5 ms·

This is just exasperating. For all the work they're putting into creating a copyright regime, they could do build their own netflix and put everything on it, c

This is just exasperating. For all the work they're putting into creating a copyright regime, they could do build their own netflix and put everything on it, charge $10/month and fix their piracy problem like that. Makes me wonder if they sort of enjoy being the evil villain in this whole thing.

coderdude 15y ago
Who gives a crap about Netflix when you're the secret masters of the most powerful nation on the planet?
dangrossman 15y ago
Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries when the average blockbuster DVD/Blu-Ray release sells 1-2 million units a month from each individual movie? Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries instead of getting a couple million from Starz, a couple million from HBO, a couple million from Showtime, etc just to license a couple movies at a time for their networks? Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries when they get millions to sell a couple new releases at a time to cable operators for On Demand rentals? Simply licensing everything for internet streaming for a couple bucks a month solves the piracy problem, but it also completely destroys their profits. They make far more money with the current system of physical discs, staggered format releases and exclusive licensing deals for different segments of their library with different distributors than they would make giving it all away for pennies per movie on a streaming service. What did Netflix take in last quarter in revenues? $800 million or so? That's just 4 times the DVD revenue from Avatar. One movie.
- vijayr 15y ago
  why would they spend insane amounts of time and money on brokering horrible laws? Even if these laws did pass today, they would surely crumble in a few years? Why would they work so hard, to gain the hatred and displeasure of the very public that pays money to watch their work, and makes them rich in the process? As the parent says, may be they enjoy being the villain in this whole drama. If they want, they can kill netflix overnight. heck, they can charge 50$ a month, and many people would gladly pay (I know I would) even if the movies come to streaming a full month later than their theater release date. How long do you think they can keep playing this cat and mouse game? The only real winners in this entire shit, are the lawyers.
  - dangrossman 15y ago
    I think you, and others, underestimate the enormity of the revenues the movie studios are generating. The MPAA represents 6 studios that produced about 15% of theatrical releases last year. They only released 12 of the top 25 movies in theaters too. The MPAA studios alone generate about $40 billion in revenue a year; I didn't try to add up all the other studios, but you can imagine the total revenue is enormous. What they spend lobbying for these laws is a pittance in comparison. Total box office gross was $32 billion last year. Let's be generous and say the MPAA got 50% of the box office sales despite having less than 50% of the top movies. That leaves $24 billion in revenue from their films each year not including the theater releases. That's $24 billion from physical discs, licensing to cable providers, licensing to TV channels, licensing to premium cable channels, licensing to the existing streaming services, etc. If the MPAA studios launched a streaming service at $50 per month, this would displace most of their revenue from other distribution models -- people would buy far fewer DVDs and they simply wouldn't get the agreements with cable networks, premium channels, etc. if customers can already get the movie from this website a month after theater. To make up for that revenue they would have to find 480 million subscribers at $50. Do you think they can? I doubt it at that price point; that's more than most people spend on movie consumption across all channels now. Even if they could do it, those 480 million subscribers would only replace the revenue of the 6 MPAA studios, not the other 85% of the movie production market. Whenever I see a "why don't they just give us what we want and stream everything like Netflix" suggestion, I see "why don't these companies just burn 85% of their profits", because that'd be about the same as far as their financials go.
    - vijayr 15y ago
      okay, thanks for the numbers. they sure are enormous. some points though: people would buy far fewer DVDs people are anyway not buying DVDs, whether the studios like it or not. the studios can't do anything about it. I can't remember the last time I bought either a movie DVD or a music DVD. I go to spotify or netflix, or a movie theater, so simply won't watch it, if DVD is my only option. Others might be different though. I doubt it at that price point If I go to the theater once, the absolute minimum I spend is 20$ (ticket + popcorn), and this is for a single guy. If I had a family, it would be in the 50-100$ range, especially in big cities. so 50$ is actually much cheaper, and my guess is many people would go for it. One thing is sure - the whole situation is fucked up. It has to change, it will change. It is just that the transition period is going to be awful. And we get to watch it, and be a part of it.
- revorad 15y ago
  They could charge $10 per film.

coderdude 15y ago

Who gives a crap about Netflix when you're the secret masters of the most powerful nation on the planet?

dangrossman 15y ago

Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries when the average blockbuster DVD/Blu-Ray release sells 1-2 million units a month from each individual movie? Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries instead of getting a couple million from Starz, a couple million from HBO, a couple million from Showtime, etc just to license a couple movies at a time for their networks? Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries when they get millions to sell a couple new releases at a time to cable operators for On Demand rentals? Simply licensing everything for internet streaming for a couple bucks a month solves the piracy problem, but it also completely destroys their profits. They make far more money with the current system of physical discs, staggered format releases and exclusive licensing deals for different segments of their library with different distributors than they would make giving it all away for pennies per movie on a streaming service. What did Netflix take in last quarter in revenues? $800 million or so? That's just 4 times the DVD revenue from Avatar. One movie.

vijayr 15y ago
why would they spend insane amounts of time and money on brokering horrible laws? Even if these laws did pass today, they would surely crumble in a few years? Why would they work so hard, to gain the hatred and displeasure of the very public that pays money to watch their work, and makes them rich in the process? As the parent says, may be they enjoy being the villain in this whole drama. If they want, they can kill netflix overnight. heck, they can charge 50$ a month, and many people would gladly pay (I know I would) even if the movies come to streaming a full month later than their theater release date. How long do you think they can keep playing this cat and mouse game? The only real winners in this entire shit, are the lawyers.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  I think you, and others, underestimate the enormity of the revenues the movie studios are generating. The MPAA represents 6 studios that produced about 15% of theatrical releases last year. They only released 12 of the top 25 movies in theaters too. The MPAA studios alone generate about $40 billion in revenue a year; I didn't try to add up all the other studios, but you can imagine the total revenue is enormous. What they spend lobbying for these laws is a pittance in comparison. Total box office gross was $32 billion last year. Let's be generous and say the MPAA got 50% of the box office sales despite having less than 50% of the top movies. That leaves $24 billion in revenue from their films each year not including the theater releases. That's $24 billion from physical discs, licensing to cable providers, licensing to TV channels, licensing to premium cable channels, licensing to the existing streaming services, etc. If the MPAA studios launched a streaming service at $50 per month, this would displace most of their revenue from other distribution models -- people would buy far fewer DVDs and they simply wouldn't get the agreements with cable networks, premium channels, etc. if customers can already get the movie from this website a month after theater. To make up for that revenue they would have to find 480 million subscribers at $50. Do you think they can? I doubt it at that price point; that's more than most people spend on movie consumption across all channels now. Even if they could do it, those 480 million subscribers would only replace the revenue of the 6 MPAA studios, not the other 85% of the movie production market. Whenever I see a "why don't they just give us what we want and stream everything like Netflix" suggestion, I see "why don't these companies just burn 85% of their profits", because that'd be about the same as far as their financials go.
  - vijayr 15y ago
    okay, thanks for the numbers. they sure are enormous. some points though: people would buy far fewer DVDs people are anyway not buying DVDs, whether the studios like it or not. the studios can't do anything about it. I can't remember the last time I bought either a movie DVD or a music DVD. I go to spotify or netflix, or a movie theater, so simply won't watch it, if DVD is my only option. Others might be different though. I doubt it at that price point If I go to the theater once, the absolute minimum I spend is 20$ (ticket + popcorn), and this is for a single guy. If I had a family, it would be in the 50-100$ range, especially in big cities. so 50$ is actually much cheaper, and my guess is many people would go for it. One thing is sure - the whole situation is fucked up. It has to change, it will change. It is just that the transition period is going to be awful. And we get to watch it, and be a part of it.
revorad 15y ago
They could charge $10 per film.