4 ms·

This has been a problem for a long time with media. For some time, we've been perfectly capable of delivering globally. They don't want to do this, because the

This has been a problem for a long time with media. For some time, we've been perfectly capable of delivering globally. They don't want to do this, because the money gets made through a calculated release process. They want to maximize revenue on this extremely expensive asset, and there are strategic / logistical concerns. On side note, I think there's a bit of a "look at this awesome thing you can't have" aspect to IP and content; this can be very frustrating, and has been one of the main reasons people turned to piracy (mostly people are just jerks though). There's actually some very understandable reasons why you'd want, or even need to carefully release in each region; however in other cases the attitude seems to be "we haven't figured out how to monetize this, so I guess no one gets it", "we'll need you to buy that again", or "you can't have this, because we want you to buy something else"

pdimitar 8y ago
> There's actually some very understandable reasons why you'd want, or even need to carefully release in each region Please, do tell.
- P_I_Staker 8y ago
  I'd be happy to! Lots of strategic, logistical, and legal stuff. The obvious thing is that I can't release a movie if it's gonna get banned. So you may need to make tweaks or campaign for a different rating / classification. It helps to be proactive and get ahead of these things. Cultures are different and you need to account for that. Then there's marketing. You need only look at examples like Blair Witch, or "Blumhouse Films" (eg. Paranormal Activity, The Purge), to see what marketing and word of mouth can do for a movie. Of course you'd like to see a bit of that magic (this explains why so many movies are marketed as "reality" / found footage), but in any case, you want to optimize the hype and buzz around a movie. This is a whole skillset, that may differ by culture, and can make or break a film. We're talking about millions of dollars here. Now none of those things interest me personally. I don't "like them". I definitely don't like restrictions by region. However saying: "they have it in their country, why don't I have it yet?" is a bit like saying "they've made a final cut of the film, why can't I watch it yet?". They have this incredibly expensive asset that they're trying to maximize revenue on.
  - y4mi 8y ago
    logistical for digital goods should be a nonissue. to my knowledge, legal stuff should in most cases be a nonissue as well. They could put everything behind the oldest age bracket (18/21 yrs old), which would probably be their biggest customerbase anyway. and if they did that, its gonna be the responsibility of the account owner. the only reason that actually holds up is strategic. They do want to milk all brands to their maximum after all... but if thats the reason, they don't really have any grounds to complain about piracy. This is coming from somebody who hasn't watched any TV/Movies in ~3 yrs now, because i didn't want to pirate and netflix / amazon video didn't have enough content i wanted to watch.
    - P_I_Staker 8y ago
      > to my knowledge, legal stuff should in most cases be a nonissue as well. Why? I'm confused at how that could be the case; it's a big issue for most businesses. > They could put everything behind the oldest age bracket (18/21 yrs old), which would probably be their biggest customerbase anyway. You simply can't do this when the entire film is banned. This is also bad from a purely business perspective. Even if it's the biggest customerbase, it's a limiting factor which lowers the number of customers that can see it (this is mostly implicit, not legally enforced in the USA). Sadly, many films are being re-cut or re-written, so that they won't receive an R rating (definitely not the dreaded NC-17). That's why we have things like John McClain saying "dagg nabbit" and "gollie gee", instead of swearing. > They do want to milk all brands to their maximum after all... You put this far better than I did. Very succinct and descriptive. > but if thats the reason, they don't really have any grounds to complain about piracy You lost me here. These brands aren't cheap; lots of money goes into them. Businesses want as much money as possible, especially given the high cost and risk. I'm not a big IP fan, but it is their property. Saying I stole from you, because I don't like the way you sell things, and you have no grounds to complain isn't completely reasonable (DRM is the most legitimate gripe I have, but it's still not a perfect excuse). I appreciate your commitment to doing the right thing. Sorry for the dissection, I didn't intend for this to be rebuttal, but it kinda got away from me.
      - 8y ago
yholio 8y ago
In the long run this sounds like the kind of area that begs for regulation. If you run a subscription service you have strong market power over competing content producers who can't do the same and create their own distribution channels. This gives the monopolist strong leverage to purchase content on the cheap and expand their platform to the detriment of other distributors, which is precisely what Netflix is doing, using their economies of scale to discourage consumers to seek alternate offers. It seems sensible to force platforms with significant market power to open up and allow competing content to be sold on there too, maybe on a basis of costs-plus-fixed-profit for the platform.

pdimitar 8y ago

> There's actually some very understandable reasons why you'd want, or even need to carefully release in each region Please, do tell.

P_I_Staker 8y ago
I'd be happy to! Lots of strategic, logistical, and legal stuff. The obvious thing is that I can't release a movie if it's gonna get banned. So you may need to make tweaks or campaign for a different rating / classification. It helps to be proactive and get ahead of these things. Cultures are different and you need to account for that. Then there's marketing. You need only look at examples like Blair Witch, or "Blumhouse Films" (eg. Paranormal Activity, The Purge), to see what marketing and word of mouth can do for a movie. Of course you'd like to see a bit of that magic (this explains why so many movies are marketed as "reality" / found footage), but in any case, you want to optimize the hype and buzz around a movie. This is a whole skillset, that may differ by culture, and can make or break a film. We're talking about millions of dollars here. Now none of those things interest me personally. I don't "like them". I definitely don't like restrictions by region. However saying: "they have it in their country, why don't I have it yet?" is a bit like saying "they've made a final cut of the film, why can't I watch it yet?". They have this incredibly expensive asset that they're trying to maximize revenue on.
- y4mi 8y ago
  logistical for digital goods should be a nonissue. to my knowledge, legal stuff should in most cases be a nonissue as well. They could put everything behind the oldest age bracket (18/21 yrs old), which would probably be their biggest customerbase anyway. and if they did that, its gonna be the responsibility of the account owner. the only reason that actually holds up is strategic. They do want to milk all brands to their maximum after all... but if thats the reason, they don't really have any grounds to complain about piracy. This is coming from somebody who hasn't watched any TV/Movies in ~3 yrs now, because i didn't want to pirate and netflix / amazon video didn't have enough content i wanted to watch.
  - P_I_Staker 8y ago
    > to my knowledge, legal stuff should in most cases be a nonissue as well. Why? I'm confused at how that could be the case; it's a big issue for most businesses. > They could put everything behind the oldest age bracket (18/21 yrs old), which would probably be their biggest customerbase anyway. You simply can't do this when the entire film is banned. This is also bad from a purely business perspective. Even if it's the biggest customerbase, it's a limiting factor which lowers the number of customers that can see it (this is mostly implicit, not legally enforced in the USA). Sadly, many films are being re-cut or re-written, so that they won't receive an R rating (definitely not the dreaded NC-17). That's why we have things like John McClain saying "dagg nabbit" and "gollie gee", instead of swearing. > They do want to milk all brands to their maximum after all... You put this far better than I did. Very succinct and descriptive. > but if thats the reason, they don't really have any grounds to complain about piracy You lost me here. These brands aren't cheap; lots of money goes into them. Businesses want as much money as possible, especially given the high cost and risk. I'm not a big IP fan, but it is their property. Saying I stole from you, because I don't like the way you sell things, and you have no grounds to complain isn't completely reasonable (DRM is the most legitimate gripe I have, but it's still not a perfect excuse). I appreciate your commitment to doing the right thing. Sorry for the dissection, I didn't intend for this to be rebuttal, but it kinda got away from me.
    - 8y ago

yholio 8y ago

In the long run this sounds like the kind of area that begs for regulation. If you run a subscription service you have strong market power over competing content producers who can't do the same and create their own distribution channels. This gives the monopolist strong leverage to purchase content on the cheap and expand their platform to the detriment of other distributors, which is precisely what Netflix is doing, using their economies of scale to discourage consumers to seek alternate offers. It seems sensible to force platforms with significant market power to open up and allow competing content to be sold on there too, maybe on a basis of costs-plus-fixed-profit for the platform.