Netflix Discussing Keeping Streaming Rights To Disney's Marvel, Star Wars Films (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Netflix is in "active discussions" with Disney about keeping Marvel and "Star Wars" films after 2019, when new Disney and Pixar movies will stop appearing on the streaming service, a senior executive said late on Thursday. Disney announced on Tuesday that it was pulling new Disney and Pixar films from Netflix, starting with new releases in 2019. It will start putting the movies on a new Disney-branded online service that year. Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger told analysts the company had not yet decided where it would distribute superhero films from Marvel Studios and movies from "Star Wars" producer Lucasfilm, which the company owns, at that time. Netflix is still in discussions with Disney about retaining rights to stream Marvel and Lucasfilm releases after 2019, Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos told Reuters.

Comments

Fuck all this corporate bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

From now on, I'm going to pirate everything.

Re:Fuck all this corporate bullshit

[GodfatherofSoul]

Something tells me you have been all along

Re: Fuck all this corporate bullshit

[DontBeAMoran]

It's even better if you also give up the Internet.

My god, I remember the days when I wasted time posting stupid comments on Slashdot. I'm glad this is all b...

D'OH!

Re:Fuck all this corporate bullshit

[Mattcelt]

Please feel free to point out the alternatives.

No thanks Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney makes great movies but there's no way I'm going to buy another subscription and install another app just to watch a couple Disney movies. I guess that means I'll just have to pirate Disney movies again.

Re:No thanks Disney

[mjwx]

Disney makes great movies but there's no way I'm going to buy another subscription and install another app just to watch a couple Disney movies. I guess that means I'll just have to pirate Disney movies again.

The sad thing is, I think we may be heading back into the same situation that Amazon and Netflix are trying to free us from... Cable/Pay TV companies.

There are now so many different streaming services that its starting to make sense to combine them and sell them as a package. The problem is that this will bring back the old rot of trying to force people to buy packages they dont want just to get one damn show.

Re:No thanks Disney

[beanpoppa]

The difference is it's easy to be fluid and switch back and forth.Right now, I can pay $15/mo for a couple of months and watch everything new (shows, movies) in the HBO catalog on HBO Now. Then, I can discontinue my subscription and get a subscription to Netflix for a few months and do the same for new programming that I haven't seen there. Then repeat for Hulu, CBS, etc, until there are new items on HBO and start the process all over.

Re:No thanks Disney

[mellon]

The irony of this is that I am desperate for Netflix to stop with the damned Marvel shows, because they suck. (No offense if you like them—that's just how I feel about them, and I know reasonable people can feel otherwise). So for me it is unmitigated good news if they can't renew.

Re:No thanks Disney

[swb]

What the fuck ever happened to "universal rental", where the entire back catalogs of the studios were available for digital rental?

I mean, you still can't do that now and many of the movies have been available on DVD, so it's not like they haven't had them telecined to a digital format.

Is the black hole of back catalogs just to keep crotchety old men like me from watching old movies and force me to buy into newer content?

Is it *really* "licensing disputes" on 40-some year old movies because the soundtrack or some actor didn't have a clause for digital distribution? I mean, a movie made in 1970, many of the principals are probably *dead* by now. They're not cruising iTunes or Amazon and calling up Sidney Bloomenberg on the phone and bitching they're not getting a cut. Their ancestors are merely happy that a check still shows up once in a while.

Re:No thanks Disney

[Kjella]

There are now so many different streaming services that its starting to make sense to combine them and sell them as a package. The problem is that this will bring back the old rot of trying to force people to buy packages they dont want just to get one damn show.

Well with cable you have their set top box and their selection of packages. While there's certainly a few "anchor" series like Game of Thrones, I doubt they'll be able to pull off the "our way or the highway" strategy as well as in the past.

Re:No thanks Disney

[mjwx]

The difference is it's easy to be fluid and switch back and forth.Right now, I can pay $15/mo for a couple of months and watch everything new (shows, movies) in the HBO catalog on HBO Now. Then, I can discontinue my subscription and get a subscription to Netflix for a few months and do the same for new programming that I haven't seen there. Then repeat for Hulu, CBS, etc, until there are new items on HBO and start the process all over.

That is until they negotiate exclusivity deals. When the re-seller generates 60%+ of their business, they can simply say to HBO, go through us or we'll make your package too expensive.

You've got to think about how lazy the average person is and remember that half of them are lazier than that. They aren't going to maintain 28 different subscriptions, they aren't even going to think about looking to see if they can purchase an axed channel separately. This laziness gives the package re-seller power.

Re:No thanks Disney

[93 Escort Wagon]

You've got to think about how lazy the average person is and remember that half of them are lazier than that. They aren't going to maintain 28 different subscriptions, they aren't even going to think about looking to see if they can purchase an axed channel separately. This laziness gives the package re-seller power.

Well, except you're ignoring one important detail - that was Cable TV's modus operandi, and people eventually got fed up and started leaving in droves. That situation is still fresh in everybody's minds. They're not going to be easily drawn back into paying large amounts of money again just for convenience's sake.

Re: No thanks Disney

[orlanz]

The other thing is that the media companies' players all suck. They are utter shit. They are a pain to use. I gave up on CBS/Fox/etc and now wait it out for Amazon or Netflix.

It's very clear that whatever organization designed those players either used high school programmers and/or had a requirements alteration every week. The end product provides a horrible experience. And all these guys constantly keep updating the website for slower, flashy designs. The whole experience is crap.

Hulu had it right in the very beginning. And all these dumbasses thought "We can own the storefront too, it's easy!" It IS easy, but they aren't competent enough for it. They screwed Hulu and now we are stuck with all these sites that couldn't hold up to a 2005 version of Hulu!

Re:No thanks Disney

[Kjella]

Is it *really* "licensing disputes" on 40-some year old movies because the soundtrack or some actor didn't have a clause for digital distribution? I mean, a movie made in 1970, many of the principals are probably *dead* by now. They're not cruising iTunes or Amazon and calling up Sidney Bloomenberg on the phone and bitching they're not getting a cut. Their ancestors are merely happy that a check still shows up once in a while.

1. I think you mean descendants not ancestors.
2. You think dealing with heirs is easier. I think it's harder because there can be many heirs, they got no relation to the movie business, no career or portfolio to think of and very often they don't have the same interest in the art - it's an inheritance and they want cold hard cash. And they know their little piece of it is blocking a big release so they try charging a lot for it. And if there's many such little pieces, the project might not be worth doing.

I think some Linux game porting companies have experienced this, the game developer didn't think there was business in making a Linux version. But if somebody else wants to do a port, then they charge a ridiculous license fee because if somebody's trying to buy it then it must be very valuable. There's some strange logic to this at times, sure a lot of people will let things they don't use or need go easily. But you also see cases where something has been rusting in a barn for years, but if you try buying it then they'd rather not sell than make a "bad" sale. Even though there's no indication they'll ever get the real value out of it.

Re:No thanks Disney

[nnull]

I'm certainly not. I'm not going to maintain multiple subscriptions just to watch a show. There is a reason piracy exists and it's because of this nonsense.

Re:No thanks Disney

[bjwest]

The irony of this is that I am desperate for Netflix to stop with the damned Marvel shows, because they suck.

Perhaps you should be upset with the person tyeing you to a chair forcing you to watch them rather than Netflix for producing them.

Re:No thanks Disney

[tlhIngan]

1. I think you mean descendants not ancestors.
2. You think dealing with heirs is easier. I think it's harder because there can be many heirs, they got no relation to the movie business, no career or portfolio to think of and very often they don't have the same interest in the art - it's an inheritance and they want cold hard cash. And they know their little piece of it is blocking a big release so they try charging a lot for it. And if there's many such little pieces, the project might not be worth doing.

I think some Linux game porting companies have experienced this, the game developer didn't think there was business in making a Linux version. But if somebody else wants to do a port, then they charge a ridiculous license fee because if somebody's trying to buy it then it must be very valuable. There's some strange logic to this at times, sure a lot of people will let things they don't use or need go easily. But you also see cases where something has been rusting in a barn for years, but if you try buying it then they'd rather not sell than make a "bad" sale. Even though there's no indication they'll ever get the real value out of it.

Rights are a huge issue.

Some actors are just old and crotchety and refuse to sign for any more rights than they already have (Christopher Lloyd, for example). Whether it's they don't want to be bothered anymore by lawyers, or they don't want to sign away any more dignity, or whatever, they just refuse. This has affected a game I like to play (details below).

Old back catalogs are especially troublesome, especially prior to the invention of the VCR and thus many studios do not actually have permission to do "home video" releases because the concept of home video didn't exist when the show was shot. This applies especially to shows that have popular music in the soundtrack, because as anyone can tell you music licensing is a huge PITA. Many shows heavy on music have had to change out the songs for a home video release (WKRP, for example) because it's simply too hard and too difficult and too expensive to get all the licensing in place. Hell, SiriusXM couldn't get it right for pre-1970 music (which was often state licensed) and got sued by a bunch of old musicians for playing their songs without permission.

And yes, some descendants are also greedy - a lot of works are tied up merely because they could not obtain permission and the holdout decided to get greedy. Unfortunately, they usually overestimate the willingness of studios to deal - catalog shows don't earn much money to begin with.

And now we stream movies over the Internet, which in an of itself often requires another right - it's one thing to broadcast and syndicate, but you need permission to stream if you want that method of showing as well.

With modern shows, it's of course way easier since the contracts all state now that the content owner will be able to show it on both the little and big screen (TV and movie theatres), home video )VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, not-invented-yet-format), digital formats (iTunes, Amazon, etc), streaming (Netflix, Hulu, etc) as well as future media not yet invented. This would apply to the show itself, plus any licensed materials, plus actor contracts, etc.

Complicating matters are virtual actors and using them to replace deceased actors. Back to the Future Part 2 caused a mild controversy at the Screen Actor's Guild when Crispin Glover tried to hijack production by demanding excessive compensation (he was slightly delusional, so that didn't help matters) - he basically wanted the same pay as Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, despite being a minor character. So they replaced him with someone else, wrote him out the story and did that whole upside-down thing so it wouldn't be completely obvious it wasn't Crispin Glover. This caused a huge stir. The SAG after that decided that once an actor plays a character, that character is theirs and you cannot replace who plays it without that actor's prior permission. (Doctor W

Disney or no Disney

[rtb61]

You know what is skulking in the back of this, net neutrality. Disney will continue to supply content to Netflix if net neutrality remains in place and Disney will stop supplying Netflix if net neutrality goes. Disney and the other 5 corporations, will collude with the telecoms to use cabal powers to cut off Netflix, raise it's internet costs to bankruptcy rates and divide the business amongst themselves using anti-competitive collusion to inflate prices and reduce access. This same model to be used to target and eliminate self publishers, either pay corporations a 30% content tax or be finnacially excluded from the internet. Hmm, look at who owns the the 6 US mains stream media corporations and who owns the incumbent telecoms. They know exactly what they are doing in order to force a 30% corporate tax on anyone who tries to distribute content. Corporate taxes are from God and government taxes are from the Devil (just ask any Republican or Corporate Democrat).

Re:Disney or no Disney

[GodfatherofSoul]

Great observation. It'll take something like that for the general public to "get" Net Neutrality

Re:Disney or no Disney

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Disney and the other 5 corporations, will collude with the telecoms to use cabal powers to cut off Netflix, raise it's internet costs to bankruptcy rates and divide the business amongst themselves using anti-competitive collusion to inflate prices and reduce access. This same model to be used to target and eliminate self publishers, either pay corporations a 30% content tax or be finnacially excluded from the internet.

Dude, it's like the apocalypse with the four horsemen and the mark of the beast. Just with an extra horseman. Or something.

Re:Disney or no Disney

[beanpoppa]

That is not what net neutrality is. None of these are service providers. Net neutrality WOULD be when Comcast starts to throttle (again) traffic for services like Netflix and the upcoming Disney streaming service, or implementing data caps and charging for their bandwidth while bypassing throttles for their own stream service.

Re:Disney or no Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I don't get about the whole 'save net neutrality' debate.

Everyone keeps arguing for rules/laws to keep the net neutral, but I think that's the wrong discussion to have. It's trying to treat a symptom instead of the disease.

What we should be pushing for is a separation of content companies and internet services.

Because as soon as none of the content companies control the internet, they'll demand net neutrality by default so that their content gets 'fair access' right alongside everyone else.

Any rules/laws enforcing net neutrality after that would essentially become a formality.

Re:Disney or no Disney

[rtb61]

Dude are you nuts or what, it's like typical run of the mill corporate monopolistic tactics and nothing more than that, sometimes greed is the conspiracy that serves itself, nothing more than that ie inflate the value of the companies gaining a monopoly they can exploit to raise the bonuses of the corporate psychopaths who scheme and conspire to put it in place, regardless of the harm to the companies in the long run or society as a hole. Sometimes greed driven stupidity is just greed driven stupidity, no grand plot of global dominance, just out and out self serving greed.

Re: Netflix should bet on franchise burnout.

[Thundercat007]

Netflix doesn't care, they're moving towards their own content. Just ride it out, wait for the next streaming service that'll stream old classics.

interesting developement

[chromaexcursion]

The fact that Disney stock dropped about as much as Netflix when the first round was announced, was notice investors weren't happy
Disney wants to lock up the family movies. It's their old niche.
Their other content will wither and die without broader access. Netflix can get what it wants. The content that appeals to over 12 yr olds. And Disney can try to run it's own family channel. A small loss of Netflix. Only time will tell if Disney successes.
Frankly, I doubt Disney will succeed, though it may take a few years for them to fail. And failure probably won't cost a lot. So, it's not a big risk.
Netflix, Amazon, and Google are slowly locking up the second tier market. HBO, and a couple other movie channels are surviving on original content, and the right to steam a few months before Netflix, et. al.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with this. Of the companies I've mentioned, only HBO has close connections to a major cable/internet operator. Cable companies are ISPs now. They won't risk people switching to the other main ISP if shows on Netflix start looking like crap. In most areas (by population) there's more than one ISP, e.g. cable and FIOS.

Investors, run the other way

[argStyopa]

Disney is FAMOUS for their shitty media delivery decisions.

They are always late to a new tech, after castigating it for years as a new way for pirates to steal their crap.

Then they come out with a particularly crappy version of whatever the new tech is, crippled from an iteration about 4 years previous, in order to 'prevent piracy' but which is really a naked grab for more revenue.

Anyone remember the original DivX?

Re:Investors, run the other way

[GuB-42]

It it is really the case it doesn't make sense.
The point of advertising is to have as much people seeing it as possible, so why limit access to it?
I'm sure Netflix, Google and Amazon would love to have a deal that allows them to show Disney movies in exchange for promoting branded merchandise.

Price increases

[CanEHdian]

Netflix Canada just raised their prices... something that's going to happen elsewhere too if they have to pay more and more of "premium" content. So I say to Netflix: walk away when things start getting Starz-like. Australia, now Canada.. who's next? Oh, and while in the last round of prices increases its current Canadian subscribers had a year or so until the price increase started to affect them, now it's suddenly just a "matter of weeks". That first tidbit wasn't on the press release and that's why you didn't read about it in most media and Netflix Canada wasn't asked why the sudden change of policy.

For the record: I have Netflix, CraveTV and Amazon Prime. I can, should I keep these 3 (and have no reason not to at this point), categorically state that I will not pay for a 4th (let alone 5th) streaming provider subscription.

WTF? Most. Retarded. Take. Ever.

[SuperKendall]

You know what is skulking in the back of this, net neutrality.

You have gotten some REALLY bad LSD man. You seriously think Net Neutrality has ANYTHING to do with content licensing? You are insane.

With or without the NN rules as they were, all of the companies you mention would be under severe anti-trust trouble for doing what you say - assuming the other cable companies even WOULD go along with Disney, and utterly screw themselves over with customers even worse than they already were.

Your post is the nightmare scenario of tech people brining up the absolute most absurd things as being cured by NN. Next you'll be saying it also cures cancer and bad breath... you are the modern day snake-oil salesman, only you never even had any snakes to begin with.