4 ms·

Licensing by country is so infuriatingly backwards for what is supposed to be a globalized economy. Maybe it made sense when you had fragmented countries with t

by yomly 8y ago

Licensing by country is so infuriatingly backwards for what is supposed to be a globalized economy. Maybe it made sense when you had fragmented countries with their own separate distribution networks (and cinemas) but when it's one provider direct to the end-consumer it's really just a relic of legacy processes being incapable of adapting.

shanghaiaway 8y ago
No, actually explain why licensing by country is backwards. It's obvious and perfectly rational.
- seszett 8y ago
  Well from the point of view of a user it's a real pain. I really hate that now that I moved to Belgium, I have to use a VPN to watch French TV, although before that I had to use a VPN as well to watch Belgian TV. When I was close to the border I could still get most channels with an antenna+tuner but not anymore. On the other hand, my Netflix account won't let me watch some Belgian stuff, I have to close it first and open a new one here (but then, some French movies will not be available to me anymore). I can't even pay for watching what I want, my only recourse is using technical solutions that are not available to most people, what does it actually achieve? Geographic restrictions are one of the most infuriating things on the internet.
P_I_Staker 8y ago
If you look at some of the considerations, it makes a bit more sense. It's not about the technical aspects of distribution. I don't know if it's ever been about that, especially in the last 20-40 years. It's about timing, marketing, legal issues, ect. You can't release a movie if the content is outlawed. A tiny difference in marketing can translate into millions of dollars. These things aren't necessarily "deal breakers" for a global release, but it's virtually (or maybe completely) impossible to do optimally in every region.
emptyfile 8y ago
>Maybe it made sense when you had fragmented countries with their own separate distribution networks (and cinemas) but when it's one provider direct to the end-consumer it's really just a relic of legacy processes being incapable of adapting. But you are wrong, the vast majority of Netflix content is licensed and not an original product. These licenses are sold for regions and countries the same way cinema, DVD or terrestrial programing licenses are sold for specific movies and shows. They are sold by major distributors like say MGM to clients like Netflix (not really, there's a literal global hierarchy of distribution houses). So say for my country of Croatia, a distributor will offer to sell licenses for their new movie to all the cinemas, and after that to say ALL the digital distribution channels: pay-per-view, Netflix, HBO GO and others. Basically its not a "a relic of legacy processes being incapable of adapting",why would they adapt? Its literally the business model of the 5-6 major american distributors which makes them boatloads of money even as Netflix tries their hardest to disrupt them. It took decades to build and spread across the world and works perfectly for its purpose: sell loads of movie licenses to all kinds of distribution channels.

by yomly 8y ago

shanghaiaway 8y ago

No, actually explain why licensing by country is backwards. It's obvious and perfectly rational.

seszett 8y ago
Well from the point of view of a user it's a real pain. I really hate that now that I moved to Belgium, I have to use a VPN to watch French TV, although before that I had to use a VPN as well to watch Belgian TV. When I was close to the border I could still get most channels with an antenna+tuner but not anymore. On the other hand, my Netflix account won't let me watch some Belgian stuff, I have to close it first and open a new one here (but then, some French movies will not be available to me anymore). I can't even pay for watching what I want, my only recourse is using technical solutions that are not available to most people, what does it actually achieve? Geographic restrictions are one of the most infuriating things on the internet.

P_I_Staker 8y ago

If you look at some of the considerations, it makes a bit more sense. It's not about the technical aspects of distribution. I don't know if it's ever been about that, especially in the last 20-40 years. It's about timing, marketing, legal issues, ect. You can't release a movie if the content is outlawed. A tiny difference in marketing can translate into millions of dollars. These things aren't necessarily "deal breakers" for a global release, but it's virtually (or maybe completely) impossible to do optimally in every region.

emptyfile 8y ago

>Maybe it made sense when you had fragmented countries with their own separate distribution networks (and cinemas) but when it's one provider direct to the end-consumer it's really just a relic of legacy processes being incapable of adapting. But you are wrong, the vast majority of Netflix content is licensed and not an original product. These licenses are sold for regions and countries the same way cinema, DVD or terrestrial programing licenses are sold for specific movies and shows. They are sold by major distributors like say MGM to clients like Netflix (not really, there's a literal global hierarchy of distribution houses). So say for my country of Croatia, a distributor will offer to sell licenses for their new movie to all the cinemas, and after that to say ALL the digital distribution channels: pay-per-view, Netflix, HBO GO and others. Basically its not a "a relic of legacy processes being incapable of adapting",why would they adapt? Its literally the business model of the 5-6 major american distributors which makes them boatloads of money even as Netflix tries their hardest to disrupt them. It took decades to build and spread across the world and works perfectly for its purpose: sell loads of movie licenses to all kinds of distribution channels.