Movie Studios Pissed Off At Netflix, Don't Want To Allow More Streaming Movies

from the this-will-not-end-well dept

Honestly, at what point do entertainment execs finally figure out that by purposely not making content available in the format people want it in, they're only encouraging them to get that content through unauthorized means? We already knew that the big movie studios were annoyed with Netflix and trying to get Netflix to delay movie rentals until at least a month after the DVD comes out. Now we have an explanation why. As JJ was the first (of a few) to send in, the studios apparently are quite annoyed that, in order to jumpstart its movie streaming offering, Netflix routed around the movie studios, and signed a deal with Starz that allowed it to stream the same movies without a direct deal with the studios. It's not clear how or why Starz had the right to also stream movies through Netflix, but I'm guessing it was a loophole in Starz' deals with the studios -- a loophole that's now closed. So, Netflix is saying it needs to convince Hollywood it's not the enemy, but Hollywood isn't quite buying it yet.

This really shouldn't be a huge surprise. After all, this is Hollywood, where reports that actually show that the movie industry will grow quite a bit in the next decade are also used to claim that rental services like Redbox and Netflix are killing off jobs. It's also the world where Hollywood execs still think that the answer to their problems (problems like its best box office year ever) is to just add more release windows. It's as if they still think that keeping content away from people makes them more likely to buy.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Brian (profile), Dec 30th, 2009 @ 9:37pm

    I believe they saw the episode of south park where cartman got his own theme park and are trying to do something similar. Its almost like they believe that keeping the public from having access to content for a longer time will somehow drum up a lot more demand and then perhaps they can try to charge more for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Dec 30th, 2009 @ 10:43pm

    Re:

    Unfortunately for them, the real world is not South Park.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Doctor Strange, Dec 30th, 2009 @ 10:52pm

    Honestly, at what point do entertainment execs finally figure out that by purposely not making content available in the format people want it in, they're only encouraging them to get that content through unauthorized means?

    Excellent point. What other laws and practices should we change to better accommodate lawbreakers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Rob, Dec 30th, 2009 @ 10:55pm

    lawbreakers....

    Dr. Strange misses the point. The "lawbreakers" to which he refers would gleefully pay for the content if it were available in a useful format.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 30th, 2009 @ 11:01pm

    Re:

    Hi, prohibition would like a word with your poor logic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Doctor Strange, Dec 30th, 2009 @ 11:52pm

    Re: Re:

    Hi, prohibition would like a word with your poor logic.

    Why? I think you're confused. I was agreeing. Not accommodating lawbreakers is a terrible idea, just like prohibition.

    Freely-available alcohol has been a major boon for the country. Can you imagine how awesome things would be if heroin were legal and freely available? It's not like the "drug war" is working anyway. Hell, who wouldn't go for a couple of Klonopins and a little Meth chaser right now? Can you imagine how many smart people will be freed up to do useful work once we get rid of the need for pharmacists?

    The thing that's torking me off this year is that they're actually thinking of regulating the banking industry. Can you believe that? Look, people want extensive credit and mortgages with incredible teaser rates without having to verify income, banks want to give them that credit, and investors want to create amazing new financial instruments to enable it. Why should we stop them? If people don't get the money they want from the banks, they're just going to go to Vinny the Fish for it. If you criminalize credit default swaps, only criminals will have credit default swaps.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 30th, 2009 @ 11:56pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Your sarcasm might be more effective if the examples you rely on didn't support what you're trying to argue against.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 12:06am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's funny how your sarcasm only adds to the idiocy of your statements.

    Freely-available alcohol has been a major boon for the country. Can you imagine how awesome things would be if heroin were legal and freely available? It's not like the "drug war" is working anyway. Hell, who wouldn't go for a couple of Klonopins and a little Meth chaser right now? Can you imagine how many smart people will be freed up to do useful work once we get rid of the need for pharmacists?

    Ah yes, the old "if it wasn't illegal, everyone would do it" fallacy. The majority of people who can legally smoke cigarettes don't do it, and the numbers have been steadily declining as well. Odd how that works, right? Oh, but of course, banning cigarettes right from the start would definitely have stopped things faster, right?

    The thing that's torking me off this year is that they're actually thinking of regulating the banking industry. Can you believe that? Look, people want extensive credit and mortgages with incredible teaser rates without having to verify income, banks want to give them that credit, and investors want to create amazing new financial instruments to enable it. Why should we stop them? If people don't get the money they want from the banks, they're just going to go to Vinny the Fish for it. If you criminalize credit default swaps, only criminals will have credit default swaps.

    Comparing apples to oranges. Regulating the banking industry does not make the banks turn into criminal organizations (despite what the cynical jabs say). The legitimate organization stays legitimate, the criminal organization stays criminal, and the legal consumer remains a legal consumer.

    Prohibition made legal consumers become criminals.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Doctor Strange, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 12:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's funny how your sarcasm only adds to the idiocy of your statements.

    I'm sorry, what gave you the impression that I was being sarcastic?

    Ah yes, the old "if it wasn't illegal, everyone would do it" fallacy. The majority of people who can legally smoke cigarettes don't do it, and the numbers have been steadily declining as well. Odd how that works, right? Oh, but of course, banning cigarettes right from the start would definitely have stopped things faster, right?

    The only one making this argument here is you.

    Comparing apples to oranges. Regulating the banking industry does not make the banks turn into criminal organizations (despite what the cynical jabs say). The legitimate organization stays legitimate, the criminal organization stays criminal, and the legal consumer remains a legal consumer.

    Regulating the banking organizations will probably make it impossible for them to offer certain kinds of loans and for investors to partake in certain kinds of financial instruments. Everyone is doing this consensually. This is just more unwanted government intervention prohibiting the otherwise free associations and dealings of citizens. By trying to cut this off, it is only going to invite a much more costly black market for credit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    baloney joe, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 12:46am

    Everyone is doing this consensually.

    You're an idiot that can't spell, unless you were arguing about some sort of sensual reference to your love of moronic statements...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Doctor Strange, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 12:56am

    Re:

    >> Everyone is doing this consensually.

    >You're an idiot that can't spell, unless you were arguing about some sort of sensual reference to your love of moronic statements...


    Oh dear, you're right. What a boner on my part! You'll have to excuse me, I was spelling the word based on an English dictionary. What language's dictionary would you like me to use in my future posts?

    Attention Advertisers: You too can reach this prime demographic. Just click here and enter your details.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 2:12am

    Streaming netflix is pretty much my last avenue I'm willing to put up with for watching crappy generic Hollywood movies. I refuse to get gouged at the theater or by paying $20 for a DVD I'll watch once. Renting movies from a store is a pain in the ass, and the whole "we might ship you the DVD you want to see" system is already getting old and busted.

    I would gladly pay upwards of $20 a month JUST for the streaming service from netflix on my PC and xbox, if they offered new releases.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 3:20am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not entirely sure you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    zellamayzao (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 4:28am

    what happened....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    zellamayzao (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 4:30am

    what happened....

    ....to the topic at hand. We went from streaming how hollywood doesnt want to reach customers by allowing netflix to stream movies into their homes making it more convenient for them to spend their money on this hollywood bull crap to regulating banks how that its bad for the economy. I can see your point about the banks but how do you guys feel about netflix?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 5:00am

    I read this and think to myself: "Red Box is a joke. Why would anybody consider it a threat?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    DREiDAWG, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 5:03am

    Re: Mos Def

    No doubt! If new releases were available $20 -$25 a month would be an incredible value.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Haywood (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 5:18am

    They missed the window on me

    Had the movie studios rode the wave of the incoming technology, I'd probably have the hardware to take full advantage of it. Since they went with the circle the wagons approach, I now have hardware to use AVI / Xvid & now couldn't be bothered to stream anything. I love my present setup and can't imagine anything being better, except perhaps the remote could be made to work on brain waves, so I didn't have to click to see the next show.

    OT: Dr Strange; The drug war is a colossal failure, and I am in favor of just allowing it all. The clumsy will go first, so soon the heroin users would all be dead, due to unlimited supply. Problem solved. The lesser drugs would hit about the same levels they now occupy, but the costs associated with prosecuting and housing the users would go away. Drug crime should go down as the cost of feeding a habit would be low enough to maintain with a job at 7-11.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Theo, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 5:57am

    Agreed

    I sent an email recently to Netflix that closely parrots this article. It was my mistake to think that it was them holding back on us another case of misdirected disgruntlement on my part, sigh. Again I can't agree more with the thought that the entertainment industry keeps fighting against giving its consumers what they want. These are smart people, but not smart enough to see a profitable model in delivering rich content over the web? "So Jeeves, our stupid customers keep finding ways of downloading our content so they can watch it on their computers and HTPCs, we must find a way to stop it!!" ... that is just small minded.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:22am

    "Freely-available alcohol has been a major boon for the country. Can you imagine how awesome things would be if heroin were legal and freely available? It's not like the "drug war" is working anyway. Hell, who wouldn't go for a couple of Klonopins and a little Meth chaser right now? Can you imagine how many smart people will be freed up to do useful work once we get rid of the need for pharmacists?"

    So, seriously, what are you saying?

    Really, we want to know. Some of us just don't have the faculties necessary to differentiate between snark, sarcasm, and an obviously altruistic desire to replace the chaos of modern life with a more ordered and obedient world.

    We realize now that we just don't know how to make a proper Crème Brûlée, and we are sick of eating all of this shit.

    Show us the way.

    Please!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Avi, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:34am

    I think everyone is saying roughly the same thing but coming at it from different perspectives so it seems like different tbi bs are being said. Let me see if I can distil:

    most "content consumers" like drug and alcohol consumers would rather get their stimulant of choice legally if it were easy to do so, and fairly priced.

    Prohibition and the current drug war have clearly demonstrated that NOT being able to get these desired items easily and cheaply will NOT lessen ones desire for them, but simply drive those people to other fulfilment channels, even ones that will cost more money and perhaps cause legal issues.

    Additionally, just like the repeal of prohibition allowed those who wished to imbibe to do so legally, safely and cost effectively, it simultaneously removed the criminal element, all the associated issues with having that criminal element, and allowed the government to be able to tax all the consumption as well.

    So it behooves all parties involved to come up with a easy,legal, cost effective way to get the content they want, so that it's a win all the way around.

    Hope that helps puts some perspecive to it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Michial Thompson, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:42am

    Re: Redbox is a joke

    Redbox is the low man on the pole... They have the smallest wallet and are the easiest target. If Hollywood can get lawsuits won against them they set the presidence for going after the bigger wallets.

    Basically Blockbuster and Netflix have much bigger budgets and can afford much more in the legal department. Hollywood knows that going after them is going to cost way more, and take way longer. So they take on redbox who cannot afford as much legal defense, they ware them down with bills, they go to court against a theoretically less tallented attorney and they get a judge/jury to side with them.

    Then they take that victory and go to court against block buster and netflix, site that judges ruling as presidence and have a better chance of winning against the bigger ones.

    Ever play chess? You go after the knights and bishops because they are lesser threats and easier targets, and still weeken the opponent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:44am

    Screw hollywood !

    Maybe I need to intall that p2p program again and start downloading!

    Asshats!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Paul, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:46am

    it makes sense

    Movie studios get 25 cents for every movie rented. They get 65 cents from video on demand. Hence if Netflix is paying 25 cents for a movie that the studio thinks we're going to pay $5.99 for on VOD (and get their 65 cent cut) then it makes every sense that they want to do this. What they forget is that unlike with cable or FOIS VOD, Netflix makes less money this way than with sending the envelopes out (as people use it more). In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the deal with Staz is under 25 cents under the arrangement Staz made with the studios.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    RD, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:52am

    Genius!

    "Streaming netflix is pretty much my last avenue I'm willing to put up with for watching crappy generic Hollywood movies. I refuse to get gouged at the theater or by paying $20 for a DVD I'll watch once. Renting movies from a store is a pain in the ass, and the whole "we might ship you the DVD you want to see" system is already getting old and busted.

    I would gladly pay upwards of $20 a month JUST for the streaming service from netflix on my PC and xbox, if they offered new releases."

    Completely agree with this. I just recently signed up and am using this through my xbox. It has COMPLETELY changed how I watch stuff. THIS is what I, as a consumer, want. $9 a month and I can watch a HUGE number of TV shows and movies, some shows are even current (Heroes for instance) even though there is a delay of about a week on the new eps. Still, its the right idea, and a good implementation. More and better variety of stuff would be the main thing to address, but the SYSTEM is awesome.

    Now, the greedy studios want to take away the ONE thing I use regularly. So guess what? I will stop using it. REMOVING options DOES NOT GIVE ME A REASON TO BUY. LIMITING this kind of thing wont make MORE people buy. I will take my business elsewhere (cable, perhaps) or do without. Others will as well, I'm sure. This kind of stupid, backwards, "lets provide something great then take it away" attitude will only serve to drive people away, or to file sharing. Idiots.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:59am

    If I have to wait too long, I lose enthusiasm because something better or fresher comes along.

    I bet they could sell more by offering DVDs in the theater for folks to buy on their way out while they are still hyped--let us pass in our stub for an inflated price on the DVD two weeks or a month before it hits the stores.

    By the time the month has passed, though, I realize how little interest I have in seeing that movie again because I am seeing something else now.

    The limit isn't our money but how much viewing opportunity we have. Some of us can earn piles more money, but everyone gets exactly the same amount of time: 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and in the end just one lifetime. How much of that allotment we want to spend on your movie is very much a decision in the now.

    Sales of luxuries are not like sales of necessities or water, in that damming them up won't necessarily make them flow elsewhere.
    These pencil pushers haven't figured out that sales in one channel will not necessarily translate to sales in another form, that sales postponed are likely sales denied, and that demand for their product isn't merely based on price. For something so easy to do without, the graph of cost vs price has to account for value vs time (as in the immediacy), value vs time (as in how much of my time you get), ease of acquisition, and even the quality of the playback vs the time required to use that form (as in, would I rather go to a movie screen or watch it on the train on my phone?) as well as perceived value of the experience not just the product.

    And the competition isn't just other movies. Would I rather raid tonight in my game world or watch The Big Bang Theory? Or is it time to take out the trash? So no time to go buy a DVD today or put my Netflix in the mail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    zellamayzao, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:07am

    Re: Genius!

    My wife and I dropped cable months ago in favor of an apple tv and massive amounts of movies and tv shows obtained through less respectful ways. Havent really looked back either. Would love for apple to install a browser if and when they update the appple tv again. That would make it an awesome little set top box. It can be done with hacks but apple support would be better.

    The hollywood companies think if they can make us hold out for a more limited format of a movie it will make us want it more. Actually it wont. I wanted to see Avatar in the theater for the experience of the movie. Not if its gonna cost me 26$ for two tickets for me and my wife. thats 6$ more than the sd dvd is gonna cost when it comes out 8 months from now. They dont have a clue what we as consumers want. They only think they know how to tell us what we want.

    Though I havent really said anything new than what everyone else here has said. But if we keep telling them what we want we may....just may get it in another generation or two.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Brad, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:12am

    hiding content: dumb idea

    There are only so many films, TV shows, etc., that I'm even initially interested enough to pursue. If, as in this example, the streaming choices tend toward zero--or, at least, zero features that I haven't already seen or for which I have no interest--then I'm not going to stream anything.

    Same goes for every medium: No DVDs on the shelf (virtual or otherwise) that I'm interested in? Forget it, I'm not hunting for 'em. No TV shows on that look interesting when I want to watch TV? Never mind, I'll find something else to do.

    It's not news on Techdirt that the entertainment industry is almost completely disconnected from its audience. This leads me to conclude that this must be another sector in which we are not the customers, merely the consumers.

    If we were the customers, why, the merchants would pay attention to what we want, and tailor their offerings thusly.

    It's obvious with TV & films: the studios sell/rent the media to TV affiliates/movie theaters. For TV, the customers are the advertisers (see also NEWSPAPERS for an explanation of why this is destined to fail). Films, well, I guess the studios get some cut of ticket prices, so there's at least a chance for them to rate consumer satisfaction, but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of their revenue comes from charging the theater to show the film.

    For DVDs and streaming media, I think they're just plain clueless. They might be able to turn the boat around if they'd eat their own dog food, but I don't see this happening, ever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    citizenj (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:21am

    Re: Avi & Genius!

    Avi-
    Spot on. cheers. However, the chances of the MAFIAA's seeing it that way are something akin to a snowball in hades.

    Zellamayzao & RD-
    Have you checked out the Vuze client yet? Yes, I love me some streaming netflix, but for those 'just don't get it streaming' hard to find things, try the torrents. and now that the studios are going to try and bust netflix, well, i'll be spending even more time in the dark dirty stinky back alleys of the intrawebs. thanks studios, i'm sure this is the intended consequence of your actions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:26am

    Re:

    *yawn*

    whatever man. no one really care about whatever stupid shit your spouting again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    zellamayzao, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:30am

    Re: Re: Avi & Genius!

    Im getting my stuff from a private site that im not allowed to talk about on other parts of the internet.

    First rule of fight club....you do not talk about fight club.
    Second rule of fight club...you do not talk about fight club.

    Using transmission to download them. Works great on a mac.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:41am

    Re:

    "Sales of luxuries are not like sales of necessities or water, in that damming them up won't necessarily make them flow elsewhere."

    I have to say that is the best point ever made on this site.

    Entertainment isn't necessary to survival, and therefore there won't be more "windows" if you block all the easy/cheap ones. People will decide that food and shelter is more important than "Generic Action Flick XVIII : The Actioniest." The main reason that movies made so much this year was that, in comparison to other entertainment options, movies (at a theater) are cheap. But if we get hit by another recession inside this one, I would say that frivolous entertainment (ie: Hollywood) will be hit harder than they ever have been.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:44am

    Re: Re: Avi & Genius!

    you know, Hades isn't hot like Hell is, right?
    Two different places from two different religions.
    ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Glenn, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 8:03am

    Dear Hollywood,

    If you want to kill interest in your product entirely, then, please, continue heading in the same direction as you have been. Give me what I want, the way I want it... or go away... or don't; either way, I'll just stop paying attention to anything you do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Valkor, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 8:07am

    Re: it makes sense

    Cite sources? Redbox pays 0 cents per rental to studios: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/10/hollywood-menaces-dvd-rental-kiosks

    The licensing fees for Netflix streaming video *has* to be less than $.65 or they'd go broke selling their lowest tier streaming service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Valkor, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 8:21am

    Re: what happened....

    I'll tell you what I think about Netflix: I just subscribed almost solely for the streaming aspect. In general, I don't give a crap about the newest, awesomest release, because I can't stand most of the dreck that gets produced these days. Netflix streaming is my long tail heaven. If Netflix loses streaming, it loses my subscription.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    zellamayzao (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 8:36am

    Re: Re: what happened....

    I never used netflix but my parents had it for a while and loved it. They used the mail order aspect of though dont think they ever tried the streaming side. Im pretty sure they canceled their subscription thought just on account of trying to save where they could.

    To take it off topic again....satellite radio has already gotten rid of their online streaming service that was included with your subscription. Now you have to sign up and pay extra for it. Not a huge fan. Plus with the government allowed merger to make it a monopoly they got rid of many good stations so I got rid of their service. People like to have options when they pay good money for a service. Companies cant understand that

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 9:33am

    Re: what happened....

    We went from streaming how hollywood doesnt want to reach customers by allowing netflix to stream movies into their homes making it more convenient for them to spend their money on this hollywood bull crap to regulating banks how that its bad for the economy.

    uhh streaming the regulations banks is netflix for the bad hollywood economy. it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. try to keep up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    GM TOYOTA FORD, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 1:01pm

    Robots at GM killed off jobs

    did we inflict copyright laws to protexct those workers ...NOPE we kicked them in hte head and said get over it , technology rules

    and in this case there argument should fall on deaf ears too.
    those displaced should go back to school and learn somehting else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 3:53pm

    Re: Doctor Strange

    I would have put the original comment differently:

    "Honestly at point do entertainment execs finally figur out that by purposely not making content available in the format people want it, they're on encouraging them" to forget the content and never view it as it becomes increasingly unimportant as other recreational activities complete for precious hours.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not entirely sure Anyone has the slightest clue what he's talking about

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:06pm

    Re: Re: Doctor Strange

    I'm going with 'both' to varying degrees. seems more likely. (wonder which actually looses them more sales?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    erlangga (profile), Dec 31st, 2009 @ 6:41pm

    happy new year

    happy new year for all, hope everything will goes up this year

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jan 1st, 2010 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Redbox is a joke

    I think Red Box is at least partly owned by McDonald's. Pockets don't get a whole lot deeper than that.

    Spelling Nazism: precedent (not presidence), wear (not ware), talented has an extra "l", cite (not site), weaken (not weeken).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    billeeto (profile), Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: it makes sense

    Valkor, I'd like to learn more about what studios and distros are making from streaming TV shows and movies via Amazon, AOL Video, Hulu, netflix and the like. you mentioned less than 65 cents, where are you getting that? Any links much appreciated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Robert, Jun 11th, 2010 @ 11:22am

    Re:

    "Excellent point. What other laws and practices should we change to better accommodate lawbreakers?"

    It is an excellent point, actually. You seem to feel that all laws are inherently just and good, and that is simply naive. Laws should be in place to protect those who cannot otherwise protect themselves. Unfortunately, many laws have been enacted which put consumers at the mercy of producers (in violation of free market principles, I might add).

    Music/TV/Film producers want to force consumers to pay multiple times for the same product, without ever actually gaining any ownership over that product. They want to limit when and where you can enjoy a product which you have paid money for, and they want to force you endure commercial advertisements throughout (thereby increasing their own profitability, again at your expense).

    Since they know that, given actual choice, the vast majority of consumers would go with a product which features fewer restrictions and more flexibility, they have purchased laws to take away that choice.

    So now, if you want music which will play on any device at any time, a TV show with little or no commercial interruption, or a film which does not require you to sit through 15 minutes of trailers and commercials before you're allowed to press play...you have to pirate it.

    If media companies would offer the product which consumers obviously want, at a price determined through market competition, they wouldn't suffer nearly as many "lost sales." Yes, you'd still have people taking a free ride...that has always happened and will continue to do so. And guess what? It is built into the cost of the product already. But regardless, most people, most of the time, are happy to do the right thing and to pay a reasonable fee for a good product.

    To hell with these huge corporations crying over making less than their accustomed billions, profits which were earned because of they had bought regulations preventing fair competition and consumer choice. They rail against any perceived regulation of their precious free market, but a market isn't free just because the consumers are regulated instead of the producers. Freedom goes both ways, or not at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This