3 ms·

"More importantly, they’ll have more streaming rights for the content from these studios under this deal." 28 days is a small price to pay for an improved stre

by jsz0 17y ago

"More importantly, they’ll have more streaming rights for the content from these studios under this deal." 28 days is a small price to pay for an improved streaming selection. Especially with Warner Brothers who has a massive catalog of titles. If you're not seeing it in the theater, not buying the DVD, chances are you really don't absolutely need to see it in the first 28 days either. Pretty good deal by Netflix.

_pius 17y ago
28 days is a small price to pay for an improved streaming selection. The claim of "improved streaming selection" hasn't been elaborated on or even substantiated anywhere that I've seen. Even if it were, I'd still disagree. Now my Netflix account is no longer sufficient to handle all of my DVD rental needs and I have to go to one of their competitors to fill that gap. It's a real shame and a major ding to one of the few services that I considered practically perfect (on the physical DVD side) and improving (on the streaming side) every year.
ghshephard 17y ago
On the flip side - this just opened up a _huge_ opportunity for a Netflix competitor to start offering DVDs that are recently released but not available from Netflix. People like new things. Netflix will no longer be offering new things. That smells like market opportunity to me.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  As I said to pg, if the studios don't want to sell to Netflix because it would cannibalize their DVD sales, what makes you think they'd want to sell to 'newflix'? If you try buying films and renting them out on the first day of the DVD release, you'll get slammed for copyright violation about 5 minutes after you ship to your first rental customer. Consumer DVDs are not licensed for public performance or rental.
  - elq 17y ago
    simply not true - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      Please see my reply to your similar post below, where I explain in detail why I dispute the accuracy of this particular wiki article.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghshephard 17y ago
    anigbrowl - you seem to be suggesting that the entire _foundation_ of Redbox is fraught with legal risk. Universal's response to Redbox was to pressure their wholesalers to stop selling to Redbox. If your central thesis is correct, why didn't Universal just go after RedBox? http://www.scribd.com/doc/18774817/Red-Box-Ruling-081709 http://www.scribd.com/doc/18774817/Red-Box-Ruling-081709
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      I think it, indeed. IMO the reason that Universal didn't contest the first sale doctrine is because they don't want to be the test case for the whole industry. Challenging the first sale doctrine (which excludes music but not movies) is the nuclear option. I believe it would succeed, as the arguments for the muscal exception are substially the same as those which would apply to film, but this strategy is not without risk: were they to bring such a case and lose, the entire film industry would be saddled with the results and have to rebuild their distribution models from a lesser position (to say nothing of their reputation as 'bad guys'). Acting through the distributors is a feint, which Universal is big enough to attempt (in that they have sufficient influnece with distributors) but which doesn't cost them too much if they lose. Note that they haven't lost yet - The court has dsimissed some of Redbox's claims, but affirmed their right to bring a case asserting antitrust behavior by Universal. Whether they'll win it or not I don't know, although the judge seems sympathetic to Universal in their distributors voluntarily entered into an agreement with the studio to distinguish between DVDs sold for retail and for rental, and Universal are just asking them to stick by that contract, which predates any agreement between those distributors and Redbox. I don't know the specific strategic thinking of Universal's lawyers and here, and as I said I'm not a lawyer myself - this is just my reading of what's taking place. I can say that the distribution executives that I have spoken to about this all hate RedBox - while admiring their chutzpah and business drive, they loathe seeing their product dispensed and priced like a bag of potato chips. Thanks for reposting that opinion, BTW. I'd forgotten how many jokes it contains :-)

by jsz0 17y ago

_pius 17y ago

28 days is a small price to pay for an improved streaming selection. The claim of "improved streaming selection" hasn't been elaborated on or even substantiated anywhere that I've seen. Even if it were, I'd still disagree. Now my Netflix account is no longer sufficient to handle all of my DVD rental needs and I have to go to one of their competitors to fill that gap. It's a real shame and a major ding to one of the few services that I considered practically perfect (on the physical DVD side) and improving (on the streaming side) every year.

ghshephard 17y ago

On the flip side - this just opened up a _huge_ opportunity for a Netflix competitor to start offering DVDs that are recently released but not available from Netflix. People like new things. Netflix will no longer be offering new things. That smells like market opportunity to me.

anigbrowl 17y ago
As I said to pg, if the studios don't want to sell to Netflix because it would cannibalize their DVD sales, what makes you think they'd want to sell to 'newflix'? If you try buying films and renting them out on the first day of the DVD release, you'll get slammed for copyright violation about 5 minutes after you ship to your first rental customer. Consumer DVDs are not licensed for public performance or rental.
- elq 17y ago
  simply not true - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Please see my reply to your similar post below, where I explain in detail why I dispute the accuracy of this particular wiki article.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- ghshephard 17y ago
  anigbrowl - you seem to be suggesting that the entire _foundation_ of Redbox is fraught with legal risk. Universal's response to Redbox was to pressure their wholesalers to stop selling to Redbox. If your central thesis is correct, why didn't Universal just go after RedBox? http://www.scribd.com/doc/18774817/Red-Box-Ruling-081709 http://www.scribd.com/doc/18774817/Red-Box-Ruling-081709
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    I think it, indeed. IMO the reason that Universal didn't contest the first sale doctrine is because they don't want to be the test case for the whole industry. Challenging the first sale doctrine (which excludes music but not movies) is the nuclear option. I believe it would succeed, as the arguments for the muscal exception are substially the same as those which would apply to film, but this strategy is not without risk: were they to bring such a case and lose, the entire film industry would be saddled with the results and have to rebuild their distribution models from a lesser position (to say nothing of their reputation as 'bad guys'). Acting through the distributors is a feint, which Universal is big enough to attempt (in that they have sufficient influnece with distributors) but which doesn't cost them too much if they lose. Note that they haven't lost yet - The court has dsimissed some of Redbox's claims, but affirmed their right to bring a case asserting antitrust behavior by Universal. Whether they'll win it or not I don't know, although the judge seems sympathetic to Universal in their distributors voluntarily entered into an agreement with the studio to distinguish between DVDs sold for retail and for rental, and Universal are just asking them to stick by that contract, which predates any agreement between those distributors and Redbox. I don't know the specific strategic thinking of Universal's lawyers and here, and as I said I'm not a lawyer myself - this is just my reading of what's taking place. I can say that the distribution executives that I have spoken to about this all hate RedBox - while admiring their chutzpah and business drive, they loathe seeing their product dispensed and priced like a bag of potato chips. Thanks for reposting that opinion, BTW. I'd forgotten how many jokes it contains :-)