine the cheapest way possible to get video content to put on my local storage?

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying a commercial empire that has entertained millions, employed millions and made millionaires was made possible by shorter copyright duration that what we have now?

The very company that is influential enough to extend copyright duration only exists because it was able to take advantage of shorter copyright terms?

Re:Shame

[Wootery]

No, I don't assert that they're the same, I made an analogy.

Re:Shame

[pnutjam]

I like what HBO is doing, you get their entire back catalog along with what they are currently airing. They make good stuff that people want to watch and don't penalize you if you want to subscribe for a month and binge watch.
I'd be surprised if this is what Disney does. I subscribe to netflix and HBO, but I torrent all that Hulu crap because they insist on commercials.
F#)@ that noise.

Re:Shame

[Arzaboa]

Used to commercials? I wont be able to ingest my 30 hours of TV a day unless its commercial free!

Re:Shame

[TheCastro1689]

All 3D printing DRM type of crap would say otherwise.

Re:Shame

[TheCastro1689]

They've also owned Miramax and other companies for a while.

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

My my, where to begin.
Are you in the industry by chance? ANyway on the some points:

>it should be obvious that any content-production company should be able to offer its content...
Yes, it should be obvious that an owner of anything can do whatever they want. This is in general and includes media. But you did not hear the argument against it, which is streaming service saturation! People have enough services & have said so- with a keen eye towards Disney's grab (understandable from a business point of view), at separating their viewers. But viewers don't want to be separated- could Disney not just ask Netflix another two dollars per month from ea subscriber- thereby making some money yet hardly offending viewers? No- they want their own playing space & it will have some subscribers.

>...if it always added some interspersed advertising.
Should not do that if we're already paying for it. Historical contracts = payment for product. Not payment for product plus continual reminders of other products and how your life is less & less without them.

>And only the most die-hard of pirates would insist they have some kind of right to view commercial-free content..
Most 'pirates' are just regular people trying to get a show that has been made unreachable by either media-source being unavailable (Netflix subscribers suddenly loosing all Disney content), regional locks, and/or untenable & insulting unskippable previews warnings etc that some people just want to press play & see their show. Is that so hard? Press play & see the show?

>Most folks are used to commercials, after all!
Some folks are used to lung cancer or abusive relationships too. After all, consider al the good times & rewards they received for their non-difficult times. Surely a few painful times are worth it? People WILL SKIP COMMERCIALS IF GIVEN THE CHANCE. The fact that industry shills still produce commercials & people watch them should not be read as 'liking' or ;preferring; them. Despite what the superbowl hoo-haa is about all the commercials lined up, commercials do not have such a lowal following as the industry woud hope.

caveat: I worked in advertising & commercials for years. Made great money & a name for myself. It's a sham biz.

Re:Shame

[SScorpio]

Hulu has a commercial free tier. It's an extra $4/month. But that's still less than HBO Go or 4K Netflix's subscription price.

Re:Shame

[dgatwood]

Ah, the old I don't like the pricepoint, so I'll just not pay.

You'd come across as far more righteous if you just refused to watch GoT.

That would be me. I'd love to watch it, but I don't care about any of HBO's other offerings, and to me, it isn't worth spending $15 for a few episodes per year of a single TV show. If you don't want to watch HBO's other content, that comes to something like twenty bucks per episode, making it by far the most expensive TV show to watch in the entire history of TV.

I consider content sources in terms of the value per dollar. Netflix costs me... either $8 or $10 a month (I forget which) and provides content from dozens of sources, including Netflix. HBO NOW, apart from movies (which I rarely watch), provides content from one source, and costs $15 a month. That makes HBO NOW about two orders of magnitude more expensive for what you get. HBO's position is effectively no different than selling a Blu-Ray disc for $2,000 and then wondering why it is the most pirated and most poorly sold Blu-Ray disc in the world.

And arguably, pirating GoT might even be ethically the better thing to do. By refusing to watch it, I'm denying HBO the information that I exist. If everyone did that, they would have no idea that there's a huge potential audience out there that wants to watch their programing, but isn't willing to pay their exorbitant price for a movie-oriented streaming service just for the privilege of watching a single TV show. The pirates, by contrast, make that very clear, and if enough people pirated it, maybe HBO's execs would get the message that they're being short-sighted and stupid.

Or maybe a huge upswing in GoT piracy might be enough to convince Time Warner's stockholders that the current management is running the company into the ground, causing them to replace Time Warner's board with smarter people who will fire the CEO and turn the company around. To be blunt, when Netflix—a streaming-only company that barely even produces content—has about the same market cap as your giant media content creation powerhouse, you're not doing something wrong; you're doing everything wrong.

Re:Shame

[dgatwood]

Err... I meant $15 per month to get a few episodes per year (in case that wasn't obvious). $15 per year would still be too expensive, but not extortionately so.

Re:Shame

[pnutjam]

It's also not commercial free, just commercial lite.

Re:Shame

[Baleet]

And another branch of said corporation has remade a significant portion of the environment in its own image. http://www.carlhiaasen.com/boo...

Re:Shame

[umafuckit]

This, I refuse to subscribe to HBOGo, I happily pirate Game of Thrones.

Or you could buy it from the Play store for the perfectly reasonable price of 3 bucks per episode. I don't know if that link will work for you, but here in Europe that's the deal.

Re:Shame

[torkus]

Same here. I still pay for netflix but mainly for friends who want to watch whatever netflix exclusive while they're over...and I don't care much about the few $/month. But I'm certainly NOT going to pay for a whole bunch of other related services to get all the bits and pieces to make things whole again. Partly because of the money, but also the complexity.

When I want to watch a show and it's not on netflix, I'm very unlikely to go hunting around for which streaming service has it (while filtering the dozen or so that 'sell' heavily DRMd copies of shows for ridiculous prices), then sign up, install their app, log in, find the show...etc.

It's quite literally faster and easier to find a torrent and wait for the download 99% of the time.

Re:Shame

[Letophoro]

So you're saying a commercial empire that has entertained millions, employed millions and made millionaires was made possible by shorter copyright duration that what we have now?

The very company that is influential enough to extend copyright duration only exists because it was able to take advantage of shorter copyright terms?

Not entirely. Mickey Mouse and other original creations of Disney existed before they made a Jungle Book movie. Disney did benefit from being able to utilize public domain material, but that wasn't the entirety of their efforts.

Once they got big enough to make sufficient campaign contributions to influence copyright terms, they benefited from that as well.

Re:Shame

[SScorpio]

Hulu has both a "limited" commercial version and a commercial free version.

https://www.hulu.com/nocommercials

Re:Shame

[Gussington]

Ah, the old I don't like the pricepoint, so I'll just not pay.

It seems to work for rich people with their tax...

Re:Shame

[Gussington]

That's a particularly stupid strawman, and you know it.

You might as well try to argue it's fine to steal from retailers.

They try to rip me off, I try to rip them off, isn't that how the world works?

Re:Shame

[pnutjam]

I've been told their no-commercial option doesn't include all shows, so you'll still get some with commercials in front.
Frankly, I still pay for cable, so I don't really have a problem with the cost or commercials in general. I'd rather DVR the show and skip the commercials vs watching it with a short uskippible commercial. I do vastly prefer the HBO and Netflix method of streaming with no commercials, so I support those services.
I wonder if Disney will haul ABC off of Hulu when their platform goes live.

Re:Shame

[david_thornley]

Why the surprise? It's a clear case of "I've got mine, Jack, to hell with anyone else who wants to make it good."

Re:Shame

[david_thornley]

It's a bad analogy. If you take cash from me, I suddenly don't have the cash any more, nor any way to replace it (other than earning more). If you copy my Nanowrimo folders on DropBox, I haven't lost a thing. Since they aren't of publishable quality, I'm not even losing potential profits.

Re:Shame

[Wootery]

For the second time: no, I didn't assert that they're the same.

And no, piracy isn't morally ok just because it isn't the same thing as theft.

Re:Shame

[david_thornley]

There's lots of things that aren't morally OK. You said "You might as well try to argue it's fine to steal from retailers." despite that not being the same thing. Why not "You might as well try to argue it's fine to sexually harass people" or "You might as well try to argue it's fine to misrepresent people", as examples of things that aren't morally OK. In all cases, piracy is not morally dubious for the same reasons what you quote is.

Re:Shame

[Wootery]

It's far closer to theft than to those other offences, though. You are depriving an entity of revenue to which it is entitled. Unless you want to argue that copyright is totally illegitimate (which requires accepting that entities like HBO will no longer exist), it seems to me your hands are tied as to the morality of copyright infringement.

Very often on Slashdot, someone will point out copyright infringement isn't the same thing as theft, as if that's enough to put to rest the idea that it isn't ok. These tend to be the sorts of people who waste our time with you shouldn't call it piracy.

Greed!!

[grumpy-cowboy]

No I will not paying for another streaming service. Good luck with that.

Re:Greed!!

[Rockoon]

..or install another streaming application.

Kodi with a pirate plugin or a solution like it will win because because then its all in one place.

Re:Greed!!

[liquid_schwartz]

..or install another streaming application.

Or just take up a hobby in real life. You'll be much happier and more fulfilled with the added bonus of knowing that you're not contributing to media companies.

Subscribe to 6 streaming providers?

[Snotnose]

At $10/month or more each? No thank you. I'll just pirate your content, you can go fuck yourselves in whatever MMF, MFF, MMM, FFF, whatever configuration works best for you.

Re:Subscribe to 6 streaming providers?

[nyquil superstar]

Yeah... doesn't really seem like an ethical choice. I mean, if you don't like it, just don't use it.

Re:Subscribe to 6 streaming providers?

[murdocj]

Or, you could, you know, live without it? Instead of stealing it? Just say that you aren't going to watch whatever is on the Disney stream? Or pay the wow, whole $10 a month? Which gets you 2 drinks at Starbucks.

Life is hard.

This was obviously mistakenly modded "off-topic"

Provide feedback to Disney

[under_score]

It was a bit hard to find a good place to provide feedback. Here is how I did it:

1. 1. Go to https://help.disney.com/en_US/...
2. 2. Select "Other"
3. 3. In the field, type "Netflix"
4. 4. Click the "Next" button
5. 5. Click on the "Email" button
6. 6. Type in your full complaint

They responded to me by basically saying they were forwarding my comment to the appropriate person.

Re:Provide feedback to Disney

[macklin01]

It may go straight to File 13, but I wrote in too.

Hello, I'm really disappointed that Disney is pulling its content from Netflix to force customers to purchase yet another subscription service. As more and more companies like you do this (e.g., CBS All Access), you are fragmenting the online market, and making it harder and costlier for customers to legally access content. We were willing to cut the cord from cable providers and buy access to 2-3 services like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu to get access to most content at lower prices. But this fragmentation is quickly driving costs above traditional cable access. This is unsustainable. We don't plan to buy the extra subscription to Disney when it's off Netflix. Maybe we'll start watching more Dreamworks and Warner Bros. movies.

Re:Provide feedback to Disney

[Szeraax]

Thanks for the link. You made it nice and easy to let them know what I want them to do instead.

Re:Provide feedback to Disney

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

"appropriate person" is /dev/null as far as Mickey is concerned.

Re:Provide feedback to Disney

[david_thornley]

What can Netflix do about this? How do we tell Disney we won't bother?

monopoly is even more revevent for "piracy"

[sittingnut]

this post seems to have convoluted logic.
so called piracy is a function of cost to consumer. as long as searching and downloading, a delayed, usually not ideal, but good enough, quality media through a free resource in internet, is considered less costly, than alleged timeliness, convenience and quality of a subscription service, "piracy" will thrive.

while more subscription services, with separate exclusive offerings , can increase costs, they can also reduce costs.
they increase competition for none exclusive material, under competition, from others and "piracy".
they may offer plans based on actual quantity of downloads than duration of subscription(removing injustice of people with non very active subscriptions subsidizing more active ones),
etc.

Re:monopoly is even more revevent for "piracy"

[Wycliffe]

while more subscription services, with separate exclusive offerings , can increase costs, they can also reduce costs.
they increase competition for none exclusive material, under competition, from others and "piracy".
they may offer plans based on actual quantity of downloads than duration of subscription(removing injustice of people with non very active subscriptions subsidizing more active ones),
etc.

Competition is good but that same "none exclusive material" means that most people are not going to subscribe to multiple channels. I think amazon probably has the winning strategy right now. Give away some titles for free to get people using your platform, allow you to add on additional channels for a small upcharge, and make almost everything available for a price. My only problem with amazon at the moment is their on demand price is still way too high. They have $4 rentals on movies that you can buy the physical dvd for $5. 10% of retail is probably a fair price. I use redbox constantly. It's a little more than $1 for a $20 movie. I always check redbox first and if it's not there then I look for other more costly and/or more questionable channels. I don't watch much movies so paying $8/month for a subscription to a bunch of B movies is not appealing to me. I would much rather pay $1/hour and watch exactly what I want. There are likely a ton of other low use / high quality users like me out there if someone would actually create a decent service for A movies.

Good, let it fragment more

[Kjella]

There's two alternatives here:

1) One or a few distribution companies manages to hit critical mass so everyone else "have to" be there. This is what happened with Spotify in the music business, who is now making a big squeeze play on the artists instead of the label.

2) All these fragmented little services realize that even though they're competing, they're also pissing off the consumer by lacking the basic interoperability you got by changing channels on a remote control and make some kind of broad, open joint effort to offer different subscriptions through the same interface.

I think the latter is the best solution for the long run, you don't want to make Netflix or Amazon be the new gatekeeper.

Re:Good, let it fragment more

[Wycliffe]

2) All these fragmented little services realize that even though they're competing, they're also pissing off the consumer by lacking the basic interoperability you got by changing channels on a remote control and make some kind of broad, open joint effort to offer different subscriptions through the same interface.

I think the latter is the best solution for the long run, you don't want to make Netflix or Amazon be the new gatekeeper.

Amazon is working on plan 2. They have recently started adding a bunch of add on subscriptions to their video offerings. They also have one of the broadest selection of on demand titles of any service. Their on demand is overpriced but it's nice to be able to have an almost one stop shop for movies.

Re:Good, let it fragment more

[tlhIngan]

2) All these fragmented little services realize that even though they're competing, they're also pissing off the consumer by lacking the basic interoperability you got by changing channels on a remote control and make some kind of broad, open joint effort to offer different subscriptions through the same interface.

In other words, the cable model where you get to bundle a bunch of services together for once price.

Didn't we just bash the cable industry for bundling and demand they start making things available "a la carte"? I mean, if they start bundling streaming services, it's the same thing - you'll get 10 you can't live without, and another 30 you pay for because that's the way it is. And if you try to subscribe to the 10 you want, it'll cost more than the 40 via the bundle (like a la carte now).

And no, one big player isn't any better. Just think of it as one big Comcast for all of the US as your only cable provider.

Perhaps the truth is, in the end, while paying $200/month for cable is too much, cord cutting will save some money, but not dramatically huge amounts. Instead of paying Comcast $200/month, you'll pay $100/month for the stuff you watch and stream, and maybe $50/month for your internet.

(And if you think piracy is the way, well, the studios claim they care, but they don't, because pirates don't count towards the numbers that matter - subscribers, or ad impressions. Perhaps all the lesser stuff will end up on Patreon and YouTube with them begging for you to support them for $5/month. Oh wait, that's an extra cost now. Yes, I saw one YouTuber gloat that he's happy YouTube is doing well and that it will destroy broadcast TV. Perhaps, but at least TV has a business model. Most YouTubers who make enough to do YouTube all day have to rely on tip jars and donations, as YouTube doesn't pay enough.

Of course, back on topic, one should pay for basic TV - at least what's available OTA for free, with OTA DVRs recording it for on-demand and everything.

And why do we forget services like iTunes and Amazon that let you buy your TV shows? For those who only watch a few programs, season passes aren't expensive. If you spend $2400 a year on cable, that buys 48 season passes of TV at $50/each. If all you care about are those programs, it's an option that will save money...

Re:Good, let it fragment more

[pots]

This is the opposite of plan 2, this is consolidation under Amazon. If Amazon were pursuing plan 2 then they'd open their API to allow other services to include Amazon content. (probably with a requirement for reciprocation)

Re:Good, let it fragment more

[JonnyCalcutta]

What you say makes total sense, if you think that $200 is not a ridiculous amount to be paying for TV. Maybe we're spoiled in the UK, but here cable and satellite have to compete with Freeview - free OTA - which has 20-30 watchable (for varying degrees of watchable) channels.

I can't help thinking that too many people are now used to paying maybe $30 max for 2 or 3 streaming services, and will baulk at prices anywhere near the amount they used to pay for cable.

Re:Good, let it fragment more

[Wycliffe]

This is the opposite of plan 2, this is consolidation under Amazon. If Amazon were pursuing plan 2 then they'd open their API to allow other services to include Amazon content. (probably with a requirement for reciprocation)

Yes, Amazon is pursuing plan 2 with it at the top. It would be much better if there was either a neutral party or competing parties at the top but there is no incentive at the moment for Amazon to do this. Best case scenerio at the moment would be if someone else starts following in Amazon's footsteps and then starz/disney/hbo/etc make their channels float. i.e. If I paid for starz on amazon then I get it for free on netflix.

Re:Good, let it fragment more

[nine-times]

Or #3: They fragment the catalog as much as they want. Their marketing people get to invent work for themselves. They pretty much force people to sign up to several services to get the content they want, and things just keep going on like that. Because we let them do it.

Consumers don't have enough backbone to just... stop watching some of the TV shows they like. Most people don't know how to pirate conveniently. So people will pay. They'll pay and they'll pay, and then they'll pay some more. How do you think we ended up paying $103 for cable, with almost all the channels also showing commercials?

Re:70s

[Snotnose]

2 words. Star Wars. A large chunk of us don't like going to theaters anymore and would stream it if possible.

/ me? Wait till it comes out on DVD
// get it from the library
/// get a week to watch it.

Disney sparks piracy?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Dunno about that. My kids rewatch Disney movies (the shows are all crap) enough times that an investment in a $20 DVD usually makes sense. (Also, I don't want to have to set up the stream.)

For me, piracy is all about GoT, Doctor Who, BSG and the occasional college game - geeky or manly stuff that doesn't come with NetFlix. The NetFlix catalog itself is fine for background TV watching since I have better things to do than binge-watch anyway.

Re:Disney sparks piracy?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> if you're not bothering to watch the TV then why have it turned on at all?

I think you'll find that a lot of us out in meatspace, and even commonly on Slashdot, can grok multiple sources of input at once. Like "radio + reading email" at work. Or "talking with friends at a ballgame". This is similar.

Re:Disney sparks piracy?

[apoc.famine]

So for the next installment, it hits theaters, then it's on streaming for 3 months before the blueray comes out. Your kids see the advertisements that they can stream it every second of every day, and so goes the Disney marketing scheme. You sign up for the streaming platform, and a week later they take the movie off the stream rotation and put out the DVDs. And market that on the streaming platform.
 
It's fiendishly evil in its brilliance. Good luck!

Re:Disney sparks piracy?

[phorm]

Yup. I know a lot of people that use Kodi plugins to watch "pirate" streams. For myself I just take any new disc that I've purchase and transcode it for my personal library, then archive the disc.

That means the kiddo can watch Frozen as many times as she wants, easily, without scratching/losing the disc.

The value just isn't there

[93 Escort Wagon]

Even if you like most Disney movies (and I do), there just isn't enough value being provided for a subscription costing 8-10 bucks a month. Even if we didn't already own most of the titles we care about - there just aren't that many to have it make sense for more than a month or two.

And that's ignoring the more recent news that they're looking at splitting their titles up between two or more services!

Seriously - we all know this channel will only offer just a few Disney movies at any one time, padded out with 24-hour access to That's So Raven And Boy Meets World.

Cable TV has been continually losing subscribers because of cost... TV and movies just aren't that important to most people. Disney and others seem to think those same people are going to come back in droves, throwing money at them - but that's not going to happen.

Re:The value just isn't there

[SvnLyrBrto]

Yup. I own most of the Disney movies I actually like. I own, for example, the DVD of Aladdin. The only reason I'd watch it on Netflix would be if I wanted instant gratification to watch it on a whim and save the whole 60 seconds it would take to eject whatever disc is in the Playstation, walk over to the shelves, carry the DVD to the TV, and swap it in. I'm not going to pay an extra subscription to save that minute. Nor will I pay an extra fee for the availability of direct-to-video rubbish like Aladdin 2: "We couldn't afford Robin Williams this time.", Aladdin 3: "You mean Jaffar's not dead YET? WTF?", or Aladdin 4: "The one with the whales." As for the bottom of the barrel trash they produce for their cable channel? LOL LOL LOL.

So I'll skip the subscription, and just buy the Blu-Ray for the next Pixar movie. Easy.

Re:The value just isn't there

[Daetrin]

Currently we subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Crunchyroll, Funimation, and Amazon Prime, which already seems like a little too much. (Apparently there's some new service which merges Crunchyroll and Funimation that we need to look into.) The only other service i'd seriously consider getting is HBO Go, but I'm not currently into Game of Thrones because of reasons and i don't know of anything else they have that's that great. (Admittedly i haven't looked that hard given all the other stuff we have to watch.)

As you say, Disney doesn't really have enough content to justify themselves as another streaming service unless you happen to be into their TV content. (Not counting the Marvel/Netflix original content, which will stay with Netflix.)

In my case Disney is making it an even worse deal because the movies that i would want to watch are good enough that i'll toss then onto my christmas and birthday wishlist since my family refuses to do digital gifts or gift cards and i need stuff to pad it out.

I'm sure Disney is happy that their DVDs/BluRays are being bought, but it means i have practically no reason to get their streaming service.

Re:The value just isn't there

[pnutjam]

And I'll just stream that shit from my own Samba share using Kodi.

Re:The value just isn't there

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yeah, for quite a few years I've been running my own little streaming "server" on whatever surplus computer I have at the time... currently a 2006/7 MacBook Pro. My DVDs and Blu-Ray discs generally come out of their case just once (for ripping), then go into a box in the closet.

It doesn't take much computing power to stream movies and TV shows; and it certainly makes it easier to find a given movie.

Re:The value just isn't there

[pnutjam]

I have a linux box that handles all this and runs NX so I can pull up a remote session to mange everything from work. It's way better then a NAS.

The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[gfxguy]

Sorry, there's really no reason or justification for pirating Disney movies. Or any movies, really. If you don't want to pay what the companies that made them are asking, then don't watch. This is the entitlement mentality at it's worst. Nobody owes you anything, and you don't need movies. It's not like stealing bread to feed your family.

That doesn't mean I'm happy about it - I'm not, but the worst thing an individual can do is come out and say they are now going to start violating the legal rights of others because they don't want to pay for a f#@king Disney movie. Do these people even listen to themselves?

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that.. but I don't think you understand the OP's thoughts. You have been paying for a subscription-based service (Netflix) that you have up to this point... have had access to content from the Disney network. Suddenly.. and without a refund from Netflix.. you find that the same content you've enjoyed for days/months/years is suddenly no longer available. Little did you know.. that the content owner decided that the Charlie Sheen-esque cocaine and hooker parties for the Disney elite were being impacted... they started to run low on ca$h. Their decision... consumer be damned.. is to force you to pay for yet another content provider's source to see the same content.

Some percentage of us will just grin, bear it and hope for some overtime opporuntites to absorb the increased cost.

Others.. will just buy the DVD content of their kid's most favorites.. and explain to them they can't see the other stuff.

What the OP here is saying.. is category 3. The rebels.. that will find a way to *not* pay any more than they had with their Netflix fee.. to see the content they've been enjoying. That means piracy. You have decided that there is no reason or justification... but I encourage you to read my post. There is a reason... when your paid-for content access is stripped away and then re-assigned to a new paid subscription.

Peace out.

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[gfxguy]

I'm not saying "category 3" won't happen, I'm decrying the mentality of those who will opt for that "solution." Yes, I subscribe to Netflix, and I enjoy getting to see the Marvel movies (and shows, which apparently they will keep doing), but Netflix keeps making new deals, coming up with new content, and has constantly been rotating movies anyway, so they will start rotating out the Disney movies and getting something else.

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[StormReaver]

Do these people even listen to themselves?

While I don't use pirate sites, I applaud those who do. Those are the people who put pressure on movie studios to bring the price of movies from $100+ down to $14.95.

Piracy is an important facet of the free market. It's an indicator that the seller's product is priced too high. Everything the seller does contributes to this indicator. It can be that the seller puts too many obstacles in place for paying customers to make use of the product, making the product less valuable, or any number of things that makes the cost exceed the worth. When this happens, piracy is the relief valve.

Disney is actively encouraging movie piracy by exiting Netflix, and this will bite them in the ass for years to come. I think the market for paid streaming services is near saturation, and Disney is too late to make much of an impact.

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't agree more. Entitlement is a massive problem.

The idea that these movie companies have that their movies are necessary viewing or even appealing in many cases is obviously wrong.

Nobody owes you attention. Nobody is necessarily bound to provide your overlords with massive amounts of money just so they can declare the company bankrupt at the end of the run to avoid paying you and (moreso) your juniors what you're owed for work you did. Nobody needs to maintain an industry that normalizes exploitation of skilled individuals while simultaneously paying massive bonuses to agents and men in suits for dicking each other around. The idea this problem is a universal one that affects artists predominantly is obviously flawed in merit of the pay structure of the industry, and the reason consumers are indignant is that they're not incentivised to buy into a bullshit argument, the aim of which is to get said guys in suits paid first.

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[TheGratefulNet]

when people feel that they are constantly cheated and lied to, well, they start to lose faith in the system. when they are fucked repeatedly, they just say 'the hell with it' and do whatever they feel like.

the companies have had control for WAY too long and there is no balance. we still have DRM and all that goes with it.

I don't weep one bit for media companies. they are all thieves and so if we are 'thieves', we have at least created our own form of balance.

I sleep well at night. and I pirate. if you don't, that's you; but I'm going to do what I want, when the power brokers all seem to tilt the rules their way.

treat me fair, I'll treat you fair. treat me like shit and you'll get the same back at you.

and its not about entitlement. unless, of course, you mean the mega corps who think they have a RIGHT to keep charging rent over and over again for the right to view or hear things.

fuck them. I weep not one tear for the rich .1% who own everything and keep it all to themselves.

yes, its gotton to this. and it will get worse, too.

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[nyquil superstar]

I feel you man. The top comments on this story are frightening. I don't like your choice with the work you produced, so I will steal it! I mean, come on, there's not even a hint of an ethical dilemma here!

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[nyquil superstar]

Uhh, do you really hear yourself? I mean, there is no way to be in your position without some serious cognitive dissonance, because it lacks any sense of logic. I mean, if you don't like what they are doing or how they are doing it, uh.... don't participate. It's not like you have some sort of inalienable right to *entertainment* that is produced by someone else's hard work and investment. We aren't talking about food or shelter here. Just come out and say "I like to steal because it's best for me" and skip all the rest of your total BS. At least you'd be honest with you.

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[Baron_Yam]

Actually, 'tit-for-tat' turns out to be a deeply instinctual primate behaviour.

In fact, it's more like 'two tits per tat'. We like to punish people who we view as having violated the perceived rules, even at our own expense.

So... having been used and abused by media for as long as we can recall, lots of us have no qualms at all about stealing even if we suspected it would drive the big content producers to bankruptcy. We'd probably celebrate.

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[gfxguy]

The way I see it, people were paying upwards of $100 for one service, then they cut the cord and went down to two or three $10-$15 month services... now those services are breaking up the content, and you'll have to get more services in order to get the same content.... Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[mlw4428]

> Piracy is an important facet of the free market. It's an indicator that the seller's product is priced too high. Everything the seller does contributes to this indicator. It can be that the seller puts too many obstacles in place for paying customers to make use of the product, making the product less valuable, or any number of things that makes the cost exceed the worth. When this happens, piracy is the relief valve.

You mean not purchasing the product is a facet of the free market. That's like your employer saying he's not going to pay you for the job you're doing, because it's an important facet of labor negotiation - to figure out just how low a job force is willing to be paid. Piracy is pure and simple entitlement. Before digital content, it would've been called theft. Now you have mental gymnasts trying to justify consuming content and not paying for it.

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[Voyager529]

Sorry, there's really no reason or justification for pirating Disney movies. Or any movies, really. If you don't want to pay what the companies that made them are asking, then don't watch.

I don't think the point of the article is 'entitlement' exactly, or that there are a whole lot of people who don't believe that there is an equilibrium to be had between fairly compensating content producers for desirable content, so long as that content is actually accessible.

This is the entitlement mentality at it's worst. Nobody owes you anything, and you don't need movies. It's not like stealing bread to feed your family.

And nobody is comparing it to that scenario. Movie piracy has been a byproduct of selling movies for home viewing since the inception of the industry. At first it was kept somewhat in check based on the fact that it required organized piracy rings to make duplication plants work at an economy of scale, while casual piracy was deterred by generational loss and Macrovision. Once it was practical to transmit a DivX file around the internet, none of those things applied, and piracy went up. Netflix streaming became a thing, and piracy went down because it was inexpensive and more convenient than downloading. The piracy stats went down for the past several years, not because of legal crackdowns or because the principle of movie downloading got harder, but because Netflix was a practical alternative. None of this is justifying the practice, but rather identifying the reality for what it was. Now Disney seems to be intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, by effectively doubling people's streaming bill.

That doesn't mean I'm happy about it - I'm not, but the worst thing an individual can do is come out and say they are now going to start violating the legal rights of others because they don't want to pay for a f#@king Disney movie. Do these people even listen to themselves?

Or, we can be a bit more practical about it. Netflix is $10 a month. Let's assume Disney keeps that number the same, so we now have $10 a month for Disney stuff, and it takes off. HBO is $15/month already, but the floodgates are open now. NBC Comcast wants a piece of that action, so NBC pulls their content off and gets their $10/month. Fox does the same thing...and before long we've gone back to having a cable bill all over again.

Now, let's even spin that in the best possible light and call it "the a la carte channel option we've all been clamoring for for decades". Amongst the things that makes Netflix as viable as it is, is the fact that it's everywhere. You can find a Netflix client on Apple TV, Android, Roku, Chromecast, Amazon Fire, Smart TVs whose firmware hasn't been updated in five years, and I wouldn't be surprised if some Japanese company made it possible to watch Netflix on a washing machine. The ubiquity of Netflix is a nontrivial factor in its success. While some devices will likely get the Disney streaming service via software update, if it's easier to pirate on these devices than pay Disney to watch them, which is more likely to happen?

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[apoc.famine]

Not necessarily just priced too high - unavailable or difficult/inconvenient to get causes things to be pirated as well. When you look at the massive drop in piracy with the advent of paid streaming services, part of that is because it's just so much easier than torrenting, and more convenient than stockpiling CDs and DVDs. Price is definitely a driving factor, but convenience is a big one as well.

Re:The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[DerekLyons]

Sorry, there's really no reason or justification for pirating Disney movies. Or any movies, really. If you don't want to pay what the companies that made them are asking, then don't watch. This is the entitlement mentality at it's worst. Nobody owes you anything, and you don't need movies. It's not like stealing bread to feed your family.

I wish I had mod points - because you hit the nail on the head. Disney splitting from Netflix doesn't lead to piracy, a sense of self entitlement leads to piracy. All the split does is change the level of self entitlement that causes people to cross the line.

Re: The Entitlement Mentality is wrong.

[speedlaw]

and, for CATV, the quailty was actually better than most OTA. That, sadly, changed too....and one day I hooked up the antenna on my roof as a lark, and was AMAZED how much better the picture was...and this was back in the NTSC era.

and you need to buy espn 5 times (HBO is on it's)

[Joe_Dragon]

and you need to buy espn 5 times (HBO is on it's own).

And gets even worse..

[Z80a]

As the disney streaming service will be available only in 2019, which is basically 2 years of not having any sort of streaming service with disney movies.

This feels sorta like Flexplay

[roc97007]

It's not a completely valid comparison, but this feels like when Disney decided not to release their materials on DVD when it became available, choosing the self-destructing dvd variant Flexplay instead. I believe the motivation at the time was protecting Disney IP by not allowing content on digital media that presumably could be ripped with no loss of quality. (Which admittedly turned out to be true.)

This move simply seems like a money grab, giving Disney the entire profit from the streaming service, rather than merely the portion Netflix presumably gives them as part of the content licensing agreement. But I wonder if it could be something else? Maybe another attempt to have new content not be ripable? I'm just speculating here, but something feels wrong.

Suits me

[OYAHHH]

I don't watch Disney, haven't since the 70s. If it keeps my Netflix cost down then that is great news.

Now make the disney channel premium and ESPN

[Joe_Dragon]

Now make the disney channel premium and let ESPN be put into the sports pack on cable and sat.

Don't need ESPN for local NFL games / and all NHL games.

Re:70s

[gfxguy]

Of course they have - that's a ridiculous statement. The 70s was Disney's dark-ages phase where they had decided that animation was too expensive, so they gave us cheap live action crap like Herbie Rides Again, The Apple Dumpling Gang, The Shaggy D.A., and Freaky Friday. Since the 70s, we've had movies like Tron, Watcher in the Woods, and the resurgence of feature animations, starting with The Little Mermaid. Add in Touchstone pictures, and you've got a lot of great movies (like The Nightmare Before Christmas). They've also done a pretty good job taking over the Star Wars reigns.

Disney not enough to be worthwhile for me

[fox171171]

While there are some complaints, generally Netflix is good enough for me, and unless that changes then it will be the only one I have.

I watch some Disney stuff. Not a lot though, so not enough to justify a subscription with them, so they lose all income from me if they are not on Netflix.

I think a lot of fragmentation will cause many people to feel the same way, and they will either not watch the stuff that is pulled from Netflix (or whatever ONE or TWO they choose to subscribe to), or they will infringe. The end result is the same, loss of income for the folks that pull out.

Actually, infringing is better for them than people not watching at all. Microsoft learned that decades ago. At least those pirating could be future customers if they learn how to serve them. The people not watching could be gone for good. (By not returning, or simply sticking with a competitor.)

Just let the cable and sat co give us more choice

[Joe_Dragon]

Just let the cable and sat co give us more choice.

Why can't I buy my own hardware without high outlet fees or being forced to rent a card.

Why am I forced to pay up $7/mo for locals (on top of the base rate) when I can just pick them up on my own??

Why can't I just buy My local RSN and maybe NBCSN and maybe ESPN for the MNF (in season only) for My sports choices??

Buy most of the main basic non sports channels but not say Disney channel and the other kids channels?

at least you can get limited basic + HBO.

Here's hoping...

[Gravis Zero]

they take the /. dupes with them. ;)

Joss Whedon's shit is gone, fuck them

[Thing 1]

Just as we were finishing Buffy and starting Angel, about four months ago, Netflix deleted all Joss's content: Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse. http://decider.com/2017/03/23/...

Re:70s

[donaldm]

2 words. Star Wars. A large chunk of us don't like going to theaters anymore and would stream it if possible. / me? Wait till it comes out on DVD // get it from the library /// get a week to watch it.

I think you find that new releases on DVD/Bluray/UHDBluray are going to cost more than a months subscription to Netflix.
You must have a really interesting Library that allows you to borrow (for free) movies.
Well, you do need an hour or two to watch most movies.

A cheaper solution would be to organise with your friends a purchasing and sharing plan which is surprisingly legal until the content providers try to restrict their movies to a registered device. If that becomes the case well all I have to do is feed my green parrot whilst taking the odd swig of rum and singing "Yo Ho Ho".

Of course, if the movie companies take draconian measures to restrict their content then it is perfectly legal for me not to watch their content. Somehow I don't think I am going to miss most of the "rinse repeat" movies that are vomited out every year.

You will not have to

[SuperKendall]

Netflix will fund a series of animated movies of all the classic children's tales, complete with music...

At some point they might even cross over and beat Disney on quality, not hard as Disney has been a mixed bag for a while. Some stuff is great but some of it mediocre.

Re:You will not have to

[AmiMoJo]

Disney has always been mediocre, just the best that was available in English. At least until Pixar came along.

Re:70s

[Chysn]

> You must have a really interesting Library that allows you to borrow (for free) movies.

It's pretty common for public libraries to have DVDs. If your library doesn't have a title, ask about an intra-library loan.

public domain games

[harvey the nerd]

As far as I'm concerned, any copyrighted material more than 28 years old is pirated public domain. I might settle for arguments of 17 - 20 years.

Re:public domain games

[Maxo-Texas]

I strongly agree with this as well.

Why can't we get the votes for it?

Two 14 year terms from the date of publishing. You have to pay hard cash to renew it for the second 14 years. Something like one month's pay at minimum wage.

Re:public domain games

[AK Marc]

Copyright in the name of a person is good for 14 years (photos, books, etc.) Copyright in the name of a corporation is good for 1 year, with infinite renewals at $100k per year (cumulitive), indexed to inflation. So, year one costs $100k. Year 10 of copyright costs $1M. Year 100 of copyright costs $10M. If they want to pay $10M a year, then Disney can keep little Mickey under copyright. They just have to pay it for every work of Mickey that was released publicly (including "limited" theater releases).

Re:public domain games

[mysidia]

Two 14 year terms from the date of publishing. You have to pay hard cash to renew it for the second 14 years.

I suggest ANNUAL renewal requirement. And: An ORIGINAL AUTHOR MUST COME IN PERSON to sign the renewal and pay a $50 fee from cash then and there On each individual item, with a limit of 2 works per visit and 3 visits per day -- No corporate representative (An actual person who was a principle direct creator of the work). No attorney, no appointed agent, unless the person proves they are indisposed due to a documented serious illness making them bedridden or permanent incapacity of themself or immediate family, or their death within the past 15 years, and the agent is their personally chosen representative on all individual matters not just copyright.

This allows a PERSON to keep their copyright for the rest of their natural life as provided currently.
But it will be inconvenient for corporations, because they must retain the original author or an agreement with one or more principle authors who originally made each work to keep renewing the registrations.

Re:public domain games

[Maxo-Texas]

Why do you hate stephen king?

Re:public domain games

[david_thornley]

In the US, in particular, copyright exists as an incentive for people to create things. The idea is that someone or some company will create something because of the money they can make for X years. Therefore, a copyright over X years is against the intention of the Constitution. I propose that nobody does anything specifically because of money they might be able to make 30 years later, and therefore 30 years is a halfway reasonable copyright term.

Re:public domain games

[david_thornley]

Suppose that something I write is actually of publishable quality, and I start making money on it. Why the hell should I have to go to Washington DC every year to keep a relatively small income stream coming? You're saying that copyright doesn't exist for the little guy.

Re:public domain games

[mysidia]

Why the hell should I have to go to Washington DC every year to keep a relatively small income stream coming?

It needs to be worth at least enough to justify the taxpayer expenses involved.
And you SHOULD be provided a local branch to visit in person within 200 miles ("reasonable travel"); if you are not close to Washington DC.

Re:public domain games

[david_thornley]

The taxpayer expenses involved in registering copyright are minimal, and, again, you're putting a serious burden on the little guy while barely discommoding the big corporations.

Re:Keeps? lol

[Wootery]

Sigh come on then, let's have it. Explain to us all how refusal to pay is what puts coin in their coffers.

Re:70s

[fgouget]

You must have a really interesting Library that allows you to borrow (for free) movies.

Libraries that have DVDs are not rare. The library here has some though the selection is definitely not great and certainly does not include StarWars (too popular / not intellectual enough). It's also not free (unless you have low revenue): it costs 5€ per *year* for unlimited books, CDs and DVDs (the only limitation being on the number of simultaneous items).

Re:light up shoes

[stealth_finger]

Not clicking your links for obvious reasons, but that is some impressively crazy shit. Well done you. 4.5 straightjackets out of 5 from me.

Surprisingly the links are legit. If you want some light up shoes then go right ahead. I mean, I assume you're not 5 years old so I don't know why you would but there you go.

Piracy vs Disney

[sjbe]

Netflix started becoming close to an end to piracy.

Hah! That's adorable if you actually believe that. While I agree that services like Netflix are probably making a dent, piracy is NEVER going to go away.

Not that I watched Disney products but inevitably others are going to follow suit.

Really? You didn't want any Marvel Cinematic Universe movies? No Star Wars? No Pixar? Touchstone Pictures? The Muppets? You realize all those are Disney properties, right? You'll forgive me if I don't actually believe you when you claim you don't watch any Disney products.

I am not a huge fan of paying multiple companies monthly to watch their content.

Agreed! I have zero interest in having twelve different subscriptions to various services just because they can't figure out how to divide up their pile of money.

Re:Piracy vs Disney

[TheCastro1689]

It's funny that you point that out, except for Dr. Strange very recently I do watch very few Disney owned things. They've just gone downhill on a lot of their quality including Marvel the last few years.

Re:Piracy vs Disney

[david_thornley]

While I agree that services like Netflix are probably making a dent, piracy is NEVER going to go away.

Economically, it becomes irrelevant. If somebody's not going to pay money for your product, you don't lose money if that person pirates it. If somebody's willing to be a customer rather than a pirate, charging a reasonable fee in a convenient way for a legitimate copy will attract that person.

Re:So what we need is centralized access to conten

[stealth_finger]

Why would/should/could this be government? A private intermediary would be far effective, better yet several competing based on price and/or quality of service

Because a private intermediary would do as little as possible while charging as much as it can get away with and then take bungs in order to place specific content in more advantageous slots. Nothing for the benefit of the general public should be run by a private company. Ask the internet how that works out.

Copyright fee schedule

[sjbe]

Copyright in the name of a corporation is good for 1 year, with infinite renewals at $100k per year (cumulitive), indexed to inflation. So, year one costs $100k. Year 10 of copyright costs $1M. Year 100 of copyright costs $10M.

Not expensive enough in my view though I think that's a fine fee schedule - much better than what we have now. I tend to favor starting the copyright cost at $100 (indexed for inflation) and then doubling the amount every year. Makes it fairly easy to keep a copyright for 10-15 years but after that it had better be worth a LOT of money. By year 25 you are into the billions. A few properties are worth that but not many. Your idea might be more likely to become reality than mine though...

on point

[luther349]

its true Netflix hulu started making real strides in curbing piracy you had hulu for all your shows and it was free then you had Netflix for 7$ a month and what happend everyone else started with the me to nonsense only adding to the cost making it just as expensive as keeping the cord. most will probably be dead whiten the first year much like when music was doing the same thing. the same things starting to happen with pc games to steam is the go to app g\for games and with the sales at good prices and has relly brought pc piracy down not others are starting me to markets only to piss off users.

What about VUDU, Amazon Video, et al?

[Kurtiebird]

The bigger question for me is, what will Disney do with regards to existing paid streaming services? We have an extensive library of Disney titles on VUDU, and like having all our digital movies in one place.

Not happening

[DontBeAMoran]

First of all, I'm not paying for more than one streaming service.
Secondly, I'm in Canada so choices are already extremely limited.
Thirdly - is that even a word? - I'm pretty sure we won't get a Disney stream service in Canada and Disney will pull their content from Netflix Canada on top of that, totally screwing everyone of us.

I LOVE MONOPOLIES!

[Kludge]

Yeah!
I do not want to have to subscribe to another streaming service! I want all my videos in one service. Everyone else wants that too. Everyone should just subscribe to the one same streaming service that controls ALL content. I'm sure they would not overcharge us. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:I LOVE MONOPOLIES!

[hawguy]

Yeah!
I do not want to have to subscribe to another streaming service! I want all my videos in one service. Everyone else wants that too. Everyone should just subscribe to the one same streaming service that controls ALL content. I'm sure they would not overcharge us. What could possibly go wrong?

You don't need to have a single monopoly service, set up compulsory licensing laws similar to those used for music and then you can have many competing services and they all have access to the same content.

Re:I LOVE MONOPOLIES!

[The Grim Reefer]

Everyone should just subscribe to the one same streaming service that controls ALL content.

One streaming service to rule them all, One streaming service to find them,

One streaming service to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

And it will be called The Precious

Re:I LOVE MONOPOLIES!

[amxcoder]

As others have said, it doesn't have to be "one and only one" streaming service turning things into a monopoly. But intercommunication would allow several streaming services to off the same content, and let the users decide which service they want to subscribe to based on price, UI, hardware compatibility etc. Kodi's 3rd party addons can (and have) already figured this out. If you use Exodus, or Salts, or Covenant, or Genisis they are all pulling the content from basically the same services/servers as each other. The content is spread out on multiple locations, so the source material doesn't exist in a single place, but it doesn't matter which addon you use, the content is all available the same (for the most part). Some addons specialize in providing movies, some TV shows, and some both. Some addons leverage the internal library, while others integrate with Trakt.tv or other accounts. You have options and choices. If one addon goes down, or the developer scraps it or doesn't maintain it, you can move to another addon.

Why can't legit providers figure this out. The content creators (or distributors) could host the files, and allow a standard API for accessing those files through the player of choice. Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, (and whoever else comes around), could charge monthly access for content, and then you can use their app to reach all the content available just the same as other apps. Some services could specialize in movies, some TV only, and some for Both (for more $'s than movies or TV alone). The content creators could charge the service providers based on how many hits of their content was accessed by their player.

If Netflix (for example) then wanted to jack up prices and gouge the customers, then people could move their subscription over to Hulu (for example) and have access to the same content.

This is oversimplified, but this is how the pirating boxes do it and it works great. The only difference is you don't have everyone in the chain trying to make buckets of money for doing very little, so it might not work as well. My biggest fear in my example, would be that it turned into the same thing we have now with CableTV and content bundling and other issues.

But the OP was correct, I already subscribe to Amazon and Hulu (used to have Netflix for years, but their streaming sucked compared to disc service), and I'm not going to be jacked around with having to subscribe to 6-10 different streaming services to get the content I want. At that point, it's not only as expensive as cable, but more of a pain, as you then have to remember which service has the show you want to watch to know what app to use. This is already a problem with just 2 services... common scenario already--look around for 5-10 mins in Hulu for the show I wanted to sit down and watch only to realize that show is under Amazon, or vise-versa.

Re:The part you are missing...

[gfxguy]

So the solution is to stop rewarding the companies for it by not buying - so that half of the pirate equation is true; but you're still not entitled to something just because you want it and don't like the terms by which it's made available legally. Again, this isn't bread to feed a starving family, it's a f#@king movie. You don't need it. But what's happened is that the terms are acceptable to most people - they agree to the terms and buy the content; it's very democratic in nature - you don't have a right to violate someone else's property rights just because you're not happy with the outcome.

What I find curious

[dnaumov]

Is the amount of people who seem to think they have a RIGHT to access media content they want, in a way they want and feel justified taking it for free if their conditions are not met. Nobody owes you anything. You are free to vote with your wallet, but not to vote by committing copyright infrigement.

Re:What I find curious

[torkus]

One can argue that the companies have colluded to write laws not in the best interest of the population which the government is there to serve. Also, many of these laws are directly opposed to the intent and/or letter of the underlying law (or constitutional law as the case may be) which, excluding the corrupt politics and policies allowing them, should never have been put on the books in the first place.

So based on that, it certainly can be considered justification (moral, if not legal) for individuals committing copyright infringement: The laws in their current state should never have been allowed to exist as they're abusive, oppressive, and not in the interest of the VAST majority of the population they're purporting to 'serve'.

Organized business-level infringement (i.e. for profit) is another story.

Re:What I find curious

[eaglesrule]

It seems you are a conscientious person, who likely abides by a set of strict sense of morals. You would restrict yourself even for something as trivial as making duplicates of data files, even as the captains of industry have shown time and time again that they put maximized profits before all other considerations, even their own countrymen, and would do everything they can to abuse their customers as long as they can get away with it. That is commendable, as I was like you once.

It isn't so much as a RIGHT to make copies of media content, as much as there still remains the freedom to do so, a freedom which said monied interests are working hard to undermine. Are you old enough to recall when the media industry was upset about recordable cassette tapes? VHS? How they shed big crocodile tears over dvd burners, even as they were shipping content with commercials that were unskippable? Some of us do, and some just don't give a fuck anymore about padding their bottom line.

Do I make copies of all the entertainment that I enjoy, never paying a thing? No, because that would be unreasonable. However, as the law is arbitrarily enforced, and my convenience and time is something of value to me, I choose to do what suits me because I can. Life is too short for a fanatical adherence to a code of ethics that society has proven will only work to your disadvantage. Go ahead and judge me immoral, if it suits you. I honestly couldn't care less.

Re:What I find curious

[david_thornley]

It's publicly published content, and I can get a copy without depriving anyone of anything. Why shouldn't I watch it? Copyright is an artificial construct, unlike property rights, and copyright law has been abused by Disney in particular.

Re:70s

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived in three states in the US and each one had a library system that offered the ability to check out movies just as you'd check out a book.

Re:Keeps? lol

[Wootery]

Which indeed translate to revenue... provided people aren't pirating.

Universal licensing

[MobyDisk]

whole appeal of the streaming model becomes diluted when there are too many "Netflixes."

This is another case of companies just not understanding the internet. They use a completely different, and frustrating, business model to distribute something online rather than retail.

Pick any movie studio. There are probably 1000 stores that sell DVDs for that movie studio. Target, Walmart, Sam's Club, Best Buy, FYE, Barnes and Noble, etc. And the price is almost the same. We take this for granted: It is in the best interest of the studio to sell their product at as many retailers as possible.

But you want to sell it online, oohhhh well that's totally different! They want to negotiate exclusive rights - you can watch it on Amazon Prime but not Netflix, or HBO Go but not Hulu. PBS but not Nick Jr. Why is this happening!?!?

Content providers seem to have no problem selling the same product at the same price to all these stores. Yet for some reason, they go through complicated exclusive licensing deals to distribute the same product digitally. Going back to the Disney example, Disney even has retail stores, yet they don't sell items exclusively at those stores. So why would they want to open a web site and offer their digital product exclusively at the web site. Why would they choose such a stupid business model?

I hate to propose a legislative fix, but we almost need one. I can buy a DVD and give it away or sell it to anyone I want. We need the system thing with digital distribution. Anyone should be able to buy the rights to stream a show/movie. There should be a simple web interface to license the content, and the system shouldn't give a hoot if it was Netflix delivering it or Hulu or Amazon or YouTube or a porn site. The studio gets their money, the user gets their content, and everyone should be happy.

Re:Universal licensing

[Arzaboa]

That would be a nice idea, but most people don't have in person friends anymore, so that DVD only makes it to the couple they do have, at best. People also put their names on the DVD and want it back.

Online, folks have sometimes thousands of "friends" that they are happy to share everything with, and they don't have to return the digital stream link.

To your point, I do enjoy Netflix willing to let people share passwords. If history is any hint of the future, Disney will not be as excited to do this.

Re:Universal licensing

[MobyDisk]

Piracy isn't the reason they play these licensing games. The pirated content came from the DVDs and Blu-Rays.

Re:It's even better than cool; it's UNcool to NOT

[TheCastro1689]

I can buy digital copies of most Disney movies from my phone right now on multiple platforms. I can also purchase physical ones, same with HBO for these as well.

more fragmentation is not ideal for the public

[fred6666]

I would say that a monopoly would be even worse.
Netflix is just a middle man. The best would be an open source platform where content creators could publish their content and they would decide the pricing.

Re:more fragmentation is not ideal for the public

[torkus]

Tried that already...and no one likes cable companies.

Re:more fragmentation is not ideal for the public

[fred6666]

Except that people still see Netflix as cool a new.
Most people don't get that Netflix's goal is to become a monopoly. Once they have all the content and all the users, they will raise prices probably to the same level as cable companies.

Re:70s

[Cajun Hell]

Inside Out was made by Pixar, a Disney subsidiary. Inside Out is one of the coolest movies I've seen in the last few years.

Hate 'em, but there are some brains over there, somewhere. They just need to get more serious about trying to sell to customers instead of making piracy be everyone's best solution. This current story, alas, does not sound like a step in that direction.

Just sell the fucking files. Future analysts are going to be asking, "Why did they wait so long? Why did they get everyone habituated to piracy first? Surely they knew it would be harder to win people back, than to keep them!"

Re:70s

[Anonymous Coward]

Most libraries I've been to also have a wide selection of free music and video games. In fact, my local library now will loan out things like voltmeters, IR imagine devices, metal detectors, and loads of other random things that might be useful to have for a specific task or two, but are too expensive to purchase.

Re:70s

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have a really interesting Library that allows you to borrow (for free) movies.

Libraries that have DVDs are not rare. The library here has some though the selection is definitely not great and certainly does not include StarWars (too popular / not intellectual enough). It's also not free (unless you have low revenue): it costs 5€ per *year* for unlimited books, CDs and DVDs (the only limitation being on the number of simultaneous items).

Wow, I never expected America to have (some unidentified part of) Europe beat on libraries of all things.

In every place I have experience with in America, the local government on some level provides a free public library for all residents. The only restriction is typically the number of simultaneous items. You won't pay anything if you return items on time.

Most libraries have multimedia available. At one point I could get mp3s through the library, I haven't checked lately. I can get ebooks from the library, a few clicks on the web site and they go right to my Kindle. Other readers (including web) are available. There are plenty of DVDs available, although they tend to have playback issues due to heavy use. CDs were available when they were popular, again, haven't checked recently.

Still can't get over the US beating Europe on this.

They'll grow back. Right?

[Thud457]

I've got you beat, I gouged out my eyes to avoid ever seeing "Pirates of the Caribbean : Dead Men Tell No Tales" by accident.

How about a compilation service?

[torkus]

Why doesn't someone start a service...some kind of company...get ahold of all these streaming providers and sub-license their content streaming?

You could combine them all into one unified interface that they all are accessible from. Give each one an assigned designation separate from their name so they're easy to find. Maybe call it a channel or something. You'd obviously want a directory of them available as part of your service too. Then users could subscribe for a unified fee and access all these 'channels' for a huge variety of shows. Maybe offer packages of similar kinds as add-ons to the base service. And since you have a unified paltform now, you could probably have future plans to avoid rate increases by introducing advertisements at semi-normalized intervals in the shows. Call them commercials. Because the service is unified it would be easy for this provider to insert commercials based on region or other demographics and collect revenue for that towards paying the providers for their content.

Heck, you could even introduce hardware to help give everyone an identical experience. Now, since those boxes access all this content they should be semi-proprietary which would necessitate the provider owning and renting them to you. Couldn't have you using the 'box to provide content to more than one TV or device at once after all. Since all these shows come down via the internet cabling or wireless (which still uses cables for backhaul) why not call them cable companies for slang.

Heck, if they were smart they could also offer other services like internet and telephone!

Re:It^s relevant right now

[torkus]

See my other post. We could get a media distribution company involved. Call them cable companies :)

I don't think the approach of cable companies or multiple disparate streaming providers is the right way to go...but the media companies are using this as a way to massively change their billing practices in ways that rate increases would never allow.

So we get the mess we have today instead where every company things the shit gold and deserve some ridiculous per-show/stream/person/tv/series/etc. compensation. Just like how music streaming services are paying significantly more per song-listen than traditional radio ever did or does.

Re:The part you are missing...

[david_thornley]

Why aren't you entitled to it? Much of it should be public domain. Moreover, copyright rights aren't property rights. Steal my phone from me and I don't have a phone. Copy something I wrote and I'm not affected.

Bread for a starving family is very different. There's a finite supply of bread and making another loaf consumes resources. Copying files can be done without limit, and it's basically free.