5 ms·

Its for MGM's IP and back catalog so Amazon can literally rent it for a monthly price.

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
What sort of good stuff does MGM have? I use Prime Video a lot since it is basically free with my Prime and would love some new quality content. Edit: Posting this I found because my question was dumb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_fi...
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_fi...
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Yeah, a lot of it's older but it's a huge high-quality film back catalog which Amazon doesn't really have today.
    - hellbannedguy 5y ago
      I found Amazon Prime movie section (good movies) better than Netflix. This buyout makes sence.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Personally, I find the all-you-can-eat subscription subs all pretty bad for film. They have even good films but if you want to watch a specific film, it's unlikely they have it. Earlier in the pandemic I even reupped my Netflix DVD rental service for a while. (Sadly, Netflix is obviously not repurchasing a lot of older movies as the discs become unwatchable.)
  - fredoralive 5y ago
    Note that due to various deals back in the 80's, MGM doesn't own most of its older films, Warner Bros does. They do have the entire United Artists catalogue, and films from some other smaller studios like Orion pictures.
  - xkjkls 5y ago
    A better list ranked by relevancy: https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/worldwide/all-movies/theatrical-distributors/mgm https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/worldwide/all...
lotsofpulp 5y ago
The better way to address this would be reducing copyright lengths to 20 years or something reasonable.
- mikeryan 5y ago
  Not from the studios perspective. They want the exclusivity.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Yes, so the proper way to help consumers is to remove the exclusivity and deal with the problem directly. Preventing mergers does not do anything, except add a middleman.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  This. Why is everyone ignoring these obvious solutions? I feel like there are these enormous movements out there to advance byzantine solutions to problems we could readily address with simple new rules. What's worse, these movements champion things like break ups, which will never work for the vast majority of these firms. Many are not monopolies, and do not operate as trusts. (Though FB, Google, and Amazon come closest.) Meeting legal definitions matter to Supremes. No matter how silly the legal definitions may seem to us as laymen. Two simple new rules. One, make the using of the private data of any user for commercial purposes explicitly illegal with draconian fines assessed per individual violation, not per user. Two, redo copyright in the manner you suggest. No more renewing for what becomes something akin to a copyright perpetuity. These two rule changes would neuter the power of a lot of these companies.
  - thiago_fm 5y ago
    Agree. Those copyright laws were put into place a long time ago and made sense in the context of the past. Nowadays, they should just create a new one that fits the new distribution ways.
- e3bc54b2 5y ago
  That means losing out exclusivity on endless remakes, reboots and sequels. Since that's the majority of Hollywood money, I sincerely doubt it will change.
fastball 5y ago
Right but so can MGM. The rent-seeking is there anyway, don't think it's anti-consumer for the rent-seeker to be Amazon rather than MGM.
ameister14 5y ago
As opposed to what, exactly? Is it currently available for free?

What sort of good stuff does MGM have? I use Prime Video a lot since it is basically free with my Prime and would love some new quality content. Edit: Posting this I found because my question was dumb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_fi...

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_fi...
- ghaff 5y ago
  Yeah, a lot of it's older but it's a huge high-quality film back catalog which Amazon doesn't really have today.
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    I found Amazon Prime movie section (good movies) better than Netflix. This buyout makes sence.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Personally, I find the all-you-can-eat subscription subs all pretty bad for film. They have even good films but if you want to watch a specific film, it's unlikely they have it. Earlier in the pandemic I even reupped my Netflix DVD rental service for a while. (Sadly, Netflix is obviously not repurchasing a lot of older movies as the discs become unwatchable.)
- fredoralive 5y ago
  Note that due to various deals back in the 80's, MGM doesn't own most of its older films, Warner Bros does. They do have the entire United Artists catalogue, and films from some other smaller studios like Orion pictures.
- xkjkls 5y ago
  A better list ranked by relevancy: https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/worldwide/all-movies/theatrical-distributors/mgm https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/worldwide/all...

lotsofpulp 5y ago

The better way to address this would be reducing copyright lengths to 20 years or something reasonable.

mikeryan 5y ago
Not from the studios perspective. They want the exclusivity.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Yes, so the proper way to help consumers is to remove the exclusivity and deal with the problem directly. Preventing mergers does not do anything, except add a middleman.
bilbo0s 5y ago
This. Why is everyone ignoring these obvious solutions? I feel like there are these enormous movements out there to advance byzantine solutions to problems we could readily address with simple new rules. What's worse, these movements champion things like break ups, which will never work for the vast majority of these firms. Many are not monopolies, and do not operate as trusts. (Though FB, Google, and Amazon come closest.) Meeting legal definitions matter to Supremes. No matter how silly the legal definitions may seem to us as laymen. Two simple new rules. One, make the using of the private data of any user for commercial purposes explicitly illegal with draconian fines assessed per individual violation, not per user. Two, redo copyright in the manner you suggest. No more renewing for what becomes something akin to a copyright perpetuity. These two rule changes would neuter the power of a lot of these companies.
- thiago_fm 5y ago
  Agree. Those copyright laws were put into place a long time ago and made sense in the context of the past. Nowadays, they should just create a new one that fits the new distribution ways.
e3bc54b2 5y ago
That means losing out exclusivity on endless remakes, reboots and sequels. Since that's the majority of Hollywood money, I sincerely doubt it will change.

fastball 5y ago

Right but so can MGM. The rent-seeking is there anyway, don't think it's anti-consumer for the rent-seeker to be Amazon rather than MGM.

ameister14 5y ago

As opposed to what, exactly? Is it currently available for free?