Warner Bros., MGM, Universal Collectively Pull Nearly 2,000 Films From Netflix To Further Fragment The Online Movie Market

from the this-isn't-helping dept

Michael Carusi points us to the news that Warner Bros., MGM and Universal Studios have agreed to pull nearly 2,000 films from Netflix's library, in order to put them in the Warner Bros. Instant Archive. You may recall that Warner recently launched this archive, which is an incredibly overpriced and ridiculously limited offering. Apparently, they're trying to bolster the offering in part by hurting Netflix. As we've warned, this sort of fragmentation does little to help anyone. Consumers don't want to have multiple accounts for multiple services. They don't want to have to worry about whether or not a particular title is available in one place or another. And they certainly don't want movies to suddenly disappear from the service they had been already paying to get.

Everything about this move seems designed to piss people off, not provide them a better overall experience. Sure, Warner wants films for its own archive, but removing them from other services doesn't suddenly make people run gleefully to join their service. It just makes people annoyed and resentful of Warner Bros., which is exactly not the way to encourage people to sign up for their new service. In the article linked above, it noted that some people were having "marathon" viewings of some of the films about to disappear from Netflix. Note that they weren't planning to sign up for Warner's lame archive, but rather watch while they could on the service they chose. One of the key lessons from the past decade or so of internet content is that you need to make accessing your content as convenient as possible. And Hollywood's response is to do the opposite. Incredible.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 8:43am

    And when they fail...

    They'll just blame piracy, again.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:00am

      Re: And when they fail...

      They'll blame netflix, actually. And say that they are owed damages from Netflix's "harmful business practices"

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Zakida Paul (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:07am

        Re: Re: And when they fail...

        True but piracy will be just around the bend

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Davey, May 2nd, 2013 @ 5:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: And when they fail...

          They've just demolished the last possible argument against so-called piracy. I sympathize with their wanting to get paid, but this is all about controlling the market. Their idiot business plans deserve no protection at all.

          What we need are regulations that force them to distribute what they're selling to anyone who wants to buy, same price for everybody. All it would take is to quit letting the government enforce their non-existent "right" to control their product once they sell it.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 8:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: And when they fail...

          But piracy... heheheh

           

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

      •  
        icon
        DannyB (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:29am

        Re: Re: And when they fail...

        At least they won't be blaming bit torrent.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Zos (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:35am

        Re: Re: And when they fail...

        to be completely fair, if it disappears from netflix (and happens to be something i want to watch) my next step would be to pull it from the bay. so you're both right.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 3:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: And when they fail...

          >to be completely fair, if it disappears from netflix (and
          >happens to be something i want to watch) my next step would
          >be to pull it from the bay. so you're both right.


          So by that logic Warner's is actually encouraging Piracy by removing films from Neflix. Seems right. How long until they halve their prices or return their films to Netflix so they would actually make something from them.

           

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

      •  
        icon
        Khaim (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:50am

        Re: Harmful business practices

        To be fair to Warner Bros, Netflix's business model of "provide a useful product at a reasonable price" is incredibly harmful to their profits.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        crade (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:59am

        Re: Re: And when they fail...

        If you ask warner brothers, Netflix is piracy. Everything they don't like is piracy to them.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      anonymouse, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:55am

      Re: And when they fail...

      I think they realised a lot of people were turning away from piracy and using the services available, this is a problem for the copyright cartel. If Piracy goes down too much they cannot use it as an excuse to keep the system as it is and rape the content creators of as much money as they can.

      So sad that governments around the world don't stand up against them and demand they make their content available on all possible websites, encouraging more people to buy.

      Oh and in their control on their own website they can skim money off the top and nobody would be the wiser, with the likes of Hulu and Netflix eventually content creators would realise they are being stolen from, in a big way.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        crade (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:02am

        Re: Re: And when they fail...

        Keep the system as it is?
        Don't you mean constantly strive to make the law worse for everyone decent every chance they get?

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Falindraun (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:56am

      Re: And when they fail...

      and in fact may actually drive people to turn to piracy to watch the movies they want.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:21pm

        Re: Re: And when they fail...

        Which would give them leverage against politicians saying that there is less need for strenghtening copyright? Sometimes a loss of profit in the short term, is a huge bonus in the long term...
        It reminds me of fishers in Denmark mixing fish with paint to keep the prices artificially high because demand in the market hasn't been even close to met!

        Oh, good old times in the 00's. Artificial scarcity is a bitch to maintain, it appears.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:22pm

      Re: And when they fail...

      Amusingly Netflix decreased the movie piracy ratio. Now we may see a spike and they'll indeed blame these filthy pirates and not their sheer stupidity and greed. I'll just go without this time.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:01am

    You didn't mention the second part, that the pulled films are NOT going to be appearing on Warner Bros offering, at least not right away.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      anonymouse, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:00am

      Re:

      I w0onder if they realise that the likes of Amazon , netflix, hulu and others are starting to creat their own content using the profits from selling access to the content they have licensed , this is the real threat to them, that some group of businesses start creating better content than them, then there whole pack of cards fall down and they go bankrupt. and everyone celebrates.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Aerilus, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:03pm

        Re: Re:

        I am personally waiting for the day netflix sits down at a table with big content, where big content wants 200milllion for access to a series and netflix tells them they can make their own for 1/4 of that. maybe play on all the out of work artist and actors that are supposedly harmed by piracy to drive their production cost estimates down.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 2:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sounds like you're dreaming of the day when Netflix becomes big content too. Personally I'd like all content to be available to whatever service I want to pay for - not which one can strike the best deals.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Zos (profile), May 3rd, 2013 @ 4:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          that's reasonably similar to what happened with starz (and the reason i love netflix) starz wanted tiered pricing for netflix customers, netflix offered them an amount that was something like ten times higher than what they'd contracted for last time, but refused to play their game, then walked away from the table when starz held out for special pricing status.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Ed C., May 2nd, 2013 @ 3:15pm

        Re: Re:

        And this is why they keep raising licensing fees. They know by now that their internet-based competitors can distribute content far more efficiently with far lower cost. However, they can't compete directly with them because the profits are not high enough to buoy their legacy legacy business models and the bloated profit margins they'd become accustomed to. They simply cannot compete. So, they partner with a few internet companies, but continue raising the fees to keep them as sustainably unprofitable as possible and prevent them from gaining enough capital to compete with them directly by producing their own original content.

        In spite this, they still failed. Also, there is nothing stopping other companies from skipping the studios entirely and taking their content directly to competing internet services. This eventuality is what keeps the studio bosses awake at night. Or at least should. This current move is likely to not only keep a competitor like netflix back, but to keep their own creators beholden to them.

        It's only a matter of time before the studios lose the net--it's inevitable--and physical media is slowly going the way of the dodo. The last real refuge for the studios is legacy theater distribution, because it's the one market they can manage to squeeze smaller producers out. Sure, the market might be shrinking, mostly do to raising ticket prices, but I think the service of big screen exhibition will continue to be around in some incarnation or another and the media still glamorizes box office numbers over all other revenue.

         

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

  •  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:02am

    Great move Warner Bros. Now your plans are for the internet to be treated by the customer exactly like cable. The average customer hates having to pay over the nose for a package just for that one or two shows he likes to watch: the same goes for streamers: we don't like having to pay for multiple accounts just to get those shows we like to watch. Back when I paid for Megaupload accounts, I knew that I had access to everything, as long as somebody bothered uploading it.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:10am

      Re:

      Problem with their intentions here though is that unlike with television broadcasting, anyone can put up a website and put up what content they want. There's nothing physically stopping them from doing so, unlike with TV, where one must have, well, cable lines, broadcast towers and so on, before transmitting your own content. So of course, their legal monopoly means nothing to the average netizen.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:18am

      Re:

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:24am

        Re: Re:

        I honestly believe that PR line was written by someone at Warner and provided to Netflix.

        Unfortunately for Netflix, they don't produce enough content themselves to form a stand alone offering so they can't really come out and call Warner a bunch of assholes otherwise they risk losing more content.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          DannyB (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          > Unfortunately for Netflix, they don't produce enough
          > content themselves to form a stand alone offering . . .

          Yes, but things do tend to change over time. It's always gradual. You can't point to a single day and say that is when the web became a household word. There isn't one single day when micro computers became dominant over mainframes. There isn't one single day when Apple became evil, or when Microsoft no longer dictated to everyone, but I digress.

          These things happen gradually.

          At some point, new internet companies will produce enough content that they won't be beholden to dinosaurs who are stuck in the tarpit.

           

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

      •  
        icon
        akp (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:16am

        Re: Re:

        I really wish Netflix would add a search category for "expiring soon," so I could watch the stuff that's going away.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          DannyB (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          > I really wish Netflix would add a search category for
          > "expiring soon," so I could watch the stuff that's going away.

          That's a good idea. It is a shame that Netflix does not employ technology that allows them to read your mind to know of good ideas like this. Darn shame.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          lucidrenegade (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          This is what you're looking for:

          http://instantwatcher.com/titles/expiring

           

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

          •  
            icon
            jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 2:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Not very useful unless it's showing the movies in my queue. Netflix should add that feature.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Lily, May 3rd, 2013 @ 12:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Do you see how many titles that is? I'm bored already searching through box art of a few pages of that, even screening only titles with 3/5 N-stars and up. My husband uses instantwatcher, but I find it to be more or less worthless as it doesn't have enough search options or allow you to search with IMDb ratings. I just have the add on for chrome that tells you the IMDb rating on Netflix. The more Netflix can better itself or people can better the Netflix site with addons, the better. Instantwatcher is just not that great. Too many repeats to show multiple season of shows. And it lets me search year but not genre? How often do people think, "I would love to watch a(n expiring) movie made between '95-'97. That's what I am in the mood for."

             

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:36am

        Re: Re:

        Silly rabbit, facts aren't relevant on Techdirt.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Citation, please.

          Otherwise, you're just as a-factual as those you accuse of being without facts, laughing boy.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Silly rabbit, facts aren't relevant on Techdirt."

          Especially to idiot ACs like you, girl.

           

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

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
           
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 1:58pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Silly rabbit, facts aren't relevant on Techdirt.

          I guess Mike wasn't "doing journalism" on this one. That's OK though because the commentators can just correct his mistakes. That means there no duty on his part to put forth any effort in getting things right. But, whatever you do, be sure to give him all the deference you would a real journalist, though he can't be bothered to earn it. Makes sense to me. Hey, he was just stating an opinion, man.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:13pm

        Re: Re:

        Of course it was, Warner asked for all the riches of the world and when Netflix said we don't have it Warner just told them they couldn't have it.

        And so politely Netflix dropped the issue since they could not pay that amount.

        In the process they are not burning the bridge so in the future who knows maybe Warner starts to get more reasonable (not likely LoL)

        Meanwhile, piracy starts to look very very sexy.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:31pm

        Re: Re:

        I wouldn't necessarily say it sounds like a voluntary move.

        To me it sounds more like them wanting to keep a good tone when negotiating future rights with these companies.
        The reason to not burn bridges is likely an expectance of the new service tanking fast or them having other content from the respective companies...

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 1:38pm

        Re: Re:

        It sounds both normal and unfortunate; after all, it makes sense that a license to have content on Netflix would have a time duration - so if the contract isn't renewed by either party, content would go away.

        With that said, I don't read that quote as voluntary on Netflix's part. It sounds like "this is happening, so we are putting the best face possible on it, whether or not we wanted it to happen". If anything, it sounds like they are trying to not burn any bridges over something they didn't desire, but can't change.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:03am

    as politicians and governments cant wait to do something else to assist the entertainment industries in remaining in the 'dark ages' rather than trying to get them to move their ancient arses into the digital age, what are they going to do now? if these same politicians cant see that the industries are not doing anything to help anyone other than themselves, in fact, are doing as much as possible to hinder other services, the bribes they are getting must have turned them blind as well as stupid! this is a disgraceful move designed to do nothing other than screw over other businesses and, as stated, really piss off as many customers as possible. i wouldn't join a service that is prepared to pull the plug on a service as quickly as this. you would never know whether you had a tech problem so couldn't get the service or whether it had been turned off!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Doug D, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:07am

    Boy howdy, am I glad that most of their content sucks...

     

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

  •  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:09am

    Thanks Warners. I'm pissed!

    As suspected, they'd like to kill Netflix and totally own the distribution chain. Looks like it's 1948 all over again.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      ChurchHatesTucker (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:07am

      Re: Thanks Warners. I'm pissed!

      Except that the chances of getting an antitrust suit from the gov't this time around are nonexistent.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 2:13pm

        Re: Re: Thanks Warners. I'm pissed!

        Depends on how abusive they get with their monopolies - but the studios had a good 20-30 year run with it the first time.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      docy, Aug 10th, 2013 @ 12:57am

      Re: Thanks Warners. I'm pissed!

      yah they said 3 ninjas is gonna play 2day en they chose another movie

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:11am

    Until licensing laws are updated, this will continue to be an issue. The entire content distribution industry is set up to protect monopolies and increase profits (for distributors, NOT creators). This is wrong.

    True artists do not create their work for money. They create work for the love of the creative process and the sense of satisfaction they receive when they create something people enjoy.

    Culture is NOT a product to be bought and sold or locked away in a vault, people. It is something to be shared and enjoyed by as many people as possible.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:39am

      Re:

      True artists also have to buy food and pay rent. You know this, but like to pretend it's not an issue.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:44am

        Re: Re:

        And they can do this by getting jobs, like the rest of us. I don't go crying to the government to make sure everybody else pays my rent and other bills, all because I starred in a movie ten years ago. In order for me to get money today to pay today's bills, I have to do work TODAY.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:44am

        ???

        What does that have to do with anything that he's talking about in regards to culture?

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:40pm

        Re: Re:

        "True artists also have to buy food and pay rent. You know this, but like to pretend it's not an issue."

        And Warners, Universal, and MGM pulling LEGALLY-AVAILABLE content is going to feed those artists how, girl?

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:40pm

        Re: Re:

        True artists are not full-time artists in his speculation.

        The issue of compensation to cover food and rent are entirely irrelevant unless you have presumption that you need professional artists.

        Not saying that his vision couldn't involve professional artists either. It is just not with the current revenue streams...

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:28pm

        Re: Re:

        True artists also have to buy food and pay rent.

        Absolutely true, and I hope more artists end up figuring out how to buy food and pay rent from their art alone. Everyone wants to see the artists that they like succeed, and I'm no different (not least because I personally know a few of those artists).

        But whatever they figure out, it will not involve idiotic moves like this one. How sad it is that the "true artists" have no say in this decision whatsoever.

         

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

  •  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:11am

    You're partially right. This is to piss people off. But they're not going to get pissed at Warner. They're going to get pissed at Netflix. The average person is terrible at following causal chains. Nor are they likely to realize it's Warner pulling it's movies without going looking for it. They'll just see "Netflix used to give me this movie, now it doesn't. Netflix sucks."

    Warner wants to drive people out of VOD entirely by ruining their trust that it will continue to provide value.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:15am

      Re:

      Actually they want people to sign up with MPAA controlled services like Hulu so they can effectively shut out indie and foreign films - something Netflix embraces.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Zakida Paul (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:17am

        Re: Re:

        I hope Netflix can produce more exclusive content on par with the excellent House of Cards because that would be a nice two finger salute to the MPAA and their minions.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:23am

          Re: Re: Re:

          But that's the same problem in reverse. Exclusive content is exclusive, and content needs to be made available on every platform before any real competition can occur.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Zakida Paul (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            True, if the legacy industry won't change their ways, I would like to see them beat at their own game. Maybe then they could see the merits of updating their business model.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Imagine if the only movie theatres in your town that could show Iron Man 3 were AMC theatres. That's how it used to be before the government forced the studios to give up the exhibition business in 1948. Streaming is the same thing all over again.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:51pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I am pretty sure that most governments are far too timid to go through an anti-trust lawsuit on something they don't understand. If you want to change this, you need to reduce the copyright-holders control of content which would create another world of whining from content industries.

                Even worse: If you look at TV-rights it is basically the same game. Exclusive rights to series and films exist in that environment, so it would be a complete non-sequitor to demand a change just because it is happening online and in the eyes of the public!

                 

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          They don't necessarily have to produce it. They just have to offer a way for the Indies to get in. Now it's a question of 'Do the Indies have the quality content that Netflix customers might want?"' and how brave...err omniscient...err non-judgmental...err open, yes that's it. open to testing new contributors.

          To some degree, Netflix has little to lose if they create some kind of pay for view starter promotion for creators. Then watch demand for future funding opportunities.

          Next, if someone, Netflix maybe, can take such a business model to the tipping point, where consumers feel there might be a fifty-fifty choice between one or the other, the other(s) being MPAA types.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Jay (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            There are new producers already coming out from the machinima makers to places like Blip TV.

            If Netflix wanted to reach out to the indies, they have a LOT of options and could indeed do well in their financing of new content.

            Personally, telling the studios to take a hike while promoting up and comers would really make Netflix more valuable and leave the studios looking lost in their efforts to fight piracy AND create a better alternative than Netflix.

             

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

    •  
      icon
      Zakida Paul (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:15am

      Re:

      You are right. There is a thread on the Amazon forums blaming Amazon for how pathetic their Love Film library is compared to Prime in the US. I have advised where the true blame lies (licensing) and I will be trolling the Internet for people blaming Netflix and politely pointing the blame where it should be.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Atkray (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:24am

      Re:

      And Netflix can blame only Netflix. When they started they walked into Walmart and bought DVDs to rent. If they had continued to purchase their product and then rent it they would own all their movies. Instead the decided to make a deal with the studios to lower costs(completely understandable) and now are at the mercy of the studios.

      I realize this doesn't address the streaming but I believe that had Netflix not gotten into agreements with the studios they would have better alternatives than they now face. I wish them luck with their original content, it is all that can save them.

      You can't negotiate with terrorists.

      or

      You can't argue with a sick mind.

      Pick one, either applies to the studios.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:26am

        Re: Re:

        You can still get a lot of those movies via DVD or Bluray from Netflix. You just can't stream them.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 7:14pm

        Re: Re:

        I realize this doesn't address the streaming but I believe that had Netflix not gotten into agreements with the studios they would have better alternatives than they now face.

        You think they would be better off if they had not done any streaming until now? Because they can't stream without licensing.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Khaim (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:55am

      Re: Average people

      Arsik, the average person can't even spell "causal chain".

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:28am

      Response to: Arsik Vek on May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:11am

      actually VOD works well, this just people to the muddly but free versions.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Robert, May 3rd, 2013 @ 10:54am

      Re:

      This is all about limiting offerings to see if people can be forced to consume what is left available at inflated prices.
      All content competes, if you have 10,000 movies to choose from the reduces the price that can be charged, if you have only 10 to choose from they think they can charge 10 times as much.
      So they will rotate which movies are available at any particular time and only make them available at inflate prices.
      Of course this fails because there is the internet which allows global choice in content.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:13am

    "Everything about this move seems designed to piss people off, not provide them a better overall experience"

    This is all about control, actually. This move is designed to obliterate the competition, not by being better, but by abusing the monopoly position.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      anonymouse, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:20am

      Re:

      Maybe this is the time that the likes of Amazon and Netflix and Huu and all the other smaller content distributors took this to the highest court and demanded that the monopoly be removed as it is destroying the entertainment industry, fragmenting it and causing an unfair advantage to the few organizations that buy content from the creators and refuse to allow it to be distributed to everyone at a reasonable price. With the size of Google and Amazon alone they could probably resolve the monopoly problem, but with hundreds of sites coming forward and showing how the industry as it is destroyed them on purpose i am sure a judge and jury would find the studios in the wrong and force them to distribute for 1 tenth the cost that they are charging now.

      Not beign funny but there could be a much bigger investment into the entertainement industry if the monopoly was destroyed once and for all.

       

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:46am

        Re: Re:

        There is no monopoly. Nothing is stopping you from making a movie and licensing it to any or all of the streaming services.

        Oh, but you say these companies have all the content you want? That's because they have knowledge and experience in such creations, and ventured capital up front as an investment in that content, believing it was desirable and would return its investment.

        Is so funny when you people pretend to not know the obvious.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          AC Unknown, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Shut up, troll. We know you love the MPAA and RIAA. Why not go to one of their blogs and shout to them how much you love them and their philosophy?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "ventured capital up front as an investment"

          Which strangely is being more or less guaranteed by the government through a legal monopoly. That's funny, I thought this was supposed to be a free market?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "There is no monopoly."

          The monopoly is called copyright which lasts Death + 70 years, is held mostly by corporations, doesn't allow derivative works, doesn't allow the public to remix and create relevant content, doesn't want anything but more money and screws the artists, actors, and physical labor union types out of their jobs by giving them a paltry sum while the pipeline revenue is given to the director and main actors in most cases.

          "Nothing is stopping you from making a movie and licensing it to any or all of the streaming services."

          Except access to film techniques, writers of quality story lines, lack of focus in public education on business arrangements, more money given to the studio heads than writers to create independent works, and less minimal income projects that could free people up to pursue better interests than a minimum wage job that barely pays the bills.

          "That's because they have knowledge and experience in such creations, and ventured capital up front as an investment in that content, believing it was desirable and would return its investment."

          Wrong. The "knowledge" of the studio heads is in how to manipulate artists to sign rights away and give them everything for nothing in return. You get $5 million from Iron Man as an extra? Well, Robert Downey got $50 million as one of the main draws. Yet he also gets royalties and added stipulations while as an extra you have to find your next movie meal ticket.

          The experience learned is in how to exploit your fellow man instead of creating movies for added benefit of society.

          And the ventured capital? Not a good investment long term for most people. Even then, the Hollywood Accounting done gives a larger return on investment than the initial loan in hurting the public while giving them no copyrights, no way to remix or any options in how they want to see a movie.

          So please, spare the disingenuous arguments.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "So please, spare the disingenuous arguments."

            That's all they have. Well, apart from the seemingly endless supply of toddler tantrums and strawmen.

             

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

        •  
          icon
          Rapnel (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hey look! Nothing can stop me from infringing either. Funny how that works. You favor pumped up penis and I just favor good service.

          Obvious is obvious - the entertainment cartel will fuck the world for a nickel and you're just a hop-along whore. Well done.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Lowestofthekeys (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 1:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "That's because they have knowledge and experience in such creations, and ventured capital up front as an investment in that content, believing it was desirable and would return its investment."

          So that's why they made 6 Fast and Furious movies.

          You also left out the part about them throwing money at politicians, that makes keeping their investments in tact consistent despite undermining the system of law.

           

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

      •  
        icon
        jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 2:21pm

        Re: Re:

        It happened before with movie theatres, and it can happen again if the only services offering streaming films are owned by the studios like Hulu and Warner Archives.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:50am

      Re:

      " This move is designed to obliterate the competition, not by being better, but by abusing the monopoly position."

      But a monopoly position is extremely fragile. Sure, these studios have a lot of money from various projects and act like financial bankers. But they can't control the public, which is why they're doomed to fail. Publishers are eventually uprooted by their own greed, which even Adam Smith recognized in his discussions in "Wealth of Nations".

      The government's job is to protect the public and unfortunately, it's too corrupted to do so. The public is too weak to fight against the threats of a mergeance of corporations and state powers but it can mobilize to fight these issues and push back.

      Eventually, I'm sure that copyright will be defeated, but getting to that process and slogging through it will be very difficult until people understand what it actually is they're fighting against (their civil liberties and freedom of choice).

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:21am

    What we need is an content aggrigator, I put in my login/credentials for all the services I have access too, then when I want to watch a movie, it finds it on one of the services and plays it without bothering me for the work of finding out who has it. I bet that'd piss them off real good... :D

     

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

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:24am

      Re:

      Google Fiber apparently offers a service just like this.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:54am

      Re:

      That wouldn't address people like myself. The number of memberships/logins isn't the main issue for me -- total cost is. I'm unwilling to pay more than around $20/mo total to watch TV or movies. There's nothing out there that's worth more than that.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Lord Binky, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:46am

        Re: Re:

        While that seems perfectly reasonable to me, I have a feeling the media companies cannot comprehend that you even exist.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Lily, May 3rd, 2013 @ 2:25pm

        Re: Re:

        Oh I agree. I am cool with 20 bucks a month to watch movies and tv shows, but I will not go above that. Either they shut up and take my money, or I will keep my money and keep doing what I'm doing. Right now Netflix has my 8 bucks a month and I feel it's worth it, but I'm not going to spend 8 bucks per site for 5 sites. 8 bucks is 1 hour of work for me and many Americans, and life necessities have to come first. If I suddenly could make 60k a year, yes, I would have money to spend more on entertainment... heck, I could travel every year and have kids. Ya know, live a decent life. They don't want me to have that though, they just want to sue people like me so I have nothing.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Atkray (profile), May 4th, 2013 @ 12:19pm

        Re: Re:

        Not being that keen on movies I went with Amazon so I can get stuff shipped faster and watch Red Dwarf. Consequently, because I was bored and it was there, I watched Iron Man 2 and Ghost Protocol. 2 movies I never would have watched otherwise.

        It was convenient and involved no additional cost (mental or monetary).

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Brandon Rinebold, May 3rd, 2013 @ 7:34am

      Re:

      Unfortunately, the terms of service for most of these services explicitly prevents other people from doing something like throwing up netflix content in an iframe. Each of these services wants their website, whole and unfiltered, to be the sole source for their content.

      They do have legitimate concerns here with people providing poor service wrapped around netflix causing people to feel like netflix is to blame for that other service not working well or companies trying to rebrand netflix but I think they could be a bit more flexible.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Paul Reinheimer, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:21am

    Blame Netflix too!

    You seem to put a lot of blame on Warner Bros, and not on Netflix. In various interviews the netflix people have talked about how they want exclusive deals on content[1]. If Warner Bros was looking to increase the availability of their content (rather than giving netflix a monopoly) they'd have to drop them, thanks to netflix's desire for exclusivity.



    [1] http://mashable.com/2013/04/30/netflix-streamageddon-2013/

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Lord Binky, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:24am

      Re: Blame Netflix too!

      I don't see how it is reasonable they pay the same amount they were for exclusive access for non-exclusive access. Content companies way over-value their offerings.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:30am

      Re: Blame Netflix too!

      Netflix is just trying to give an excuse without calling out Warner Bros. behavior. The problem with monopolies is that once someone has complete control over something they can make outrageous demands. The problem with Hollywood is that all the studios are not only monopolies but they are also an illegal trust that collaborates to control the entire industry.

      If Netflix called out Warner Bros. behavior they would find the cold shoulder at all future negotiations with the major studios.

       

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:49am

        Re: Re: Blame Netflix too!

        Yeah sure, Netflix is secretly making themselves look bad in order to help Warner's look good. Uh huh.

        You're a fucking idiot like everyone else here.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          AC Unknown, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:52am

          Re: Re: Re: Blame Netflix too!

          Same to you, troll.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Rapnel (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:35pm

          Re: Re: Re: Blame Netflix too!

          Right about now is when I, for one, certainly hope that it's some of your copyrights that are the ones being infringed upon. Apart from that you're just another anonymous cunt with about as much relevancy as, well, nothing. Oh, and you're still a pussy, pussy.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 1:03pm

          Re: Re: Re: Blame Netflix too!

          "You're a fucking idiot like everyone else here."

          Ouch, but hilarious that you would waste your time arguing with idiots.

          I guess it's a birds of a feather situation.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 1:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: Blame Netflix too!

          You're a fucking idiot like everyone else here.

          You are aware that you are also here and are included in everyone right?

          Your inability to get the irony actually makes your statement a proof of your statement.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:15pm

      Re: Blame Netflix too!

      You are complaining that a company wants monopoly powers from a monopoly?

      I wonder why that happens.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:21am

    The stupid! It burns!

    It's hard to say more than that about something so self-destructive. Making your customers hate you is NOT good business practice.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:25am

    Story sounds twisted

    I seem to recall reading this was mostly due to Netflix wanting exclusive contracts. When the current license expired, the studios no longer wanted to give Netflix exclusive license to their movies.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:33am

      Re: Story sounds twisted

      I've already responded to two similar statements above.

      TL;DR: Warner probably told Netflix to use this excuse. Netflix is just trying not to bite the hand that provides the content.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:26am

    I expect that this WB archive is DRMed? One DRMed service switched to another - nothing interesting. When will DRM free alternatives for video services arrive?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Aarrrg, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:13pm

      Re:

      DRM free archives of every movie ever made already exist, the services have been available for some time now and people enjoy using them every day.

      Oh, I suppose you mean legally... I'm guessing that will never happen.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), May 3rd, 2013 @ 12:00am

      Re:

      If the archive is streaming, then it probably will be. As is Netflix's streaming.

      DRM is odious, but its presence on streaming services is a minor problem. DRM is bad largely because it is usually present on purchased material. It's there on legally purchased content trying to control how you use it. With streaming, however, you're only ever renting the content, so I don't personally have an issue with its presence there apart from the fact that it restricts which platforms you can use to view it.

      Judging by the fact that Hollywood seems obsessed with retreading every move (and every mistake) the music industry made, I'd say we'll see DRM-free purchased video by the end of the decade. But don't hold me to that...

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 6:57pm

      Response to: Shmerl on May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:26am

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    gnudist, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:30am

    Terrible move if they really are against filesharing

    By only having limited selection on netflix-like services the next most convenient source for a wide library of titles is torrent sites and the like

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:32am

    I subscribe to HBO, and simply cannot begin to express my level of despair that it does not host Showtime, Starz, etc. programs. I want a simple and single place to watch everything.

    BTW, I own a Mazda, and it ticks me off to no end that I cannot go to non-Mazda dealerships to get if repaired with OEM parts. This is so inconvenient...

     

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

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:38am

      Re:

      You do have a simple and single place to watch everything. It's called your cable company.

      What if a new cable company started up in your town, but HBO wouldn't let people subscribe through the new service? You might think that was unfair.

      Not that you'd ever see such competition in the cable business.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 1:21pm

        Re: Re:

        It is basically what is called "program packages". If you pay 40$ for one package and 30$ for the other, you can see both.

        HBO cannot force you not to buy another program package, but they sure as beep wont offer you the other companys program you W.

        Same for the online market: If you want the "program package" from HBO, you pay 15-20$ for an HBO subscription to watch everything they have license to. If you want the

        In Netflix's package you pay 8$ for their current back-catalogue.

        If you want the oldschoolers "program package", you go to their site and pay about 10$ + pray that the content you want is up this rotation...

         

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

        •  
          icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 2:01pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          But we're in the world of the infinite.

          You're applying a cable TV mentality to the internet and it doesn't work.

          Program packages are fine for scheduled television when there are only 24 hours in a day to fill with programming. You have to pick and choose what programming you're going to license and schedule - you pick what you think a customer will pay for.

          But in the world of the infinite, there are no schedules to fill, no screens in theatres, no limited video store shelf space. There are no limitations on how many movies your service can offer except maybe hard drive space - but that's almost a non-issue.

          We know HBO has to churn through content to keeps its offerings fresh. Nobody complains when they stop showing something to show something else, because that's how their business operates. The internet doesn't work that way at all.

          Which is why this whole game of licensing content and then removing it from streaming services is a joke, and why customers are understandably furious. It's not cable TV. It's the internet. We know the content is there and available, but we aren't able to see it because of company politics and licensing negotiations - nothing to do with satisfying the desires of the customers or the limitations that other delivery systems face.

          I'll say it again. It's not cable TV. It's the internet.

          Not to mention the only thing keeping pirates at bay are great services like Netflix. They're just shooting themselves in the foot.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Lily, May 3rd, 2013 @ 2:49pm

        Re: Re:

        what do you mean the cable company provides all content? Since when? Even if I bought the most expensive cable package from my local monopoly cable provider for like 500 bucks a month, I still wouldn't be able to watch all shows or movies that I want. It would be what they and the channels chose to give me as always. And much of that would be things I never watch, like Sports. Right now I pay for the smallest cable package because internet and tv is cheaper than just internet, for some stupid reason, so I have cable that I don't even watch, and if I tried, they dont even have the channels I thought were basic. I seriously only watch a little bit of local tv in the morning ( if any) and then go online for everything else. And I don't care if I have to wait a week to watch something If I can watch it for free.

        The might as well take my 20 bucks a month, I would offer them, if they just let me watch anything I want. Stop trying to choose for me. I don't want to watch American Idol and The Doctors, I want to watch full seasons of my choice tv shows over a couple days. I want to be able to watch the Seinfeld episode I want to watch, not the 2 you aired today. They think they should have control over what we see and hear, and that's not right. I have control over my life. I DO.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:43am

      Re:

      The amount of fuck in this comparison is just mindblowing....

      Apples and Fried Bananas, dork.

      Actually...Even in a car analogy, I get to test drive the damn thing before I plunk down any cash.

      Dork.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:48am

      Re:

      I know, right?

      Can you imagine how confusing those new fangled supermarkets are to me? I mean, I can buy like a hundred different brands of beer in there.

      Not to mention that I can buy my cheese in the same place where I buy my beer.

      It's madness! Complete and utter madness!

      /end nutcase rant

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymouse, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:30am

      Re:

      What?

      Ok i can understand that you dont want to have to register with Amazon Prime and Hulu and Netflix and Nokia Movies and Google movies and Hbo and Sky movies and all the others distributing their own little bit of the pie, it is just crazy to think anyone would register and pay a few hundred dollars a month just to get the shows they really enjoy watching once a week.

      But what is this about Mazda and oem parts etc, don't understand where this comes in. With physical products normally the original manufacturer has better quality manufacturing, but you can get poorly made parts for your car from other manufacturers, but even pointing this out to you i actually don't know why i am.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Lily, May 3rd, 2013 @ 2:55pm

        Re: Re:

        maybe he means his warranty doesn't allow this. I know my friend has a car that stopsw working on the freeway because the computer inside is glitchy, but the car company wont fix it because they can't see the problem with their diagnostic software. She can't really do anything but get a new car or void the warranty. They are supposed to pay for the repair but they wont repair it. So many companies suck. I'm glad my car doesn't have a computer in it.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), May 3rd, 2013 @ 3:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          She can't really do anything but get a new car or void the warranty.

          I believe it is illegal to refuse to honor a warranty because of third party repairs or service. Your friend should do some research on it if she hasn't already.

           

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

  •  
    icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:36am

    and so..

    they wonder why people pirate movies and wonder how to stop it....

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Old Fool (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:40am

    OOH ARRR.

    Time to cancel my subscription I guess, don my Pirate hat and get back to downloading again... sigh..

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:45am

      Re: OOH ARRR.

      I had actually been paying for Netflix AND HULU. Now I'm back to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't need no stinkin' content.

      Well, after Iron Man 3, that is....

       

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

      •  
        icon
        akp (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:26am

        Re: Re: OOH ARRR.

        I can't abide paying for Hulu. If I'm paying, I shouldn't have to watch ads.

        Also, I really hate how nearly every show on Hulu has some different "window" of watching. If I'm paying, don't ever show me "clips," only full episodes. If I'm paying, *always* show me back seasons as well as all the episodes from this season.

        The one month I tried it, I got extremely annoyed with "you can only watch the revolving last x episodes of show y, but you can watch ALL of show z."

        Instead, we have the non-pay Hulu streaming through XBMC with the ads stripped out. Best Daily Show/Colbert experience ever.

        If it became "Hulu for TV, Netflix for movies, no ads on either" each at ~$10/mo with no blackout of TV content (old episodes, all current season) I'd subscribe to both and never look back.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          anonymouse, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:41am

          Re: Re: Re: OOH ARRR.

          Seriously i would make a list of all the tv shows i have but i dont think spending an hour doing so would be a valuable use of my time. I have 4 seasons of Dexter ready to watch in 720p and i have 2 seasons of all the csi shows to watch 1 season of NCIS LA and a few seasons of other shows. All together i have probably got around 150 season of good quality tv shows to watch, plus the shows that i have been watching i have a buffer of at least 5 shows to watch.

          Then i have a 2 tb hard drive full of SD movies ripped from either DVD or Bluray perfect quality for my 42" tv.

          I have enough content that i don't need to ever switch a tv on again, or at least for a good few years.

          The thing is that i like to watch stuff and chat about it online i like to discuss with people what is going on and the possibilities and how exciting some parts were, like the game of thrones. some parts of that show are so phenomenally good, some of the best parts of entertainment i have ever watched in a long time.

          I would suggest that the tv stations quickly resolve this mess they have caused and get content available for everyone at free pricing. Cos if they don't it will not be long before the movie and Tv arena will go the same way as music went, where people have so much stuff available to them to watch that they just stop downloading totally, i don't know how long ago it was that i last downloaded music i have so much i could listen to a new track every minute of every day for the rest of my life. If people get to this point with movies and tv the whole system as it is could collapse virtually overnight.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Simple Mind (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 2:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: OOH ARRR.

          Hulu revolving windows are the stupidest invention of all time. It makes me use the service less. Is that what it is for? Is that what they want? Else why keep doing that? Studies must show that it makes people use Hulu less. They must!

           

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

          •  
            icon
            jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 5:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH ARRR.

            Studies show that it keeps people subscribed to cable, and they're happy with that. The goal is to reduce dependence on piracy without upsetting the cable TV gravy train. The whole thing is a joke on us. The only solution is to abandon cable en masse.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Lily, May 3rd, 2013 @ 3:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH ARRR.

              oh I would if my internet/tv package wasn't cheaper than my former internet package. I always encourage friends and family not to pay for cable, unless the intro package is better than one's existing internet price.

              Cable needs to die or change. If they charged $ 1 a channel per month, and let me choose my channels and change from from month to month based on whether I am enjoying the content, I, and many people would be fine with that. If I was rich, I could pay more, but like most Americans, I am poor, and I for one refuse to throw the money I have for food/shelter over to the cable companies so they will stop threatening to sue my fellow poor people. Maybe they can take away the little bit of entertainment I can scrounge for online, but they can't force me to pay them 100 bucks a month for crap I don't even want.

               

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

  •  
    identicon
    Josh Gree, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:42am

    This is borderline sick

    Just thought i'd through my 2 cents in and say this is really a tragedy what a company will do to hurt another one. The company I support is great and they actually HELP other companies and add to their instead of taking away. We’re at about a year of “DEPENDING” on DNS Services. After using lower-end services that claimed to have higher traffic caps than they did, I made the switch to DNS and have been really impressed. Check them out dnssvc.com

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Rich, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:49am

    This is why I still purchased DVDs even though everyone laughed at me for not "going digital."

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Rich, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:51am

      Re:

      FYI: and I do have Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu accounts, plus two Rokus and a WD TV Live. But I still prefer DVDs.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:56am

      Re:

      Just remind everyone who laughs that DVDs are, in fact, digital.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Rich, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:03am

        Re: Re:

        Yes, you are preaching to the choir.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:05am

        Re: Re:

        Ok, I just tested this by flinging a DVD into my co-worker's head. His loud complaints and threatening fist motions suggest with nearly 100% certainty that DVDs are, in fact, physical, not digital.

        It was single layer, though. Once I regain the element of surprise I will try it with a double-layer and see if the result holds.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think that perhaps you don't understand what "digital" means... all digital anything is carried on a physical medium.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Rich, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sigh. I don't know this notion that digital means ephemeral came from. The different between digital and analog have NOTHING to do with whether or not something is a physical object. The Recording on the DVD is a digital one, as are CDs. They are no less digital than a downloaded file. By contrast, cassettes and laser discs are analog.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Rikuo (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "as are CDs."
            You might want to tell the artist formerly but is probably now known as but I don't care really, Prince, since to him, anything digital messes with your head...which would logically include his music CDs.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            nasch (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 7:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The different between digital and analog have NOTHING to do with whether or not something is a physical object. The Recording on the DVD is a digital one, as are CDs.

            If you want to get really pedantic, the DVD is neither digital nor analog, it's a physical thing that holds a digital recording. But that kind of pedantry makes one unpopular at parties I hear. ;-)

             

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

  •  
    identicon
    Greggore, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:50am

    Back to ......

    I used to love the idea of having digital movies. Avi or Divx,Xvid codec files could be easily played on any computer and connected to your TV. Keep a library small in size but big in content. DVD's were also fine as I could buy the DVD, then rip it to be an AVI file on my PC too for other formats.

    Now portable media is Digitally locked, so ripping a Blue Ray or DVD is not possible for most average joes\janes.

    Along comes services like iTunes where you can buy movies, but are completely restricted to using Apple products (which by the way suck when run on PC's). Can not burn to DVD or port to anything else. "Monopoly" and really against Copyright laws (until recently). There are a slew of other companies (Rovi etc) that do the exact same thing but more and more restrictive.

    Services like Netflix was a great idea, but again the movie companies make it horrible as you don't know when a movie will be available or not. This happens in other services too like Amazons, where you can purchase a movie, but if you lose it you might not be able to buy it again....

    which leads up to this supposed "licensing" from the Movie companies under the belief that people are "buying" a movie. Again, you are limited to what you can do and how long you can watch it...that sounds like renting to me, but hey, Corporate America likes to change the meaning of words all the time.

    What's next? who Fucking know! I don't watch movies on phones, totally ridiculous and I certainly wouldn't PAY for it... then we'll have them on watches too.

    Really for me it's back to the best alternative. Downloading or purchasing the DVD when the prices are right.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymo, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:02am

    Warner Archive Instant Official Statement

    Just want to point you to what the official statement from Warner Archive Instant on this issue....

    https://www.facebook.com/warnerarchive/posts/10151641114891563

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:08am

    MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:

    MIKE YET AGAIN DIDN'T READ ALL:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/04/30/netflix_queue_to_become_netflix_list_maybe_al so_many_movies_no_longer_streaming.html

    "* Correction, May 1, 1:07 p.m.: This post previously stated that these titles would become exclusively available on Warner Archive Instant. A spokesperson for Warner Bros. tells Slate that the films being removed from Netflix’s streaming service do not belong to Warner Bros."

    HA! And Mike blames Warner Brothers! THIS is the kind of reporting you get here at Techdirt!

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:16am

      Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:

      Don't worry Blue, he won't respond much like how you never respond to anyone who points out the flaws in your statements.

       

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:52am

        Re: Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:

        And of course ootb's truth gets censored here on the zoo board. Typical.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 1:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:

          Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the Waaaambulance.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 1:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:

          At this point, OOTB could come up with a scientific formula for clean energy that is 100% guaranteed to work and it would still end up hidden out of hand by the Techdirt community: not out of malice, but because OOTB has done everything he can to earn a reputation as a liar and a madman. So what if Mike didn't read something important: OOTB has admitted in the past to doing the same, therefore he can't call someone else out on it.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 5:17pm

          Re: Re: Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:

          This coming from the average_jackass that insisted that he never reads out_of_the_lube's posts. And now he's lube boy's shining defender in white.

          When are you going to stop lying and debate me about Prenda, jackass? y u no debate mi?

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:18am

      Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:

      Compared to the amount of mistakes and errors that you have posted on this site (which is still far way out number more than Mike!!!) you are in no position to point the finger.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:19am

      Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:

      "MIKE YET AGAIN DIDN'T READ ALL"

      This, coming from the guy who has confessed, on multiple occasions no less, to NEVER reading the articles he vomits all over?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      anonymouse, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:56am

      Re: MISTAKEN MIKE'S MASSIVE FAIL:

      Actually because of the mess of who is who it is right to say they removed titles, mgm is mgm i am not interested if it is their international arm or local arm or they have created a new business to avoided taxes or paying royalties or whatever, they are all linked together and so Mike was relatively correct in his assessment of the issue. Trying to mix it all up by selling your licensing to various business you have created to make it difficult to track copyright is something that has been going on for a long time, nobody really cares other than those that lose their royalty payments

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:09am

    I'll be sure to keep supporting Netflix regardless of how many studios pull their movies.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:16am

    All I want...

    ...is Steam for Movies. Why is this so difficult for the Internet backwater of Hollywood to get?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:16am

    Okay, can someone more enlightened than me explain exactly why this isn't antitrust collusive behaviour?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      anonymouse, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:58am

      Re:

      Because the studios sell their licenses to subsidiaries they own then sort of get away with it, but there time is coming i believe. There are some really big players out there with a hell of a lot of money, It just takes some of them organizing and getting together and resolving this monopoly mess to stop this nonsense.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 1:01pm

      Re:

      It's amazing what you can get away with when you contribute millions to political campaigns on a yearly basis...

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 1:56pm

      Re:

      Okay, can someone more enlightened than me explain exactly why this isn't antitrust collusive behaviour?

      Sure, but first explain exactly what you think the antitrust violation is. Price fixing? Group boycott? Market division? Tying? Spell it out for me.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Casey, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:27am

    Netflix

    It has already been established Netflix pulled these films. One of their deals expired with Epix so they pulled the titles. This is a daily occurrence in the licensing world. It has nothing to do with Warner's new service.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    PVR, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:29am

    Piss off the Dubya-Bee

    During those marathon movie sessions I'd play those movies through a connected PVR and record it through the analog loophole...

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:35am

      Re: Piss off the Dubya-Bee

      One word (well, an acronym really)

      SOC.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:36am

        Re: Re: Piss off the Dubya-Bee

        And yes, I know that SOC is only for broadcast TV but considering the mindset of those who pushed for it, I wouldn't expect for them to demand that Netflix stop functioning if you're watching through a VGA cable and not DVI or HDMI.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Piss of the Dubya-Bee, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:42am

          Re: Re: Re: Piss off the Dubya-Bee

          There's no way to defeat the analog loophole... It doesn't work through an HDMI cable, but does work through component cable... Won't work through aPC, but with a PS3 or Xbox 360 it'll work...

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Rikuo (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Piss off the Dubya-Bee

            Which is a damn shame, because with HDCP, it's the copyright industry dictating to the tech industry and its customers what hardware we're allowed buy. I wouldn't be surprised that if someone were to design a HDMI cable that didn't include support for HDCP (or bypassed it while allowing picture/sound through), they would be sued out of existence. So we have no choice but to buy cables that won't allow us to record game footage at 1080p.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              PVR, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piss off the Dubya-Bee

              Tell me about it... my cable company *cough* Time Warner Cable *cough* used to support set top boxes that allowed for component output... unfortunately I'm stuck with their "service", and the box I'm currently saddled with only works theough HDMI with no component out... Fortunately, gaming consoles support component cables, plus current gen consoles can use the component cables from the prior generation... PS2 component cables (not RCA) work on the PS3...

               

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

  •  
    identicon
    Digitari, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:51am

    RE: you were warned back in the 60's

    Warner Bro's warned EVERYONE back in the 60's, are you all too young to remember Daffy Duck?

    well now in the 21st century Daffy is in charge

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjB9jlDvUNM

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Theoden, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:58am

    RE: you were warned back in the 60's

    Daffy doesn't come into his own until the 24th 1/2 Century!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:00pm

    If Netflix only had 1 movie that I could stream, and that movie was already in the public domain and I could watch it elsewhere for free, I'd still subscribe to Netflix because of what they're trying to do, and the awesomeness at which they do it.


    All this means to me is I won't be watching movies from Warner Bros., MGM & Universal.


    Can't watch *Insert Movie Name Part 1* via Netflix well guess what, when the sequel comes out in the theatre, I won't be going to see that either, because you pulled part 1 from Netflix.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:42pm

    Let's all look on the brightside, here - at least they're taking down their Carlos Mencia drivel.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 12:43pm

    Would it really be so difficult to leave it on Netflix bring it over to your own platform, reduce the cost slightly ti give yourself the advantage (and have another stream of income) while adding MORE titles?

    Are they really this nearsighted?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Simple Mind (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 2:49pm

    open letter to movie studios

    No video is must-have. If it isn't on netflix chances are pretty good I am not watching it. So if you want me to watch your stuff, put it on nflx. My Q is already long, so it will need to get in-line. You should be working to get me to eyeball your junk, not making it harder for me. You are doing a great job of making yourself irrelevant.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 5:26pm

      Re: open letter to movie studios

      The best thing an indie film can do these days to promote themselves is say "It's on Netflix"

      Makes it pretty easy to check it out.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Arrrrrrrr!, May 2nd, 2013 @ 7:22pm

    Meanwhile, everything's just dandy on the pirate ship...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Mitch, May 2nd, 2013 @ 7:22pm

    You used complete logic to prove your point.. best article in a while !

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 9:35pm

    Always so negative on this site.
    It makes total sense for WB films to be delivered to viewers by a WB property, its no different to how WB films are shown in WB cinemas. Just because its 'on the internet' doesn't change anything important like that.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 9:57pm

    greedy fucks

    fuck you warner bros, suck a dick
    fucking greedy fucks

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Phil, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:12pm

    I already resented Warner

    I resented Warner when they wouldn't allow their shows like the Mentalist to be shown on cbs.com. You could watch all the other CBS shows for a couple weeks, but not a single full episode of any Warner owned shows. Why? Because they just don't get it.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Tom, May 2nd, 2013 @ 10:47pm

    So, they want me to just download the torrent. OK, can do.

    Subject pretty much says it all. I'm certainly not going to subscribe to a Warner streaming service.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:08pm

    Compulsory Licensing

    Would be nice if they started Compulsory Licensing (like they do music for Radio) on all movies for streaming services. They could make it so CL kicks in when the movie is 1 or 2 years old. This would give the Studios time to sell all of the Blu-Rays they can. Usually after a year or two those Blu-Rays are in the 7.99 or 5.99 Bins anyways. So they have already ran that horse into the ground. If this was started then there could be REAL competition in streaming services. Yes that could be bad for Netflix, but could be awesome for consumers.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), May 2nd, 2013 @ 11:33pm

      Re: Compulsory Licensing

      What's good for Netflix should never be an issue. It should always be about what's good for the customer (the public). Right now, Netflix is good for the customer, but that may not always be the case.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Angry Voter, May 3rd, 2013 @ 12:37am

    Later they will beg to be let back in

    Just like they had to with Apple.

    Netflix should offer progressively worse deals to the companies so that the first one back makes the most and the last one back makes the least.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 3rd, 2013 @ 2:01am

    At least they can't pull it off torrent trackers. They'll just push customers back to piracy, and lose their licensing income.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Wandspiegel, May 3rd, 2013 @ 2:04am

    Lucky Guy

    Great move Warner Bros. Now your plans are for the internet to be treated by the customer exactly like cable. It's amazing what you can get away with when you contribute millions to political campaigns on a yearly basis...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 3rd, 2013 @ 8:39am

    to heck with warner brothers and MGM I don't want to watch their films anyway

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 3rd, 2013 @ 8:40am

    I wouldn't even want to pirate their crappy movies

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 3rd, 2013 @ 9:23am

    Who wants to watch their productions anyway?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Pat Warren, May 3rd, 2013 @ 1:39pm

    Pulling movies from Netflix

    So sorry that corporate greed has deprived the American people
    of old wonderful movies.

    I will NOT go to Warner's site, EVER

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    tpb, May 3rd, 2013 @ 2:39pm

    good news

    the good news is that all of the movies are still available in high def format on the free bittorrent service.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 4th, 2013 @ 2:14pm

    Still no support for Linux? FAIL.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    DarthDiggler, May 8th, 2013 @ 2:41pm

    Netflix removes (and adds) movies all the time...

    Netflix removes and adds movies all the time.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Cyber Killer, May 13th, 2013 @ 4:40am

    EA and games

    Electronic Arts did a similar thing when they launched their games store (Origin) - they pulled many of their games from Steam, and they do not publish nearly any new games there.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    John, May 15th, 2013 @ 2:06am

    Congratulations WB, MGM, and Universal

    For finally pushing many more into the piracy scene...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    daniel hicks, Jun 12th, 2013 @ 5:27pm

    netflix

    i have netflix and been a member since almost day one in canada i really enjoy it and hope that the warner brothers forgive netflix and start to bring back some of the movies to netflix again

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Don Martin, Aug 2nd, 2013 @ 10:31am

    Warner Streaming Content Sucks By Itself

    Frankly Warner as a stand alone service just plain sucks at $9.99 per month. Netflix was no award winner with a collection consisting of way too many old and lousy movi8es, but for the kids at Warner to think the4y can cut out the middle men and serve up their old junk alone? Oh Please. The service is a joke.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    gm, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 3:45pm

    DANCING IN THE STREET

    I FOR ONE WILL NEVER GIVE NETFLIX THE SATISFACTION OF HAVING MY BUSINESS SO I AM EXTREMELY HAPPY YOU IGNORANT BAFFOONS HAD THIS TAKEN AWAY. NOW IF TV NETWORKS WOULD ONLY CATCH ON TO WHAT WARNER BROS. IS DOING AND DO THE SAME TO NOT ONLY NETFLIX,HULU,CRACKLE, ALL THE STREAMING NEEDS TO DIE, I'D RATHER PAY FOR CABLE WITH THE EXTRA CHANNELS MAYBE YOUR ARSES WILL LEARN TO APPRECIATE CABLE TOO OR MAYBE YOUR TOO STUPID TO LEARN NEW STUFF.

     

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


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