3 ms·

Film studios are constrained by labyrinthine contracts between studios, distributors, actors, and unions. In cases where contracts are missing, any of the above

by rpiguy 9y ago

Film studios are constrained by labyrinthine contracts between studios, distributors, actors, and unions. In cases where contracts are missing, any of the above parties can sue. Even more confusingly rights for IP might have been transferred and sold many times leading to questions about who actually owns a film or franchise. Distribution rights, production rights are separate. Actors may have been promised a cut of any of the above. So if you track down 40 years worth of contracts, you can safely add a movie to your streaming service. Add to that 100 years of studio mergers, consolidation, etc. It is a mess. I am sure many companies would like to stream more, but simply can't.

DanBC 9y ago
See for example the original Point Break. http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/comment/point-break-not-coming-cinema-near-you http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/comm...
funkymike 9y ago
That doesn't explain why a 20 year old movie will pop up on a streaming service for a few months then be unavailable again. Clearly they can sort these issues out. The content companies are stuck in a model of artificial scarcity. For myself, when I get the itch to watch an old movie and I can't immediately find it on the Netflix or Amazon prime video I don't go try to find some other streaming service or pay for a one time viewing. I'll just find something else to watch that is available. So when they could have had one more view for old content they wouldn't otherwise make money on, thereby increasing the value of their catalog, instead they get nothing at all.
- rpiguy 9y ago
  Well the other side of the equation is what the new distributors (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) are willing to pay to stream a given property. If a property keeps jumping from service to service and in and out of availability I would guess it has more to do with a mismatch between the perceived value of the property and what the streaming services are willing to pay for it. Artificial scarcity is a thing I can't argue with you there, Disney has been doing it for years with drip-style "anniversary" releases of their properties on media. I would fully expect them to do the same with their streaming content.

by rpiguy 9y ago

DanBC 9y ago

See for example the original Point Break. http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/comment/point-break-not-coming-cinema-near-you http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/comm...

funkymike 9y ago

That doesn't explain why a 20 year old movie will pop up on a streaming service for a few months then be unavailable again. Clearly they can sort these issues out. The content companies are stuck in a model of artificial scarcity. For myself, when I get the itch to watch an old movie and I can't immediately find it on the Netflix or Amazon prime video I don't go try to find some other streaming service or pay for a one time viewing. I'll just find something else to watch that is available. So when they could have had one more view for old content they wouldn't otherwise make money on, thereby increasing the value of their catalog, instead they get nothing at all.

rpiguy 9y ago
Well the other side of the equation is what the new distributors (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) are willing to pay to stream a given property. If a property keeps jumping from service to service and in and out of availability I would guess it has more to do with a mismatch between the perceived value of the property and what the streaming services are willing to pay for it. Artificial scarcity is a thing I can't argue with you there, Disney has been doing it for years with drip-style "anniversary" releases of their properties on media. I would fully expect them to do the same with their streaming content.