3 ms·

Netflix's on-demand selection does need drastic improvement.. One can find some gems here and there but overall it doesn't touch their DVD selection and we all

by fjabre 17y ago

Netflix's on-demand selection does need drastic improvement.. One can find some gems here and there but overall it doesn't touch their DVD selection and we all know that's b/c of the studios. Yes it is too much work to walk down to my mailbox and wait 2 days for my damn DVD when the technology is there to deliver it straight to my TV in seconds. Of course this all would have to come at a price but I would gladly pay 20 or 30 and possibly even 40 bucks a month to have unlimited access to their full DVD collection on-demand. Shelling out 20 bucks for something you'll end up watching once or twice 95% of the time is throwing away your money. So until they (the studios) stop attempting to rip us off like the greedy bastards we know they are then I'll get the new releases elsewhere for free. There is an ideal price to be set on the curve where everyone wins it's just that the aging execs in charge can't change fast enough to keep pace with their consumers changing preferences. Time to get someone new in charge..

boredguy8 17y ago
"Of course this all would have to come at a price but I would gladly pay 20 or 30 and possibly even 40 bucks a month to have unlimited access to their full DVD collection on-demand." Ditto. If I were WB or Fox, I'd work out a deal with NetFlix to provide this 'premium' content SOONER than the DVD release, or I'd be hard at work developing my own CDN.
akeefer 17y ago
Keep in mind that it's not just because of the studios: it's also because of the various TV networks that the studios have signed exclusive re-broadcast deals with. That's why Netflix sublicensed the Starz's rebroadcast rights, and why those movies rotate in and out of being available to play on demand (since the rebroadcast rights are all windowed to specific periods of time, with different broadcasters getting the rights at different points in time). So it's all a very complicated problem. Movies that already have the rebroadcast rights sold off would be tough without the sort of cross-licensing Netflix does with Starz; the studios don't really have further control until those deals expire, since they're legally-binding, exclusive contracts. Rentals don't conflict with those exclusive rights, which is why the studios can license Amazon or iTunes to offer the movies for a fee, but can't license Netflix to stream them. What they could do is to stop doing those sorts of exclusive deals, but those deals bring in a fair amount of money, so someone like Netflix would need to pony up enough cash on their end to make up for the loss of revenue that would come with either the total loss of those broadcast deals or with the loss of exclusivity on those broadcast deals. But I'm sure that even renegotiating non-exclusive contracts to use in the future deals with existing broadcasters would take a pretty long time once they've decided to do it; those sorts of legal maneuverings take a long time. So certainly the studios could start trying to do something about it, but it's not a simple problem that they could just change their minds about and make go away instantly.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Exactly. And those re-broadcast and rental contracts are part of the surety that producers must assemble in order to persuade investors to put in the money for production. The consumer-facing distributors pay in arrears, but production expenses have to be paid in time or in advance, and marketing is also paid in advance.

by fjabre 17y ago

boredguy8 17y ago

"Of course this all would have to come at a price but I would gladly pay 20 or 30 and possibly even 40 bucks a month to have unlimited access to their full DVD collection on-demand." Ditto. If I were WB or Fox, I'd work out a deal with NetFlix to provide this 'premium' content SOONER than the DVD release, or I'd be hard at work developing my own CDN.

akeefer 17y ago

Keep in mind that it's not just because of the studios: it's also because of the various TV networks that the studios have signed exclusive re-broadcast deals with. That's why Netflix sublicensed the Starz's rebroadcast rights, and why those movies rotate in and out of being available to play on demand (since the rebroadcast rights are all windowed to specific periods of time, with different broadcasters getting the rights at different points in time). So it's all a very complicated problem. Movies that already have the rebroadcast rights sold off would be tough without the sort of cross-licensing Netflix does with Starz; the studios don't really have further control until those deals expire, since they're legally-binding, exclusive contracts. Rentals don't conflict with those exclusive rights, which is why the studios can license Amazon or iTunes to offer the movies for a fee, but can't license Netflix to stream them. What they could do is to stop doing those sorts of exclusive deals, but those deals bring in a fair amount of money, so someone like Netflix would need to pony up enough cash on their end to make up for the loss of revenue that would come with either the total loss of those broadcast deals or with the loss of exclusivity on those broadcast deals. But I'm sure that even renegotiating non-exclusive contracts to use in the future deals with existing broadcasters would take a pretty long time once they've decided to do it; those sorts of legal maneuverings take a long time. So certainly the studios could start trying to do something about it, but it's not a simple problem that they could just change their minds about and make go away instantly.

anigbrowl 17y ago
Exactly. And those re-broadcast and rental contracts are part of the surety that producers must assemble in order to persuade investors to put in the money for production. The consumer-facing distributors pay in arrears, but production expenses have to be paid in time or in advance, and marketing is also paid in advance.