4 ms·

The fact that media companies are unwilling to let any one company have a full listing of all movies is one of the major failings of the industry. The videogame

The fact that media companies are unwilling to let any one company have a full listing of all movies is one of the major failings of the industry. The videogame industry has the same fundamental problem but the near monopoly of the Steam service actually does them some good in my opinion. The problem I think is rooted in piracy, at least as it is practiced in first-world countries where convenience is worth more than price. Piracy has several built-in practical issues, because it is frankly inconvenient to be conducting illegal business, and DRM provides another inconvenience. But despite these endemic problems with piracy, it does offer a huge convenience: universality. The legal movie market is fragmented and therefore a pain to deal with, where the black market is very universal, with mirrors of content on all the major distribution channels (torrents, rapidshare/HTTP sites, and USENET are the big three). The interesting thing to me is that all three of these distribution channels have successful paid services springing up around them. There are private VPN services you can pay for to torrent from a foreign IP. Almost every HTTP distribution site such as rapidshare has a premium service you can pay for to get more volume. And USENET has several news servers that retain data for years and offer direct encrypted downloads. So it is clear to me that people are willing to pay for the benefits these services offer. If you line up the pros and cons, I would say that legal services win out on almost every count except two: price and universality. The success of grey market services and nearly-universal services in other industries (iTunes, Steam) tells me that price is not the real blocker, if only movie studios would get their act together and let distributors license everything in the world. I would love to see a world where cable TV providers, digital streaming services and physical retail services all had access to the entire catalog of movies and competed on price and convenience. The current world where services compete with content catalogs and exclusivity just seems unsustainable because it is worse for consumers in the long run.

hugh3 15y ago
The problem I think is rooted in piracy, at least as it is practiced in first-world countries where convenience is worth more than price. Piracy has several built-in practical issues, because it is frankly inconvenient to be conducting illegal business, and DRM provides another inconvenience. But despite these endemic problems with piracy, it does offer a huge convenience: universality. The legal movie market is fragmented and therefore a pain to deal with, where the black market is very universal, with mirrors of content on all the major distribution channels (torrents, rapidshare/HTTP sites, and USENET are the big three). I think you're overestimating the effect of piracy, because you tend to hang out with young, tech-savvy folks. The average Netflix customer would have no idea how or where to pirate a movie even if they did want to (not to mention there are some people in the world who aren't completely amoral and as such wouldn't).
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >(not to mention there are some people in the world who aren't completely amoral and as such wouldn't) You're implying that everyone follows the same code of ethics. You might not agree with it but for some people it's not in the slightest bit amoral to pirate a movie.
  - jahmed 15y ago
    This is the long term problem for content creators. The current generation of sub-30 year olds have grown up/will grow up in a culture of free things. That idea is flourishing and is what really should scare content creators.
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      >That idea is flourishing and is what really should scare content creators. The only one scared by this is the content industry, aka the publishers, and the unfortunate people who believe their propaganda and lies. Free culture is a good thing. The internet, for the first time in human history, has made the dream of unlimited sharing possible. Creators will not die out because the industry that imposed copyright on them in the first place is no longer needed.
      - jahmed 15y ago
        Thanks yes true creators well be fine. Its the content publishers and packagers that will feel the pressure as consumers find ways around them to the source.
- ericd 15y ago
  I know a lot of non-tech-savvy young folks who know how to pirate effectively. The convenience to watch anything you want at any time is a big enough carrot that they're willing to learn the procedures to follow.
w33ble 15y ago
I thought the same thing when I read this: "[...] in which all the stuff we want comes from one source at one price. Forget about it. That world isn't coming. The hidden lesson of Netflix's fall from grace is that content markets will remain fragmented." As you point out, that's simply not true, thanks to piracy. Not only can I find "all the stuff [I] want [...] from one source at one price", but that price is free (with the exception of site donations I guess). Not having to deal with DRM and the resulting uncertainty of ownership and crippled access from all devices, incomplete libraries, poor/uncertain quality and unreasonable prices are all icing on the cake. Netflix could be to movies and tv shows what iTunes is to music and Steam is to games, but the content owners are fighting that every step of the way. Sadly, Netflix doesn't seem to have the power to push the content owners around like Apple does.
kin 15y ago
I think you hit all the points exactly. What I think these companies need to realize is that they're completely wasting their money not capitalizing on revenue streams. For new movies, sure, theaters only. For newly released DVDs, sure, stores and/or rentals only. But 6 months to a year after release, I expect every company to put their content online so that it's convenient for people to watch instead of relying on the $5 bargain bin for revenue. That's what makes sense to me yet it doesn't happen. They pull content left and right for what? So Netflix can't be the sole provider of the content? What makes sense to me is AMC putting the first several seasons of "Breaking Bad" on Netflix so that all can watch it to catch up to the current season on air. Do other programs expect people to purchase DVDs for a single view to catch up? Ideally for me there should be company B and company C to compete with Netflix, each with its own set of exclusives from different companies, each with a ~$10/month no contract charge for viewership. I'll end up with ~$30/month cancel anytime for all content and stream it all off of a single convenient box. That sounds better to the status quo to me.

hugh3 15y ago

The problem I think is rooted in piracy, at least as it is practiced in first-world countries where convenience is worth more than price. Piracy has several built-in practical issues, because it is frankly inconvenient to be conducting illegal business, and DRM provides another inconvenience. But despite these endemic problems with piracy, it does offer a huge convenience: universality. The legal movie market is fragmented and therefore a pain to deal with, where the black market is very universal, with mirrors of content on all the major distribution channels (torrents, rapidshare/HTTP sites, and USENET are the big three). I think you're overestimating the effect of piracy, because you tend to hang out with young, tech-savvy folks. The average Netflix customer would have no idea how or where to pirate a movie even if they did want to (not to mention there are some people in the world who aren't completely amoral and as such wouldn't).

slowpoke 15y ago
>(not to mention there are some people in the world who aren't completely amoral and as such wouldn't) You're implying that everyone follows the same code of ethics. You might not agree with it but for some people it's not in the slightest bit amoral to pirate a movie.
- jahmed 15y ago
  This is the long term problem for content creators. The current generation of sub-30 year olds have grown up/will grow up in a culture of free things. That idea is flourishing and is what really should scare content creators.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    >That idea is flourishing and is what really should scare content creators. The only one scared by this is the content industry, aka the publishers, and the unfortunate people who believe their propaganda and lies. Free culture is a good thing. The internet, for the first time in human history, has made the dream of unlimited sharing possible. Creators will not die out because the industry that imposed copyright on them in the first place is no longer needed.
    - jahmed 15y ago
      Thanks yes true creators well be fine. Its the content publishers and packagers that will feel the pressure as consumers find ways around them to the source.
ericd 15y ago
I know a lot of non-tech-savvy young folks who know how to pirate effectively. The convenience to watch anything you want at any time is a big enough carrot that they're willing to learn the procedures to follow.

w33ble 15y ago

I thought the same thing when I read this: "[...] in which all the stuff we want comes from one source at one price. Forget about it. That world isn't coming. The hidden lesson of Netflix's fall from grace is that content markets will remain fragmented." As you point out, that's simply not true, thanks to piracy. Not only can I find "all the stuff [I] want [...] from one source at one price", but that price is free (with the exception of site donations I guess). Not having to deal with DRM and the resulting uncertainty of ownership and crippled access from all devices, incomplete libraries, poor/uncertain quality and unreasonable prices are all icing on the cake. Netflix could be to movies and tv shows what iTunes is to music and Steam is to games, but the content owners are fighting that every step of the way. Sadly, Netflix doesn't seem to have the power to push the content owners around like Apple does.

kin 15y ago

I think you hit all the points exactly. What I think these companies need to realize is that they're completely wasting their money not capitalizing on revenue streams. For new movies, sure, theaters only. For newly released DVDs, sure, stores and/or rentals only. But 6 months to a year after release, I expect every company to put their content online so that it's convenient for people to watch instead of relying on the $5 bargain bin for revenue. That's what makes sense to me yet it doesn't happen. They pull content left and right for what? So Netflix can't be the sole provider of the content? What makes sense to me is AMC putting the first several seasons of "Breaking Bad" on Netflix so that all can watch it to catch up to the current season on air. Do other programs expect people to purchase DVDs for a single view to catch up? Ideally for me there should be company B and company C to compete with Netflix, each with its own set of exclusives from different companies, each with a ~$10/month no contract charge for viewership. I'll end up with ~$30/month cancel anytime for all content and stream it all off of a single convenient box. That sounds better to the status quo to me.