9 ms·
MPAA Welcomes Netflix as New Member
- psychometry 7y agoNetflix is such a sell-out. First the ISPs, now the MPAA.
- axus 7y agoFirst the investors?
- bee-boop-19 7y agoHow does Netflix joining MPAA make them a sell out? Do you mean as a tech company? I'm honestly curious. I think this buys them (literally) legitimacy in Hollywood and enables them to get MPAA to lobby on their behalf. Whether I think it's good or bad is a different case
- beart 7y agoIsn't selling out literally what every company in the world strives to do?
- cannonedhamster 7y agoMost companies that intend to go public maybe. Private ownership and pride in what you sell does still exist in America, just takes more looking. Patagonia for example just made a decision not to support the VC vest culture any more than it already was. I've got a chain of local hardware stores that are still family owned nearby. There's tons of real Amish furniture companies that aren't looking to sell out. Just because it's the common way didn't mean it's the only or best way.
- thrav 7y agoAlthough, to hear my friend tell it, Patagonia is still a massive military supplier. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it does seem to run a bit counter to their uber eco friendly branding. This seems to back that claim: http://soldiersystems.net/tag/patagonia/ http://soldiersystems.net/tag/patagonia/
- cannonedhamster 7y agoThey make good products and the military needs good products. I'd much rather they support the military that's generally trying to do the right thing than people trying just to make money.
- givinguflac 7y agoI don’t understand why they would do this, or what the benefits are. Personally it gives me a strong reason to ditch Netflix now, which is a bummer.
- arkades 7y agoWhat’s a good alternative? Their Netflix Originals are owned by them; non-original library sucks to begin with.
- jcoffland 7y ago> What’s a good alternative? Go outside. Read a book. Spend quality time with your family.
- rvp-x 7y agomy family loves watching movies.
- scarface74 7y agoSo now instead of supporting the MPAA you are supporting the book publishing industry that has the same goals...
- schwede 7y agoYou could go to the library for a book.
- scarface74 7y agoYou can go to the library for a DVD....
- cannonedhamster 7y agoThere are tons of good books that are in the public domain. Lots of self published good content. You could also listen to music which has tons of free sources like Jamendo. You could also create your own amusement by learning a skill or crafting.
- timvisee 7y agoCan someone explain me why this is good or bad?
- bredren 7y agoOne reason is the org offers some kind of moralistic authority over art through its ratings system. This has influenced what we get to see in theaters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
- xfitm3 7y agoAnd that's bad.
- bredren 7y agoI wonder if it was worse? I think there are more distribution mediums for art available now than when that film was made that are less beholden to content rating. Perhaps the new specter is YouTube and its recent banning of security videos?
- xfitm3 7y agoI agree there are more mediums available, but if someone finances their work they'll probably have little choice in distribution mechanisms which props up tradition. The MPAA has a chilling effect which I think is harmful to creativity. I think the human mind is a lot tougher than the vocal few lead us to believe.
- xenocyon 7y agoOn the bad side: the MPAA lobbies heavily for continually enlarging copyright protection (e.g. the DMCA) and aggressively pursues legal action against individuals. Netflix has deep pockets, so its membership provides the MPAA with increased funds for lobbying and legal muscle.
- 7y ago
- RenRav 7y agoSo what? Netflix included with all the other tv bloat channels? More tv content on Netflix? Better licensing deals for Netflix? Maybe Netflix and other cooperating services will jack their prices to $20 so I can finally unsubscribe. 95% of these Made by Netflix titles suck and haven't justified the price hikes.
- RandomThrow01 7y agoI actually think the Netflix originals are close to the only good content left in their library. Whether or not that justifies the price is another matter.
- the_af 7y agoNetflix originals are hit or miss. They make (or take over) some good stuff, like Stranger Things season 1 or Bonus Family, but they also make some embarrassing, awfully bad things, like Bright or Bird Box. Even within the same show they are hit or miss, like when they took over The Killing or Black Mirror. I find there's no correlation between "made by Netflix" and quality.
- orf 7y agoI thought bird box was actually quite good, apart from the atrocious, inoffensive “made for America” ending.
- Kye 7y agoBright was decent as an action movie, but terrible as the social commentary it tried to be.
- Nightshaxx 7y agoI had to stop like 10 minutes in a never got to the action. It was so heavy-handed in it's political commentary that it just came off as cringy.
- electrichead 7y agoAren't the other members the ones that Netflix is disrupting in the first place? What can it hope to gain from this? (Honest question)
- kevingadd 7y agoIt gets to be the favored disruptor, and now the MPAA will help kill any other competition in exchange for sweet deals
- iNate2000 7y agoYeah - the disruption is over. You only get to win so many times until you aren't the underdog anymore.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- aflag 7y agoNetflix disrupted blockbuster, which is long gone. They aren't different from other producers, except that they also have a proprietary distribution channel.
- sgc 7y agoMy guess is they are doing it to 1) to avoid getting their works pulled from award ceremonies and to reap the publicity that comes with them, and 2) to get more access to film libraries since the MPAA will implicitly or explicitly lobby other members to play nice with them.
- swiley 7y agoI’m not so sure I feel comfortable giving them money now.
- scarface74 7y agoBut you felt comfortable giving them money before when that money went to MPAA members...
- eveningcoffee 7y agoI am not sure what point you are trying to make here. There a is difference between being an independent content distributor and being a member of the gang.
- clintonb 7y agoNetflix has not been an independent content distributor for years. Here are their productions and co-productions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist....
- eveningcoffee 7y agoThis is true. What I meant was "independent content distributor for not their own content". In an ideal world Netflix would not produce content and Sony would not own a movie studio.
- clintonb 7y agoWhat makes that "ideal"?
- eveningcoffee 7y agoBecause we would have more honest competition (and from that possibly better outcome for the consumer). I find that a great example is Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD where the later did not have region restrictions but the first belonged to Sony who also owned a movie studio allowing large portion of the content to be never released on HD-DVD.
- judge2020 7y ago(JANUARY 22, 2019)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- StavrosK 7y agoThe MPAA? Of "Fuck the MPAA" fame?
- svnpenn 7y agoYou either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. - Harvey Dent
- vuln 7y agoAaaaaannd I just canceled my Netflix subscription. For months I’ve been on the fence (and wasting money) attempting to figure out if it’s actually worth it to me. Thanks Netflix for making the choice easier.
- scarface74 7y agoSo where do you think most of their mainstream movie library came from if not MPAA members? Netflix has been giving MPAA money from the beginning of its existence.
- vuln 7y agoThis is the way I look at it (it may not be correct) Before the MPAA made money off the creator, so for 95% of the content on netflix the companies producing the film paid into the MPAA. Sure Netflix probably had to pay the MPAA fee on their content too. Now the MPAA will make even more money to lobby against customers because now the content distributors are paying in. So now it give the MPAA more teeth and lobbying power. Creators, Distributors, and the MPAA versus customers.
- scarface74 7y agoAccording to one poster - 10 million dollars. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to all of the money that Netflix has been giving the MPAA indirectly by first buying DVDs to rent and then paying millions for the right to stream movies made by MPAA members.
- vuln 7y agoI do understand your point but wouldn’t you agree that the money indirectly paid by Netflix is less money than if those customers of Netflix actually purchased said DVDs instead of renting them? The way I see it ( and again I could be wrong ) Netflix was able to leverage their massive buying power to get the DVDs at less than MSRP. Netflix buys 100,000 dvds of a pupil at title and the MPAA get their cut. Netflix then rents those DVDs 1 million times. Did the MPAA lose out on a cut of those 900,000 would be sales?
- caiocaiocaio 7y agoRemember when MPAA released a closed-source Linux distro with the intention of gathering incriminating data on university students? That was pretty weird.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoWait, so they released software with copyright-infringing code?!
- paulie_a 7y agoTht wouldn't be the first time. They also illegally released a film and claimed they had a right to do so. I wish I could use that as a legal excuse "well nuh uh they were mean to me"
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- fortran77 7y agoI don't remember this! Do you have a source so I can get the whole story?
- high_5 7y agoNot only that, the distro infringed the Xubuntu copyright too: https://xubuntu.wordpress.com/tag/mpaa/ https://xubuntu.wordpress.com/tag/mpaa/
- Nightshaxx 7y agoThat's hilarious. In trying to catch people stealing, they stole a trademarked logo.
- sieabahlpark 7y agoShould have fined them damages in excess of 1 trillion dollars to the open source community.
- rayiner 7y agoI find the tribalism over copyright to be quite odd. It makes sense for many tech companies to lobby to devalue copyright, because they are in the business of profiting by distributing other peoples’ content. (I forget who said it, but the principle is commoditizing your inputs.) And it makes sense for organizations like the MPAA to push back on those efforts. It’s an economic, not moral battle. Netflix used to be on one side, now it’s a content creator and on the other. The moral calculus, I think, cuts the other way. People complain that Wall Street middle men don’t create value, just move it around, but in the same breath assign moral superiority to companies that just move around content created by other people. Odd.
- vincent-toups 7y agoIt seems to me that since economics is exactly about value, there cannot be an economic battle that isn't also a moral battle.
- IggleSniggle 7y agoBeautifully said!
- kazagistar 7y agoCopyright is an wholly artificial concept and only exists so long as we allow it to, and we should only allow it to as long as it is moral.
- doh 7y agoIsn't that the premise of our society? Ownership, money, ... All of it highly artificial and it only exists as long as we allow it to. Copyright is more than just a stick that many people see. Copyright is first and foremost an attribution. It's the only formal recognition of someone's unique work. Considering that we are trying to automate all manual labor in the not so distant future, copyright is more and not less important to our society. I agree, that the tools and practices used today are crude and in many cases unfair, but once we remove the stigma associated with it, we will get more innovation in it. I can't name many creators that would not like to be recognized for their work and even less that don't want to be paid for it.
- echelon 7y agoDo you think Netflix will falter when Disney arrives to the steaming scene? Do you think Netflix could be disrupted if content became cheap to produce (through new technology)? Do you think we could lobby to get copyright terms greatly reduced? How would we go about doing so? I'm really interested in your thoughts. (I'm pursuing a startup to answer the second question, but I'm worried the incumbents will simply copy us if the technology works out as well as we hope.)
- wodenokoto 7y ago1) No, Netflix is fully on track to become as good or better than its competitors at producing content at a faster pace, than competitors are becoming as good as Netflix at delivering content online. 2) No. Netflix is doing quite good against youtube. Netflix are also doing quite good in animation, which is a genre that has become much cheaper to produce in the last 20-30 years thanks to technology. 3) I don't know. Maybe. Disney has apparently given up extending copyright, so at least things are moving in the right direction.
- molticrystal 7y agoSo Disney's jaw dropped when Netflix refused to renew the contracts for the Marvel properties, but they have enough disposable income to prop up this living dead corpse of a organization and overall money pit whose accomplishments include incompetency, copyright infringement, and piracy.
- voodootrucker 7y agoThat was enough reason for me to cancel. So long netflix!