Netflix And Infringement Called Out During Australian Copyright Forum, But One Major Studio Admits Windowed Releases Are Stupid
from the don't-overlook-the-self-inflicted-wounds dept
Being a good Australian means waiting weeks or months for movies or software and then paying an exorbitant amount for them. It took all the way until 2013 for the Australian government to finally allow its adult gamers to buy games for adults, after years of deciding that if the content was too harsh for the (government’s idea of a) 15-year-old’s sensibilities, then no one could have it.
All sorts of IP-reform discussions by rights holders and government reps have taken place over the last several months. Not included (much): the public, which is expected to purchase content and abide by the new rules, whatever they end up being. The foremost subject is still piracy, despite the fact that the business model(s) suck. (See also: the Australian Tax.)
And it’s still what’s on everyone’s minds, at least indirectly. ZDNet reports on some interesting comments from the Online Copyright Infringement Forum recently held in Sydney, Australia. But at least there’s some admission that the business model is at least part of the problem.
First off, Foxtel CEO Richard Freudenstein complained about Netflix.
The US streaming-video giant is rumoured to be launching in Australia in 2015, and ZDNet has reported that the company is already negotiating with content owners to obtain rights for the content that would be in the Netflix library should it launch in Australia.
Until then, the common industry wisdom is that roughly 200,000 Australians are currently subscribed to Netflix, using virtual private network services to make their IP address appear in the US to get around the geoblock, while paying for the service using Australian credit cards and entering in a US post code when signing up for the account.
This would seem to be an encouraging sign: Australians are going out of their way to pay for content. But that’s not how Freudenstein sees it.
Freudenstein, whose company owns the licences for much of the content that Netflix would want to include in its library for an Australian launch — including Netflix’s own shows Orange is the New Black and House of Cards — told ZDNet after the forum that Netflix has no right to be selling services to Australians without the rights agreements in place.
“I’m opposed because Netflix doesn’t have the rights to sell those shows in Australia,” he said.
“It’s a contractual issue. We have the rights to those shows in this country, Netflix is not paying for those shows in this country, they shouldn’t be able to show them.”
While this may be a legitimate gripe, it only further highlights the convoluted travesty that is international rights management. It’s not enough to get the OK from parent companies. You have to haggle with every other intermediary between your service and the end users.
On the plus side, Freudenstein at least sees this as a rights holder problem rather than a government problem, saying that rights holders need to pressure Netflix and its illicit users, rather than seek a legislative remedy. But that’s only as far as Netflix is concerned. Rather than allow the content industry to handle with its own distribution shortcomings, Freudenstein thinks this area needs more government attention.
Freudenstein said that shows like Game of Thrones are played on Foxtel within two hours of airing in the US, but that such responses aren’t enough; the government needs to step in and encourage ISPs to help reduce copyright infringement in Australia.
“If we sit and wait, and we don’t introduce some schemes soon, there won’t be an industry,” he said.
He also said this, which puts him squarely on the other side of the divide between the rights holders and their intended audience.
“There will be a lot more cats on skateboards; we’ll have a lot less Game of Thrones.”
Because only major companies make anything worth watching, listening to, etc. Belittling the creative efforts of others is a terrible way to create interest in your own. Those representing legacy industries continue to pretend there’s a massive gap in quality between their output and the general public’s. They ignore how quickly that gap has closed in recent years and how that trend will only continue. So, they create a false dichotomy in order to talk legislators and gullible members of the public into siding with the plan to turn ISPs into copyright police: it’s either Game of Thrones or cat videos. There’s no middle ground.
More positively, Village Roadshow’s co-CEO Graham Burke stepped up to admit his company had badly mishandled distribution of one of last year’s biggest blockbusters.
Burke admitted last night that the delayed release of The Lego Movie in Australia after the release in the United States to coincide with the school holidays was a mistake.
“We made one hell of a mistake with Lego. It was an Australian film, we financed it together with Warner Brothers, it was made here in King’s Cross. Because it was so important, we held it for a holiday period; it was a disaster,” he said.
“It caused it to be pirated very widely, and as a consequence — no more. Our policy going forward is that all of our movies we will release day and date with the United States.”
Better distribution won’t eliminate piracy but it can put a dent in it. Comments delivered at this forum by Spotify indicated that the introduction of its service resulted in a 20% drop in file sharing. The (official) introduction of Netflix should have the same sort of effect. Simultaneous worldwide releases will also chip away at infringement.
The problem is that the rights holders pushing for government intervention have unrealistic aspirations. They want something closer to a complete elimination of copyright infringement, something that will never, ever be possible no matter how draconian the legislation. They’re unwilling to accept a reality where a certain amount of infringement will always occur and that business models that decrease piracy will never carry the same margin as selling individual plastic discs.
Filed Under: australia, copyright, graham burke, infringement, windowed releases, windows
Companies: netflix, village roadshow
Comments on “Netflix And Infringement Called Out During Australian Copyright Forum, But One Major Studio Admits Windowed Releases Are Stupid”
What can I say
Our need trumps their greed.
They don’t even realize they’ve been beaten, they seem to think they have a choice , If they don’t update their dated business model everything they create will continue to be uploaded , sounds harsh but it’s reality, Time they come to terms with it.
“”There will be a lot more cats on skateboards; we’ll have a lot less Game of Thrones.””
In other words, a lot more amateur videos and a lot less corporate produced content.
Ironic thing is, that is precisely what I want to watch more of. I watch the odd movie and TV series sure (last one I watched was Battlestar Galactica) but on the whole, the vast majority of things that I watch are done on the amateur level. I watch abridged anime, I watch Youtube reviews, I watch Atheist Experience. Basically, shows produced with a bare minimum of people involved.
Oh, and Game of Thrones? Haven’t watched it, and I highly doubt I ever will.
Re: Re:
I have to agree. I watch far more content on Youtube than I do anything else. There’s generally 5 or 6 different Yogscast series I watch daily and those often run 10~ minutes apiece. Plus a bunch of other channels I’m subscribed to.
While I do watch cable shows, I have more than twice as much time spent watching Youtube videos.
I watched Season 1 of Game of Thrones but I couldn’t keep interest in it so I haven’t watched any of the other seasons nor do I plan to.
Re: Re:
So say we all!
Youtube idea!: Game of Thrones remade completely with skateboard cats! I call dibs!
Re: Re:
If the cat’s are nekid, I am all for it.
oh no a parasitic middle man isn’t going to get his cut for doing nothing. They will have to find some other way to scam people.
Re: Re:
“They will have to find some other way to scam people.”
You’re not too far off the mark. Why else would Fraudenstein use the word “schemes” rather than business models?
Re: Re: Re:
Scheme is a lot less negative in en-GB than in en-US.
There is a cure to being able to get it on Netflix and not at home. It’s already been touched on; the windowed release. So why is it that the hype isn’t also windowed so that expectations aren’t elevated?
Then no one in this article has addressed the Aussie tax. Wonder why that is? Could it possibly be greed?
There is a 100% way to end piracy if that is what they are worried about. Don’t release it and it won’t be pirated. The cure is in the hands of the makers. Short of that, making it easy to get, reasonably priced, and no hassle to obtain would cure a lot of this issue. That’s something else no one is talking about. It’s the usual myopic one sided conversation that has only two conversationalists; the government and the middle men. Despite what both want to believe, unless the public is involved and buys into it, it will never work.
Re: Re:
So why is it that the hype isn’t also windowed so that expectations aren’t elevated?
Because the Australians already know about the internet.
Made up
“There will be a lot more cats on skateboards; we’ll have a lot less Game of Thrones.”
Personally I prefer cats on skateboards, it’s more real. I’m fed up with this made up stuff.
O M F F S M, it is like watching a baby take its first steps.
They finally might have grasped that the way they do business, CAUSES the issue.
That perhaps creating a 2yr gap (or more) in getting content to people who already had it spoiled online, might drive them to find “alternative” ways to get the content before the offical window. That perhaps 26 million (give or take) consumers MIGHT be a market worth some consideration rather than treated as the boil on the ass of the planet who gets things when they are damn well good and ready to send them there.
Maybe next they will understand that charging them more just because they are the descendants of criminals is wrong.
Then they might figure out they no longer have to pay to shanghai a crew to sail the galleon laden with old content through the sea monster infested waters to get it there.
People actually pirated the Lego movie?
Really? It’s a 100-minute commercial and people actually took the time and trouble to pirate it?
The aggregate intelligence level is dropping even faster than I feared.
Re: People actually pirated the Lego movie?
Well some people weren’t going to go PAY to see a 100-minute Lego commercial.
Re: Re: People actually pirated the Lego movie?
Speak of the Devil. The Lego Movie is at the top of my Netflix DVD queue. As soon as my current batch of spinny disks make it back to the mothership, this movie will be sent to me.
“Payment avoidance” and all perfectly legal.
Re: People actually pirated the Lego movie?
I saw it in the cinema with a friend (who begged me to go) and then downloaded it for the little ones.
Re: People actually pirated the Lego movie?
Saw it in the theatre and loved it! Came home to find out the DVD/BR wasn’t available yet and so I downloaded it.
Haven’t come round to picking up the boxed version because it’s – honestly – way to overpriced right now. Maybe in a couple of months or so, when the price drops to something resembling sanity.
Yeah, “geographical releasewindows” were not the only big mistake with this movie…
Those representing legacy industries continue to pretend there’s a massive gap in quality between their output and the general public’s. They ignore how quickly that gap has closed in recent years and how that trend will only continue.
Someone ought to show them Star Trek Continues, which I ran across over the weekend…
Re: Re:
Hey, thank you for sharing Mason Wheeler. I’m gonna take a look at this. What few moments I saw of it is totally different yet interesting.
Much appreciated!
It's never about the money, it's always about the control
Until then, the common industry wisdom is that roughly 200,000 Australians are currently subscribed to Netflix, using virtual private network services to make their IP address appear in the US to get around the geoblock, while paying for the service using Australian credit cards and entering in a US post code when signing up for the account.
People are paying for Netflix, and yet he’s still complaining, because they’re not paying the ‘correct’ way(ignoring for the moment that the ‘correct’ way isn’t even available yet). Would he have preferred they not be paying for Netflix at all? I’m sure that would be great for the profits, people not paying, or watching, or talking about the shows/movies…
Re: It's never about the money, it's always about the control
People are paying for Netflix, and yet he’s still complaining, because they’re not paying the ‘correct’ way(ignoring for the moment that the ‘correct’ way isn’t even available yet). Would he have preferred they not be paying for Netflix at all?
That’s the only way to read it. He doesn’t want them to pirate it, and he doesn’t want them to pay for Netflix until he’s ready, so he wants them to just sit and wait for the movies to be released on DVD in Australia.
Re: It's never about the money, it's always about the control
Because the middlemen have created hundreds more middlemen who need their cut of each market.
This idea worked in an age when we could not instantly move content around the globe, but we can now.
They need to get clearance from 100’s of rights groups for each region, work out deals with all of the local providers for VOD, then maybe they will allow it to get into the marketplace.
Of course by then its already been found via alternative means, and the US stream might pay a few cents less than they get of an OZ stream so its a crime.
Isn't GoT profitable?
I don’t understand – while I have never seen it (or cared to), I was under the impression that GoT was profitable. If we have a profitable show (or anything), why would someone not produce it?
Re: Isn't GoT profitable?
Because the show itself isn’t. Remember that, including merchandise, Cars is Disney’s biggest revenue stream. I’m pretty sure it’s safe to assume that that’s the case with GoT.
Re: Re: Isn't GoT profitable?
Any numbers to back that up?
Re: Re: Re: Isn't GoT profitable?
Only Hollywood ones… in those GoT has lost more than the GDP of the US and EU combined…
Re: Isn't GoT profitable?
I don’t understand – while I have never seen it (or cared to), I was under the impression that GoT was profitable. If we have a profitable show (or anything), why would someone not produce it?
It’s the same crap they’ve been shoveling for years. People like him have been predicting the utter collapse of the creative industries since the days of the cassette tape, and probably earlier. The continuing healthy profits seem to make them forget about the past predictions.
Re: Re: Isn't GoT profitable?
Hollywood especially loves making sequels. The way I look at it is that if a movie gets one, then the previous one had to have been plenty profitable no matter what Hollywood’s creative accounting department says.
Evolve or die. Those in the music industry was shown what happens when you don’t years ago. Visual media will learn as well. If you know where you’re going, you won’t be left behind.
Re: Re:
They were shown what happens, but how well have they adapted to meet the changes? How many still push the ideas of windowed releases, geolocked releases, noticeably different prices depending on where you are, and other customer-hostile ideas?
It’s not enough to get the OK from parent companies. You have to haggle with every other intermediary between your service and the end users.
You have a failure to understand the situation. If the rights holders sold worldwide rights, there wouldn’t be an issue. However, most companies (like Netflix) don’t want to do that, they want to pick and choose and save their pennies. So they refuse to pay what other companies in Australia are willing to pay for the rights, so they don’t have them and can’t sell in that market.
It’s pretty basic stuff.
There is no simple solution to this either. The value to the rights holder to sell “per country” is much higher than a global deal, and the risk is that someone who buys the worldwide rights may not address all markets. Will Netflix as an example translate each movie into the dozens (if not hundreds) of different local languages? Will they subtitle? Will they meet local regulations in regards to ratings, distribution, marketing materials, and so on?
Unless the countries as a whole get together and agree to a simple set of standards for things like rating movies, distribution requirements, and so on… you will never see it work out.
Windowed releases are just a side product, essentially trying to get the price point down to where the local distributor can afford to pay.
Re: Re:
“However, most companies (like Netflix) don’t want to do that”
You honestly think that it’s NETFLIX who are restricting this regionally? Not the rights holders? You think it’s the company that has no problem letting you access its service from any country it services as long as you’re a subscriber, without penalty or restriction, not the companies who built their distribution and licensing models on regional restrictions? You think it’s the company that’s negotiating rights to every country it can globally, not the ones whose very business model is built on handing rights out piecemeal?
No wonder you’re wrong all the time. You’re literally basing your opinions on a mirror image of reality.
“Will Netflix as an example translate each movie into the dozens (if not hundreds) of different local languages?”
Do they need to? Most countries do not have a restriction on the language a film can be released in. Especially countries like Australia, who can happily accept a movie in English, for obvious reasons, yet are unnecessarily restricted.
I’ve heard these kinds of excuses before. They’re as weak as they have always been. They were weak when people were legally importing DVDs from other regions and bypassing idiotic restrictions in the 90s. They’re not only weak now, but an indication that the industry is making the same mistakes 2 years later, but trying to blame the consumer rather than their own failure.
“Unless the countries as a whole get together”
…and, of course, wave away blame. It’s not the poor studios with their outdated business models based on realities that no longer exist. it’s the fault of all those countries making our lives difficult!
Here’s a hint: global licensing doesn’t mean you have to release globally at the same time. It just means that people can do so with the minimum of issues, especially 3rd party providers. If extra work has to be done in one country to translate and another to censor then so be it. But, the industry needs to stop basing itself upon the idea that its paying customers need to be artificially restricted from viewing the film when all they wish to do is view it in the original form & language.
Re: Re: Re:
Also note the glossing over of the fact that any “regional” laws that do restrict these things are a direct result of industry bri… uh, lobbying
Re: Re: Re:
You honestly think that it’s NETFLIX who are restricting this regionally?
No. I didn’t say that at all. What I am saying is that Netflix only buys the rights to regions it markets in, and does not pay or attempt to obtain rights for areas it does not directly serve. As a result, those rights are sold to others.
It’s why Netflix in Canada as an example doesn’t have all of the movies it has in the US – those rights have been sold to others, Netflix either didn’t offer enough, didn’t offer anything, or were late to the party and the studios / distribution companies have already signed exclusive deals with others.
Regional splits just means that Netflix (and others) only buy the rights for the areas they are in. The Australian rights holder have likely only paid for that region.
Most countries do not have a restriction on the language a film can be released in. Especially countries like Australia, who can happily accept a movie in English, for obvious reasons, yet are unnecessarily restricted.
the point was only that if Netflix worked to get world wide rights, they may be obligated to do that in order to profit from those rights – which makes it less desirable for them to try.
It’s not the poor studios with their outdated business models based on realities that no longer exist.
Hold on a frigging moment. The studios are to blame, IN PART. However, local regulation, govenrment “make work” programs that require local distributors, local “censorship” reviews, and all the like are true obstacles.
Australia? They have one of the worst, it seems:
http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/Home.aspx
You can go look at things like the review process, the ratings system, box marking requirements… the list goes on and on. That’s for something relatively simple english to english no translation and no sub titles required.
global licensing doesn’t mean you have to release globally at the same time.
Yes, but what that would mean is that the control of the distribution would be out of the hands of the studio and into the hands of a single third party who may choose to do things that are not as good for the marketing of the movie (and all the “reason to buy” things like t-shirts and other items).
the industry needs to stop basing itself upon the idea that its paying customers need to be artificially restricted from viewing the film when all they wish to do is view it in the original form & language.
You can go argue with the governments of the various countries who don’t let this happen. You quite simply cannot have a single version of the movie available in all countries in a single language in one shot, at least not easily.
You make it sound like the studios don’t want to make money. NOthing could be further from the truth, how do you think they pay for hookers and blow? 😉
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hollywood accounting and artificially jacking up the prices of their content, but you already knew that.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but what that would mean is that the control of the distribution would be out of the hands of the studio and into the hands of a single third party who may choose to do things that are not as good for the marketing of the movie (and all the “reason to buy” things like t-shirts and other items).
Are you trying to suggest that Netflix would buy exclusive worldwide distribution rights?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Are you trying to suggest that Netflix would buy exclusive worldwide distribution rights?
No, I am suggesting they may buy exclusive digital distribution rights, or at least “streaming” rights. The existing deals between Netflix and the studios in the US seem to be structured in that sort of a manner. Since digital / streaming distribution is growing, it could very well end up being signing over the vast majority of the “post theater” revenue stream.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, I am suggesting they may buy exclusive digital distribution rights, or at least “streaming” rights. The existing deals between Netflix and the studios in the US seem to be structured in that sort of a manner.
They seem to be, or they actually are? Because I just quickly found several titles available for streaming on Netflix and also other services.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Funny. I can name some titles that are not available in the US and available elsewhere. I can also name numerous titles that are available on numerous streaming titles, with Netflix having nothing like an exclusive. In fact, the only truly exclusive content I can think of on Netflix is their own produced content… unlike, say, Hulu (which has exclusive rights to the Criterion catalogue) and studios like WB (which openly refuse to license some titles, partially in favour of their own services and partly to try to encourage physical media).
Is this where we get a citation for your bare faced lies, or are you just going to whine and hide again?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Is this where we get a citation for your bare faced lies, or are you just going to whine and hide again?
Usually when he’s shown to be categorically wrong, he just doesn’t reply.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Apparently so. I just like to nudge a bit, to make sure casual lurkers don’t mistake his words as a realistic or truthful viewpoint.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I just like to nudge a bit, to make sure casual lurkers don’t mistake his words as a realistic or truthful viewpoint.
Carry on, it’s an important work.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Actually, Netflix wouldn’t want an exclusive contract because they love healthy competition, unlike your corporate masters, who abhor it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“No. I didn’t say that at all.”
So your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension extends to your own words, as directly quoted? That all we need to know, really.
“It’s why Netflix in Canada as an example doesn’t have all of the movies it has in the US – those rights have been sold to others, Netflix either didn’t offer enough, didn’t offer anything, or were late to the party and the studios / distribution companies have already signed exclusive deals with others.”
So, you have evidence that this is the case, rather than the rights holders refusing to accept at any price, charging massively more than the US or otherwise not giving Netflix an equivalent deal despite their best efforts?
Citations, dickhead. Use them.
“the point was only that if Netflix worked to get world wide rights, they may be obligated to do that in order to profit from those rights”
Are you actually this stupid? The entire point is that Netflix are not offered these rights, no matter what, because of the legacy setup of the industry. I’ll bet that netflix would take these rights instantly, if they were on the table in the first place. If the price wasn’t fatal to them instantly, of course, but you defend the assholes in the music industry who try to strangle music services as well, I’ll wager.
“Yes, but what that would mean is that the control of the distribution would be out of the hands of the studio”
..and what does sublicensing all control and revenue to a 3rd party, as happens now, achieve? Are you actually saying that having direct control over different markets would give them less direct control than selling everything to company X for region Y? Please explain.
“The studios are to blame, IN PART. However, local regulation, govenrment “make work” programs that require local distributors, local “censorship” reviews, and all the like are true obstacles.”
Your poor reading comprehension leads you into a fiction yet again.
I did not say they have no culpability. I said that this has nothing to do with the studio refusal to offer a global licence. Netflix could have the licence for Australia but release in 50 other territories while getting permission for Australia. This would make things exponentially easier, no matter how you spin it.
Address reality, or shut the hell up because you’re addressing a fantasy.
“You make it sound like the studios don’t want to make money.”
They want control. It’s demonstrably true that they’ll accept lower revenue if they have greater control. I’m sorry if the real argument is beyond your ignorant ability to understand. But, again, you’re addressing a work of fiction.
Re: Re:
If the rights holders sold worldwide rights, there wouldn’t be an issue. However, most companies (like Netflix) don’t want to do that, they want to pick and choose and save their pennies.
Not too surprising, but you’re looking at this in the same way as you’re looking at the net neutrality debate. Of course the rights holder has the right to set the price in whatever way they see fit, but we really REALLY wish that they would realise how much money they are leaving on the table by doing so.
It’s incredibly frustrating to watch them wasting all their time and money fighting scarecrows with their wooden swords while we’re trying our hardest to get them to take our money. It’s small wonder that some of us give up and go to the shady guy in the corner for any kind of service.
So they refuse to pay what other companies in Australia are willing to pay for the rights, so they don’t have them and can’t sell in that market.
I think this is interesting, because it parallels the pricing disagreements in the Amazon/Hachette dispute, except the rights-holder in this instance is actually choosing not to sell through the distributer.
Of course, if it were a simple case that other companies had the rights and offered legal options to view the content, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Content in Australia (books, movies, games) is beset by windowing delays and huge markups.
Will they meet local regulations in regards to ratings, distribution, marketing materials, and so on?
This is probably more of a problem. If the content isn’t licensed in a particular country, then it can’t be made available for sale in that country. Then again, small enterprises seem to be able to release window-free content, and it doesn’t seem to bother YouTube at all, so I’d prefer to see this barrier drop for big content, too.
It took all the way until 2013 for the Australian government to finally allow its adult gamers to buy games for adults
Hey, you may think that legislation is slow down here, but it took less than two years for at least one state to consider banning them again!
“We have the rights to those shows in this country, Netflix is not paying for those shows in this country, they shouldn’t be able to show them.”
In other words – even though this entire setup is based around lying to Netflix about which country the end user is viewing from, we’ll blame Netflix for not making it more difficult or being more psychic. Not our outdated business model that creates the problem in the first place, and depends on blocking paying customers as if this will never be a issue for them.
Bonus points for the implied ignorance of the fact that travellers from a country where they are allowed to watch without restriction are blocked from viewing content under this model. It’s not just Australians who resort to lying about their zip code who are affected.
“Until then, the common industry wisdom is that roughly 200,000 Australians are currently subscribed to Netflix”
This should be the lesson. Despite the service not being available in the country, 200,000 Australians are paying for content rather than pirating. Who are willing to pay *more* for Netflix services than Americans, since they have to pay the cost of the VPN service on top of that standard subscription.
But, this is wrong, because the studios have built a system that depends on geographical location to work out who gets the money. So, people are paying, but this practice should still be outlawed because the studios can’t work out who to give the money to. But, if Netflix want to offer their service in an acceptable way, it’s up to them to work out who those people are and ask them for permission individually. Ditto for any other service who wishes to compete. God forbid the studios should bring their licensing into line with reality.
If this isn’t a massive indication of a broken system,, I’m not sure what is.
Re: Re:
But, this is wrong, because the studios have built a system that depends on geographical location to work out who gets the money.
This is the wrong bit, IMO. The distributor gets a cut, any royalties are paid out (that shouldn’t depend on the region), the creator gets the rest. Why is that hard?
I guess it’s harder with whale math.
Greed excludes logic.... its why the richer you are the dumber you are.
Primal lust always wins over the civilized mind.
Netflix true crime series Narcos spurs huge demand for Colombian women.
Produced by Netflix, the show “Narcos” takes on the infamous Medellin drug cartel which follows the rise and fall of Colombian kingpin Pablo Escobar and the Drug Enforcement Agency agents hunting him. The story is told largely from the points of view of Escobar (Brazilian actor Wagner Moura) and U.S. DEA Agent Steve Murphy (Boyd Holbrook), on opposite sides of what would become an all-out war.
Many critics of true crime dramas have always complained they are promoting crime and violence by glorification, an unintended consequence of American entertainment industries. These shows can have other interesting Netflix true crime series Narcos spurs huge demand for Colombian women.
Pconsequences. The Foreign Bride industry has seen a huge spike in demand for Colombian women. This can be viewed as positive or negative, depending on social perspective.
Foreign Brides, sometimes referred to as “mail order brides”, a term the industry completely rejects, have become a billion dollar a year business. According to industry leaders, Colombia represented only about 3% of the market three years ago. Since the popularity of Narcos, many companies have seen near tenfold increases in men seeking Colombian wives.
A Foreign Affair (AFA), a company that helps men find women through international tours, says tours to Colombia are now selling out. AFA arranges group tours where 10 to 20 men travel together to Medellin, Cartagena or Barranquilla. During the tour, they attend arranged Social events where the men meet hundreds of beautiful Colombian women looking for marriage. Women can also place their profiles on the AFA web site, in the hopes of finding a husband.
Kenneth Agee, the marketing director for AFA says, “Because of the show we are doubling our tours to Medellin for next year. Narcos has brought a lot of attention to the intense beauty of Colombian women. Although the show is often very violent, the women of Colombia come across as very family oriented and loyal. These values seem harder and harder to find in this world. I would have to agree, because of the interest in Narcos, we even added an excursion to where Pablo’s self-built prison was located, in the hills overlooking Medellin.
The crowning of 2015 Miss Universe Paulina Vega put Barranquilla, Colombia on the map. Barranquilla now has recognition for being home to some of the most beautiful and talented women in the world. Not only is Miss Universe from here, Grammy Award winning pop singer Shakira, and actress Sofia Vergara also call Barranquilla home. Vergara stars on the ABC series Modern Family as Gloria Delgado-Pritchett. She’s been nominated for 4 Golden Globe Awards, 4 Prime time Emmy Awards, and 7 Screen Actors Guild Awards, all stemming from this role. In 2014, she was ranked as the 32nd Most Powerful Woman in the world by Forbes.
David from Mesa AZ says he met more qualified women in one week than he has during the last 10 years. In 2010, Lisa Ling and the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) filmed a one hour show on the AFA tour called “Online Brides – Our America with Lisa Ling.” Even Lisa Ling was surprised by the beauty and sincerity of the women from Barranquilla.
Janet Davis, head of a women’s rights group says “AFA is just taking advantage of women from these third world countries. This is no different than Pablo trafficking in narcotics, but these companies traffic women.” Proponents refer to a Report (INTERNATIONAL MATCHMAKING ORGANIZATIONS: A REPORT TO CONGRESS) that these marriages have much lower divorce rates and abuse rates compared to traditional domestic marriages. This data makes international dating similar to a woman in the US joining eHarmony to look for a husband.
23-year-old Viviana, from Cartagena, says “I come to these events because I know the men attending are serious about marriage, they are faithful and are good to family. For Colombian women, it is the most important thing, good husband and good family.
Kenneth says, “It has not been all rosy. Narcos has brought us some problems. In Cartagena, we have several Penthouses we rent out. One was originally owned by “Don Diego” head of the Norte Del Velle Drug Cartel, the other by Pablo’s people. Over the past year, the properties have been tracked down by individuals thinking they will find large qualities of cash hidden, thus we sometimes find holes all over the walls after a tenant leaves.
For Narcos fans, those who love the gangster genre, or just those who just like seeing beautiful Latin women, there’s good news; Netflix’s has confirmed Season 3 and 4.