But what would the partner get out of it? Anyone with a track record at this point has far more to gain by letting the streaming providers compete for a licens

But what would the partner get out of it? Anyone with a track record at this point has far more to gain by letting the streaming providers compete for a license every few years. Netflix might offer slightly better terms than competition would produce in the short-run, but they'd want a longer license term to make up for it. And that, given the growth and promise of the space, would be silly. Consider the 700% licensing fee increases. Would Netflix offer a 700% premium over a 3-year license in exchange for a 6-year partnership -- with who-knows-what restrictions on future licensing of content produced under the partnership? They'd need to find a producer with a track-record for quality, but that was also cash-strapped and needed someone to share future production costs to stay in business or to make some wild expansion gamble. Which would only raise the question of why a producer with a track-record would have trouble finding another partner. Plus the nature of Hollywood is that it doesn't make too much sense to partner with AMC to get new content, based on their success in hiring successful creatives, when you can just hire successful creatives directly. What, after all, has AMC brought to The Walking Dead, beyond hiring a successful creative and providing a time-slot? Their input into the situation has seemed to be the 'tweaking for profitability' consideration that requires little industry acumen (AMC was remarkably ham-handed in this case) and that Netflix might not even see the same need for in the first place.