5 ms·

Ultimately, I'm afraid this is due to the difference in laws between owning a physical copy of a disk and having the rights to redistribute digital media. Once

Ultimately, I'm afraid this is due to the difference in laws between owning a physical copy of a disk and having the rights to redistribute digital media. Once Netflix had a DVD of some old movie, it was effectively free for them to hold onto it forever, and older DVDs could be siphoned up from a zillion sources for pennies. Netflix would have to pay for new movies, but the maximum they could be charged would be retail price, and once they had the copies, they'd have them forever. Their catalog would only grow. Digital redistribution, however, severely hampers them. They can't "buy" copies of movies anymore. Instead, they must pay for the right to stream a movie for a certain amount of time to a certain number of users. It's an unfortunate outcome, and it's all but guaranteed by the way copyright law works. If there were a law change to allow the digital equivalent of "owning one copy" or, say, allowing the owner of a DVD to stream its contents to exactly 1 recipient over the Internet per DVD owned, I think Netflix's catalog would be an order of magnitude larger.

maratd 10y ago
> It's an unfortunate outcome, and it's all but guaranteed by the way copyright law works. This can be easily solved. We solved it with music. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_Stat...
- freehunter 10y ago
  I'm not sure I'm reading that right, it's late and I'm not a lawyer so it's kind of flying over my head... is it saying I can burn some CDs and release the entire back catalog of Britney Spears songs on my own, for a profit, as long as I pay a royalty fee? If that's the case, how can Taylor Swift or Garth Brooks etc keep Spotify from streaming their music? Why aren't all streaming music services catalogs exactly the same? And how can labels demand YouTube take down my video slideshow of vacation pictures that features popular songs?
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    As I understand it, what you propose would not be a "new recording" but rather a copy of a previous recording. This provision allows covers to be made without permission, provided you pay.
- estreeper 10y ago
  Confusingly, compulsory licensing (which is specific to the US) actually only refers to a new recording of a song, i.e., a cover version. If you want to use an original version, you still have to negotiate a license with the owner of the sound recording (usually the record company), because sound recordings have their own separate copyright. There wouldn't be an equivalent concept of a "cover" for a film, of course.
  - draugadrotten 10y ago
    > There wouldn't be an equivalent concept of a "cover" for a film, of course. Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes
  - ec109685 10y ago
    You've narrowed compulsory licensing too much. Pandora has a compulsory license to play original recordings for a preset price: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/1562706/business-matters-what-if-pandora-did-direct-licenses http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobil...
MarkMc 10y ago
I don't see it as an 'unfortunate outcome' - it is a great outcome because it maximises the total value of the economic pie created by the movie and TV studios. The fact that movie studios can add restrictions when distributing digital content means that they can charge a fee closer to the value that consumers receive. This means (1) the studio shareholders get larger dividends, (2) the industry makes more movies; (3) consumers who are willing to pay get a wider choice; and (4) more people are employed in the industry. In general it seems to me inefficient to have laws which prevent suppliers from charging fees close to the value they create. For example, if the government says "farmers cannot sell tomatoes for more than $2 per kilo" that would clearly restrict the total size of the 'economic pie' produced by growing tomatoes (shared between farmer and consumer). Similarly if we place restrictions on the kind of agreements that movie producers can negotiate with distributors it also limits the size of the movie industry.
- hrktb 10y ago
  It's not a free market industry. To follow your exemple , a tomato owner cannot license you tomatoes and come back and take away your tomato after three days, nor make a deal with you to force your user to eat your tomato only in some settings and not other, otherwise they violate the DMCA. TV and Movie owners already have copyright laws and DMCA laws giving them legal control on who gets their content and how it is used. The situation with Netflix is that now they can remove their past supply from the market to limit competition from their older titles. New content won't be better or more sought after than the older, it will just be the only one conveniently available. And as we move to more and more digital releases, there might not be any alternative way left to get the older content anymore. You are right that this will pay salaries for industry people, but I agree with the parent that it's unfortunate.
  - maruhan2 10y ago
    Not a Netflix owner so I'm actually confused. Why do they worry about competition of their own titles? If you choose one thing from your selection they are still paying for your selection, isn't it?
  - 10y ago
eloisant 10y ago
That works well for music. Music services don't have to ask permission, they just have to declare what they broadcast and pay the rights. As a results services like Spotify have almost all albums from all artists (at least the major one). Why can't we fix the law so movies can work the same?
- greedo 10y ago
  Music services (I believe you mean streaming) is quite different than radio (broadcast). Labels and artists can restrict where and when their music can be streamed.

maratd 10y ago

> It's an unfortunate outcome, and it's all but guaranteed by the way copyright law works. This can be easily solved. We solved it with music. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_Stat...

freehunter 10y ago
I'm not sure I'm reading that right, it's late and I'm not a lawyer so it's kind of flying over my head... is it saying I can burn some CDs and release the entire back catalog of Britney Spears songs on my own, for a profit, as long as I pay a royalty fee? If that's the case, how can Taylor Swift or Garth Brooks etc keep Spotify from streaming their music? Why aren't all streaming music services catalogs exactly the same? And how can labels demand YouTube take down my video slideshow of vacation pictures that features popular songs?
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  As I understand it, what you propose would not be a "new recording" but rather a copy of a previous recording. This provision allows covers to be made without permission, provided you pay.
estreeper 10y ago
Confusingly, compulsory licensing (which is specific to the US) actually only refers to a new recording of a song, i.e., a cover version. If you want to use an original version, you still have to negotiate a license with the owner of the sound recording (usually the record company), because sound recordings have their own separate copyright. There wouldn't be an equivalent concept of a "cover" for a film, of course.
- draugadrotten 10y ago
  > There wouldn't be an equivalent concept of a "cover" for a film, of course. Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes
- ec109685 10y ago
  You've narrowed compulsory licensing too much. Pandora has a compulsory license to play original recordings for a preset price: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/1562706/business-matters-what-if-pandora-did-direct-licenses http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobil...

MarkMc 10y ago

I don't see it as an 'unfortunate outcome' - it is a great outcome because it maximises the total value of the economic pie created by the movie and TV studios. The fact that movie studios can add restrictions when distributing digital content means that they can charge a fee closer to the value that consumers receive. This means (1) the studio shareholders get larger dividends, (2) the industry makes more movies; (3) consumers who are willing to pay get a wider choice; and (4) more people are employed in the industry. In general it seems to me inefficient to have laws which prevent suppliers from charging fees close to the value they create. For example, if the government says "farmers cannot sell tomatoes for more than $2 per kilo" that would clearly restrict the total size of the 'economic pie' produced by growing tomatoes (shared between farmer and consumer). Similarly if we place restrictions on the kind of agreements that movie producers can negotiate with distributors it also limits the size of the movie industry.

hrktb 10y ago
It's not a free market industry. To follow your exemple , a tomato owner cannot license you tomatoes and come back and take away your tomato after three days, nor make a deal with you to force your user to eat your tomato only in some settings and not other, otherwise they violate the DMCA. TV and Movie owners already have copyright laws and DMCA laws giving them legal control on who gets their content and how it is used. The situation with Netflix is that now they can remove their past supply from the market to limit competition from their older titles. New content won't be better or more sought after than the older, it will just be the only one conveniently available. And as we move to more and more digital releases, there might not be any alternative way left to get the older content anymore. You are right that this will pay salaries for industry people, but I agree with the parent that it's unfortunate.
- maruhan2 10y ago
  Not a Netflix owner so I'm actually confused. Why do they worry about competition of their own titles? If you choose one thing from your selection they are still paying for your selection, isn't it?
- 10y ago

eloisant 10y ago

That works well for music. Music services don't have to ask permission, they just have to declare what they broadcast and pay the rights. As a results services like Spotify have almost all albums from all artists (at least the major one). Why can't we fix the law so movies can work the same?

greedo 10y ago
Music services (I believe you mean streaming) is quite different than radio (broadcast). Labels and artists can restrict where and when their music can be streamed.