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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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: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.

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.