7 ms·

> Essentially, Netflix cannot afford to buy the rights to all the movies you want to watch. This isn't a Netflix problem, it's a licensing problem. If the rig

by njovin 12y ago

> Essentially, Netflix cannot afford to buy the rights to all the movies you want to watch. This isn't a Netflix problem, it's a licensing problem. If the rights-holders aren't willing to sell the rights to their films at a price that the market will pay, then those people who want to see those films will find a way, legal or not, to obtain them through other channels. I will happily pay to stream a movie online, whether as part of a subscription service or directly to the producers. However, when the producers don't provide any means to do so, I've never had a hard time finding a DVD-quality copy that I can download and watch in my home theater in less than the time it would take to drive to Blockbuster and rent it.

jrochkind1 12y ago
Well... I'm not sure "aren't willing to sell rights at a price netflix can afford with their business model" is the same as "aren't willing to sell the rights at a price that the market will pay." Perhaps they think there is or will be a market selling pay-per-view, at which they can make more money, than selling to all-you-can-watch subscription services. I have no idea if they're right or wrong (today or tomorrow), although certainly I know my preference as a consumer is to be able to watch anything I want for $8 a month or whatever. But my preference as a consumer is hardly the definition of "what the market will pay." I'd like restaurants to give me their food cheaper and always all-you-can-eat too, but I still pay for restaurant meals anyway. (Of course, there isn't exactly a pirating option for restaurant meals.)
- baddox 12y ago
  > But my preference as a consumer is hardly the definition of "what the market will pay." I'd like restaurants to give me their food cheaper and always all-you-can-eat too, but I still pay for restaurant meals anyway. (Of course, there isn't exactly a pirating option for restaurant meals.) Yeah, the analogy breaks down when you compare rivalrous goods to goods which are trivially copyable.
- mbesto 12y ago
  > Perhaps they think there is or will be a market selling pay-per-view, at which they can make more money, than selling to all-you-can-watch subscription services. I think what he/she meant was that PPV (for example) doesn't address the whole market whereas access to Netflix is pretty ubiquitous and does address the whole market. It also creates a nearly efficient market in that the consumer gets to decide how much they are willing to pay for content - not the distributor (which is the current case of Time Warner, Comcast, etc).
- sanoli 12y ago
  Dumpster-divers and Freegans sort of do it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
samstave 12y ago
Netflix needs to be able to have a "consignment" model: Content owner adds content to Netflix via API. NO costs between eachother. (Netflix eats upload/hosting costs) Agree to fee based on viewership counts for each piece of content. Pay view-royalties to content owners based on this fee. This is how netflix should force the market.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- tjl 12y ago
  A fee based on viewership counts is how the anime service Crunchyroll works. A portion (the other part is Crunchyroll's) of the ad revenue and subscription fees are split based on what you watch. So, if you only watched a single show for the month, the portion that goes to the license holders would go to that single company. It seems to be working well on the whole as more companies are licensing their content to Crunchyroll (at least the ones who don't give an exclusive license to another company). Each season I see more shows on there.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  That's called YouTube :-/ It's not that simple. QC for a film is complex, and it has to be done because when someone watches something on Netflix they expect a minimum amount of technical quality even if the creativity is entirely absent. I mean stuff like no messed up video frames, audio glitches, consistent volume levels and so on - it can be the worst film in the world but people still expect it play back properly and will blame Netflix if it does not, just as they would blame Netflix for an improperly encoded DVD that failed to play back. Everything that gets uploaded by Netflix has to be passed by a broadcast engineer first, and while they are not paid massive amounts of money they are still paid and films have to be watched, QCed and cataloged in real time. No matter how crap it is, any film that's available for streaming on Netflix/Amazon has taken at least half a day of skilled labor. It would be nice to think that if something gets as far as being pressed onto DVD it would meet minimum standards of technical quality but the reality is sadly different. You would not believe the appalling quality of the stuff that people try to sell.

by njovin 12y ago

jrochkind1 12y ago

Well... I'm not sure "aren't willing to sell rights at a price netflix can afford with their business model" is the same as "aren't willing to sell the rights at a price that the market will pay." Perhaps they think there is or will be a market selling pay-per-view, at which they can make more money, than selling to all-you-can-watch subscription services. I have no idea if they're right or wrong (today or tomorrow), although certainly I know my preference as a consumer is to be able to watch anything I want for $8 a month or whatever. But my preference as a consumer is hardly the definition of "what the market will pay." I'd like restaurants to give me their food cheaper and always all-you-can-eat too, but I still pay for restaurant meals anyway. (Of course, there isn't exactly a pirating option for restaurant meals.)

baddox 12y ago
> But my preference as a consumer is hardly the definition of "what the market will pay." I'd like restaurants to give me their food cheaper and always all-you-can-eat too, but I still pay for restaurant meals anyway. (Of course, there isn't exactly a pirating option for restaurant meals.) Yeah, the analogy breaks down when you compare rivalrous goods to goods which are trivially copyable.
mbesto 12y ago
> Perhaps they think there is or will be a market selling pay-per-view, at which they can make more money, than selling to all-you-can-watch subscription services. I think what he/she meant was that PPV (for example) doesn't address the whole market whereas access to Netflix is pretty ubiquitous and does address the whole market. It also creates a nearly efficient market in that the consumer gets to decide how much they are willing to pay for content - not the distributor (which is the current case of Time Warner, Comcast, etc).
sanoli 12y ago
Dumpster-divers and Freegans sort of do it.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

samstave 12y ago

Netflix needs to be able to have a "consignment" model: Content owner adds content to Netflix via API. NO costs between eachother. (Netflix eats upload/hosting costs) Agree to fee based on viewership counts for each piece of content. Pay view-royalties to content owners based on this fee. This is how netflix should force the market.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tjl 12y ago
A fee based on viewership counts is how the anime service Crunchyroll works. A portion (the other part is Crunchyroll's) of the ad revenue and subscription fees are split based on what you watch. So, if you only watched a single show for the month, the portion that goes to the license holders would go to that single company. It seems to be working well on the whole as more companies are licensing their content to Crunchyroll (at least the ones who don't give an exclusive license to another company). Each season I see more shows on there.
anigbrowl 12y ago
That's called YouTube :-/ It's not that simple. QC for a film is complex, and it has to be done because when someone watches something on Netflix they expect a minimum amount of technical quality even if the creativity is entirely absent. I mean stuff like no messed up video frames, audio glitches, consistent volume levels and so on - it can be the worst film in the world but people still expect it play back properly and will blame Netflix if it does not, just as they would blame Netflix for an improperly encoded DVD that failed to play back. Everything that gets uploaded by Netflix has to be passed by a broadcast engineer first, and while they are not paid massive amounts of money they are still paid and films have to be watched, QCed and cataloged in real time. No matter how crap it is, any film that's available for streaming on Netflix/Amazon has taken at least half a day of skilled labor. It would be nice to think that if something gets as far as being pressed onto DVD it would meet minimum standards of technical quality but the reality is sadly different. You would not believe the appalling quality of the stuff that people try to sell.