SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Disney has announced that it will stop providing new movies to Netflix in 2019, in favor of its own streaming service:
Disney has decided it wants to create its own internet services built around its ESPN and Disney entertainment brands. As a result, Disney said it would stop making its newly released movies available to stream on Netflix beginning in 2019. That means Netflix Inc. has roughly 18 months to figure out how to replace fresh Disney and Pixar movies, which are popular draws for its subscribers. A Netflix executive has said Disney programs are responsible for something like 30 percent of Netflix viewing in the U.S. (Disney movies are available on Netflix only in the U.S. and Canada.)
[...] This Walt Disney Co. announcement may also explain why Netflix on Monday announced the first acquisition in its 20-year history, for a company that specializes in creating superhero characters. Netflix also has an arrangement with Disney's Marvel brand under which Marvel makes series exclusively for Netflix based on Marvel characters. That relationship is responsible for buzzy Netflix shows including "Daredevil" and "Luke Cage."
Also at Reuters, CNBC, and Walt Disney.
Previously: Netflix Acquires Comic Book Publisher Millarworld
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday August 11 2017, @01:56PM (3 children)
I don't see how "too large to practically be stored locally" can be achieved for a couple reasons.
DRM exists as an attempt to prevent users from willfully flouting copyright laws.
Including all the cast and crew whose contract specifies residuals for each showing?
Except "anywhere that there's functioning rule-of-law" tends not to include casual under-the-table infringement by people whose friends have DVD or BD burners.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday August 11 2017, @03:55PM (2 children)
TL;DR: Stop delivering a bad product and stop assuming that all customers are criminals.
(changed to ordered list to make replies easier)
For point one, anyone motivated to do this and savvy enough to pull it off is not being prevented from doing so by DRM. Retaining the DRM is only inconveniencing honest customers, and costing money to implement while providing no benefit. Spending money to reduce sales is illogical from a business standpoint. Be nicer to your customers, let them fill up their local drives with compressed video if they want. As I mentioned before, having a higher quality, well-indexed stream available 24/7 is a service I'm willing to pay for even if I have a local copy. Make it more convenient to simply stream and your legitimate customers won't bother with local storage.
For point two, these customers are an edge case which is not causing a problem.
It is failing at this mission. Every blockbuster release lately has been shortly available on Bittorent DRM-free. Somehow the studios are still making money at the theater, on streaming services, and on physical media sales. Some people will pirate the movies/shows/etc regardless of whether it's available legally; these are not your customers. People sharing burned DVDs with their friends are in this category. As long as they aren't setting up carts in the street selling their counterfeit wares this will remain a minor problem, and should be considered an acceptable loss.
A much larger group are law-abiding citizens who pay for what they use because it's the right thing to do and they want to see more good media getting produced. These people are only inconvenienced by DRM, it gives them no benefit and the vendor gets no benefit from applying DRM to the product sold to them. Media companies will get this group's money whether or not DRM is applied to the product.
Another group of indeterminate size is willing to pay for a streaming service or physical media if the content they want is available and easier to access than a pirated copy. Adding DRM to the official product does not prevent them from getting a DRM-copy some other way. DRM makes their customer experience worse when they choose to follow the law, discouraging them from doing so. Making the user experience better would help these people move back into category 2 and allow the media companies to take their money.
In all of the customer cases I've outlined above having DRM is only a liability, one that causes lost customers after incurring extra expense. Even the locked-in customers in the "piracy is bad, mkay?" group may choose to read a book instead of watching a show, or go for a walk, or take up a hobby if the user experience is bad enough. Shut up and take their money, for goodness sake.
Perhaps hookers and blow for all and sundry shouldn't be the measure of success for a media venture. People not in this for the love of the art are a problem, not part of the solution. Yes, there is profit to be made. No, it's not $500-1000/household annually. The price point for media sales is currently set too high, and the market will need to readjust. I expect several entrenched business models will die out (e.g. blockbuster video) in the process; good riddance. The competition for the fence-sitters is bittorrent @ free + mild inconvenience vs legal @ expensive + moderate inconvenience. The industry is better served by making the product much more convenient and slightly cheaper to win back some of the contested customers. I'm positive that there are economists willing to help forecast an optimum price point for competing against free at maximum profit.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday August 11 2017, @06:18PM (1 child)
Correct. In the land of cheap fuel and expensive Internet access, copyright infringers use sneakernet rather than BitTorrent, carrying around terabytes of infringing copies of movies on a portable NAS.
If only the licensors of programming to the streaming services understood this...
What sort of "pressure" are you imagining? NFLX shareholders probably wouldn't appreciate, for example, Netflix getting into the last-mile ISP business in order to compete with sat, cell, and low-speed DSL ISPs.
The market has already spoken: adaptations of well-known superhero comics costing more than a hundred million dollars to produce sell more tickets than original films produced by hobbyists.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday August 11 2017, @07:49PM
[skipping to where we aren't simply agreeing with each other]
The pressure I was hoping for was political, not business competition. I'm a believer in separation of content from delivery, and I favor last mile service as a utility. Unfortunately, the cable and ISP companies don't agree with me, and are happier with the fractured last-mile system we currently have (leading to me having 4 different boxes fastened to my house from previous ISP/cable providers, only two of which are my fault). I'd love to see Netflix start lobbying for better last mile solutions, public buildout to rural locations, etc. $DIETY knows the ISPs and cable companies spend enough lobbying for the shutdown of city networks and co-ops, a little counterpressure would be good for the health our our network.
Agreed, this is self-evident. I'd argue that the recent involvement of people with more love/respect for the source material makes a HUGE difference; just compare the 2003 Daredevil movie to the Netflix series. Netflix took the risk of spending $40 Million to pay actors, directors, crew, etc to produce the show, and the public rewarded them with lots of viewership. Which reminds me, I need to re-watch season 2 in preparation for the season 3 release :)
My point isn't that actors etc shouldn't be paid. It's that once a production company spends the money on producing a show those artists are already compensated. Return on investment isn't guaranteed, and the market will decide whether compensating the studio for its effort (via movie tickets, streamed binge-watching, etc) is warranted. I really liked the link you made [soylentnews.org] to The Oatmeal; people want to do the right thing. The industry needs to stop treating its potential customers like a cross between sheep to be fleeced and desperate criminals.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin