Netflix takes gamble with Epix film cull | Hacker News Reader

Netflix takes gamble with Epix film cull

bbc.com

55 pointsmartin_74 comments

I feel so sad for people forced to use the legal distribution channels - it must be such a chore to have to be informed which movie or series is available on which channel, have to switch between different apps / recommendation engines and have pay to every single middle men his toll, when their part could very well be free.

Using pirate solutions seems such a great experience in comparison - a global free peer to peer distribution channel with incredible bandwidth, availability and full catalog of most of human produced media, one click away. Services that are so resilient that are actually designed to withstand multiple governments' attempts to shut them down. No censorship of media, but a lot of structure and quality controls baked in, where actual people dynamically help each other police and secure content.

I really can't believe an actual paying customer can't get even close to the comfort, ease and availability of something like this. It really is astonishing.

I agree completely.

I also always laugh at those suckers standing in line at the grocery store. The customer experience of just picking out my Mountain Dew and ice cream sandwich and just walking straight out of the store without paying -- it's cheap, it's easy. You don't have to deal with pesky middle-men trying to take their cut. Astonishing.

Such comfort.

Sigh.

I was hoping you were going for an analogy with self-checkout. That would have neatly and effectively pointed at the missing piece of the puzzle. Instead you went for the cheap moralizing, which can make you feel good but doesn't get anyone any closer to solving the problem.

> which can make you feel good but doesn't get anyone any closer to solving the problem

That does a better job of describing piracy.

It's not just that people have to stand in line. They also have to go between a bunch of different stores since Milk producers have an exclusive contract with Walmart and Bread producers have an exclusive contract with 7-Eleven.

Furthermore, after you grab your Milk, the terms and services of the Milk states you have to sit and watch an advertisement on their projector before you are allowed to leave the store.

I already cannot get certain brands of milk at my local grocery store due to distribution agreements that in some ways resemble the distribution agreements that surround digital media.

I actually have had to visit 3 different major grocery stores to get the ingredients for one meal.

As for the advertisement? Well there are the ones on my receipt, the "coupon" that pops out, and possibly ads plastered on the side of the product I just purchased.

> I actually have had to visit 3 different major grocery stores to get the ingredients for one meal.

I'm sorry, I seriously doubt that.

Or you could just stop buying the milk.

Then the milk producers would start complaining about the thieves taking all their profits, without considering that maybe their business model is turning people off from buying milk.

Let them complain, it doesn't change the fact their stupid business model is costing them money. I say let the stupid complain as they go out of business.

Here's the problem: I would like to get these videos, and they would like to sell them to me. They're just doing such a bad job that we are both unhappy. I'd love for them to be doing a better job.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying one easy way to fix the problem is to let them lose money. They either fix the problem or go out of business.

Granted, you don't have the item you desire but I think in most cases an alternative can be obtained.

Oh please ... spare us. You're comparing physical goods that have to be physically transport, stored, distributed, etc. Goods where some (admittedly minimal in your Mt. Dew example) scarcity is involved.

The parent is talking about goods where there is effectively no (or again, minimal) cost for transport, storage, or distribution. And absolutely no scarcity.

Nobody is saying we refuse to pay for digital content. We just want to pay a reasonable price. But most most important, we don't want ANY _artificial_ restrictions on transport, storage, distribution, and ESPECIALLY consumption.

Netflix doesn't have bandwidth costs?

In your example, the grocery store will do inventory and discovery they are short 1 ice cream sandwich and 1 mountain dew. They write the cost of those goods off as shrinkage/stolen goods.

What exactly is warner bros missing at the end of the month when they do inventory? What item comes up 1 short when they go to grab it, because 1 person downloaded a copy? What do they write off on the balance sheet as shrinkage?

The answer is nothing, because copyright infringement is not theft. They may have commonalities, but they are separate and distinct. If they were the same there would be no legal definition for copyright infringement, because it would be already covered under existing theft laws.

I wish people would retire this ridiculous argument. There are legitimate arguments to be made against piracy without having to misrepresent the issue.

> They may have commonalities, but they are separate and distinct.

Yeah, that's how comparisons work. Read my comment again in light of the commonalities, not the differences.

seer: "It's so much easier if you break the law."

chasing: "Everything's so much easier if you break the law!"

I was commenting on seer's statement by extending what I considered to be flawed logic into a situation that would expose the flaw. I could've chosen a completely unrelated crime:

"I feel so sad for people forced to not drug women to sleep with them - it must be such a chore to have to get them to consent to sex."

See, I'm not comparing the act of pirating a movie to rape. They're obviously very different. One is heinous and one's a fairly minor transgression, all things considered. I am commenting on the absurdity of comparing the "user experience" of doing something legally instead of breaking the law.

It doesn't strike me as absurd at all. For various reasons, I prefer not to "jay walk," but when the cross walks are miles away, and I judge I can safely cross without them, I'll follow the what seems the most pragmatic approach to get to the other side.

The trouble is that currently there is no reasonable amount of money you can give to receive such a nice and user friendly experience as what you get with torrent sites (even more so with the popcorn app).

Usually when one deals with black markets you get much worse user experience, where there is no guarantee of quality, no economy of scale effects, no standardisation. Everything is less pleasant, but you get to have your stuff cheaper than buying it officially.

The paradox here is you get a bad user experience AND you pay for it. That's what I find appalling. Almost nobody who holds the contracts for these movies comes from "what value can we bring to the customer" point of view (well maybe with the exception of Netflix). Everybody does the "how much we can fleece the poor stupid people" approach, and it shows.

Pirate solutions tend to compete on user experience ONLY, and there you can get a real honest competition.

Actually I find you get a better user experience now using the paid services. Fire up your Amazon Fire tv and pick a movie, starts streaming. Compared with bittorrent, go find a torrent. Download it. Unpack it. Make sure it's the right format, language, subtitles etc. If not go get it again.

Granted there are tools to automate it but from a purely UX pov the paid services do have a better experience.

Just point me to the 'pirate solution' that can sustainably produce and deliver original content.

By definition, that's not piracy, that's content production.

The real answer to your real question is probably Patreon. Usually you can't "pirate" the results of Patreon because they're freely released anyhow. Kickstarter to a lesser extent, but that site seems less focused on "content" production and more on "thing" production. (Yes, there is a lot of "content" being done there, but I'm yet to see even a single such thing go really viral and big.)

Oh, yeah. It's not like there aren't half a dozen programs that will grab schedules and listings for you and even program a pcdvr.

I tried http://www.canistream.it/ but it's pretty unreliable. Do you have a better suggestion?

It will take me a day or so to find it.

Or not. This will give you something to begin invesitgating.

PVR software (there are more): http://www.team-mediaportal.com/ http://www.chris-tv.com/index.html

Schedules Direct has a list of packages that work with their service:

http://www.schedulesdirect.org/approvedsoftware

Want something more than a year old or a little less than mainstream? Good luck finding an active torrent. Maybe you'll find one with incredible bandwidth where the CD or TV show from a year or two back you seek can download at all instead of sitting stalled at some random percentage.

You seem to be describing the picture of 4 or 5 years back rather than now

So what you're saying is to use Amazon Prime and Netflix for the older content but torrent the newer stuff? ;-)

I feel so sad for people who are completely pwned to save a few bucks. The convenience and value of a Netflix account is what is astonishing.

That is the entire point of the article. The convenience and value of Netflix was astonishing. But with half the content going away is it still?

Especially with Netflix saying the solution is to repurchase what you just got rid of (cable) in order to get that newly missing content back.

It will depend on the specifics and the users taste. For me I don't have enough time to watch what is in my queue already. People who have lots of time and little money can futz around with being a pirate.

Also people who have lots of time, money and don't live in the usa.

Standardized licensing across Europe seems to be a very thorny problem. Between the different languages and regulatory bodies I do not see much hope.

I still hold out the hope that they will be able to look at Steam and realize that what they're doing is beneficial. Steam seems to be at the forefront regarding these things both in terms of technology and legal matters.

Piracy fails the "what if everyone was doing it?" test. So you shouldn't feel sad for people using legal channels, you should thank them for subsidizing your consumption.

You're welcome!

>Piracy fails the "what if everyone was doing it?" test.

Yup, which is why TV didn't exist before pay TV, because if everyone viewed content for free over the air then it would be massively unprofitable. Oh, wait...

Profitable OTA TV was (and is) not free, the content creators are paid by the content deliverers out of money the content deliverers get paid to provide advertising.

With piracy, even if the deliverers are getting paid by advertising (which is certainly true in some cases), the content creators aren't getting paid (because if they were, it be legal delivery, not piracy.)

> and full catalog of most of human produced media, one click away.

There's a bunch of stuff that just isn't available on torrents. If it's American there's a much hetter chance of it being seeded, but anything foreign over a few yews old tends to drop off.

Epix holds the broadcasting rights for PPV/VOD/Streaming for Viacom-Paramount, MGM, United Artists, Lion's Gate, Disney's Marvel Franchise... Yep that's a big gamble indeed.... All these streaming services are becoming pretty much Cable TV 2.0.

Today (UK) if you want to watch most things well it's Netflix (with DNS/IP region hacks to get US and UK content), Amazon Prime Video (probably the poorest of the bunch at least in the UK as here it's nothing more than a VOD service sadly), NowTV (Sky) which seems to grab all the new films and probably a couple of additional players soo to be important.

And this is only if you care about English language content, if you want regional content in Spanish, French, Italian or w/e you probably need to find a couple other providers.

So what 2 years ago was a 5.99 all you can stream buffet is turning into the same bloated cable package from 10 years ago, get basic (netflix) and then add all the other stuff. Still need to pirate HBO if you don't have Sky or you want HD, if HBO Go(? or was it live?) launches in Europe that's another 5-10 US/GBP/EUR a month, sheesh...

HBO GO is available in Romania FWIW

Aren't all the HBO shows that Sky has available on NowTV? I've not found it lacking any I've been wanting to watch.

Yes and a big no, you need the a pass to view HBO content on NowTV. The problem is that the content disappears after it's been aired and only shows up again just prior to the airing of the next season (usually 1-3 months before).

The NowTV service is very cable like the movie pack costs 9.99, and the entertainment and sports packs costs 6.99 each.

They are also seem to be wanting to push exclusive content that is accessible on their own streaming boxes only as they've stopped adding features for their smartTV /mobile apps.

I would probably not pay for NowTV if i couldn't get it for "free" trough my vodafone subscription and since it's a company phone what i do is ask them to cancel the vodafone package every 6 months and get a new one which allows me to signup for their offer again (6 months of free NowTV, Spotify Premium, or 50GBP for the Google Play store).

The UK also has iPlayer, which is worth the VPN subscription fee I pay every month to use it.

Sigh. This is just becoming the same as Cable TV.

In Cable TV days you had numerous premium channels you had to subscribe to which gave you access to movies/shows. You needed multiple subscriptions to get access to "all" the latest movies/content.

Today, you need numerous premium streaming subscriptions to get access to movies/shows. You need multiple subscriptions to get access to "all" the latest movies/content.

Nothing has changed. We now have "on-demand" instead of waiting for the station to play the movie/show we want to see. However, that is now available on Cable. So there is no differentiation that I can see between going on-line vs Cable.

The main winner will again be piracy, one place to access anything and everything. No commercials.

It was inevitable. Companies are trying to do their best to maintain their business models. The customer experience, as always, is the last factor to be considered.

I feel like this move is too early for Netflix strategy-wise for non-power users. Yes, it may be the case that their early adopters plow through premium TV, but I'd like to investigate more to understand if people choose Netflix to have the option fo view movies like Transformers, licensed from Epix.

This move would happen eventually as creators gain access to streaming (distribution) platforms and platforms (like Netflix) start creating. Each player is only gaining margin and then succeeding in locking in users.

As a user, I would have preferred to see Netflix take the agency approach and allow streaming titles to take a percentage cut of revenue (although this would be difficult to calculate and bad for blockbuster hits who seek to increase risk and reward). This would mean Netflix competes on technology while content creators compete on price. If I were an investor, again I say this move is too early but one that, as the article mentions, was inevitable in the current model.

With that approach Netflix will still have to setup the same infrastructure and get a lesser cut of the pie with how much it seems to cost them to stream as it is i don't see it working out.

Whats worse it won't give them the ability to control their content offering which means they can't really steer their business.

Also since broadcast licensing is a steaming pile of shit outside of the US you can't rely on smaller companies handling that it takes a giant to uproot existing right holders in Europe and in other regions and Europe is already a mess with tons of streaming providers in every country that have to geoblock everyone else because the licensing laws pre-date the shared market and also have to yield to local guilds when it comes to translations and dubbing.

People have chosen Netflix in the past because it was a reliable way to have something to watch these days it might not be the case anymore. Their library is much more fluid and much of the content is being rotated in and out every couple of months to a point were their old 3 months notice period is no longer maintainable.

2 Years ago i could log into netflix and know for sure there will be something worth while to watch today I usually have to browse 3 services to find something. Their original shows are great House of Cards is amazing, and Narco's that came out just over the weekend and it rocked but it's becoming not worth keeping a sub if we are all honest.

Gabe Newell said it best - the only way to combat piracy is to deliver a better service than the pirates and sadly Netflix and the other streaming providers are slipping behind. When I can get a better library and better quality from popcorn time why should i pay 20 GBP a months for streaming providers which force me to go trough 3 different libraries to find watchable content? Heck I've goot a Roku streamer just so I could have a single place to search through all the content providers i subscribe too instead of having to load Now TV, Netflix, Amazon Prime, BBC Player and other nonsense on my TV and It's still not as slick as PCT....

So what you want is the service to be very cheap and have a massive amount of content available.

I think I'd be willing to pay more to offset higher content costs for more theater/blockbuster type movies. If Netflix was say 14.99 instead, I wonder what that would do to help? Perhaps splitting the content between tiers? It would shrink their "user base" for the purposes of streaming, allowing higher per-user payments on a title-by-title basis.

Sad part is, I know they are trying to lower that amount, and show that content providers need them as much/more than Netflix needs their content, but as a consumer, I'd like the options.

An idea for NetFlix would be to have a higher tier package that has access to content for longer. So if the average agreement for access to material is six months, people with the higher tier package have access to it for six months and people without it have access for four months. Higher tier customers get it a month early and a month after it rotates out for lower tier customers.

I would pay much more if I could have a single place to look for content this is why I sub to 3 providers and also bought a box that aggregates all the streaming content i can access into a single library.

But considering that no matter how much I pay I can't seem to get a reliable library these days and the bang for the buck degrades with every passing day I am more and more reluctant to continue using those services. I got Netflix with the UltraHD package and it was easier and better to get both Narco's and Daredevil using alternate means that's something shouldn't happen.

> I would pay much more if I could have a single place to look for content

You're describing the traditional pay-TV model in an on-demand world. Every industrialized nation has one.

No I want a library like I had 2-3 years ago instead of a shrinking shell that it is today...

I'd be happy with Netflix doubling my monthly fee if it meant access to more, better and newer movies.

Complain to content creators, not Netflix.

Huh? if anything it's the distributors and considering that were discussing this in a thread about how Netflix decided to dump a huge movie library how is this even relevant?

I understand why Netflix is doing this as a company, they are no longer the biggest baddest player around and with more competition they have harder times scoring good deals with license holders and they see original content as a central part of their growth strategy because that content is and always will be exclusive to them for as long as they want to hold it.

That doesn't mean that I as a consumer want this or will benefit from this in any way, I can understand the financial reasoning behind it just like I can understand why game publishers run exclusive pre-order bonus deals and day one DLC but it also doesn't mean I don't loath it or will support it in the long run.

Simple. Most of the deals Netflix have in place have terms dictated by the content creators. Well, maybe content owner is a better term. There are also the deals that Netflix passes on because they feel the terms required by the content owners are too much.

In the end, content owners get the final say in whether their content appears on Netflix or not. They either say no because they don't like Netflix, they say no because they got a better deal elsewhere, or Netflix says no because the terms are not financially viable. Which is one reason for Netflix to "dump" a huge movie library, which they have before. When I first signed up they had a deal with Starz that eventually went away.

So, if you don't like certain content not being available on Netflix or that certain content was taken away; then most likely your complaint should be aimed at the content owners.

Although, there are examples of content that Netflix doesn't actively pursue but I'm speaking of strictly mainstream entertainment.

This again proves how the music industry is far and away better at the streaming model, whereas the movie industry is still trying to find its way.

Streaming music is a different beast. People tend to listen to the same music multiple times. The same is not true of movies.

People who have money to spend will spend it on premium products, people who don't will sit for hours wasting their lives away watching cheap crap (soaps in the uk).

Best differentiating yourself and keeping it premium, price and content.

It's worth noting that Netflix has a deal with Disney that states all new Disney, Marvel and Pixar films from 2016 are licensed to Netflix. This deal also gives them the back catalogue to Disney films.

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/4/3727688/netflix-streaming-...

That deal is one of the most interesting, as it seems they've locked up not just streaming exclusivity, but all subscription services, meaning no HBO

I thought Netflix was supposed to be a replacement for cable. Now they're saying they're an add-on rather than a replacement?

I agree. I just dropped my cable subscription and switched to Netflix 6 weeks ago. I switched not because there was nothing to watch on cable but because the prices had gotten so far out of whack.

Netflix had enough to watch at a reasonable price to make it a good deal. But, outside of Daredevil, I don't find its own content very compelling. (Too much "Soap Opera In Disguise" for my tastes. I blame "Game of Thrones" for that trend ... but I know I'm in the minority here.)

Now they want to become another channel with the suggestion being subscribe to us and cable to get the shows you want. WTF Netflix!

I want one service where I can stream _any_ show. Not multiple services where I have to decide which have the most shows I like, subscribe to a few and skip the rest. I want streaming Blockbuster/Redbox for and and all shows and movies!

Would you consider switching from Netflix to Hulu?

From the article...

"Rival US service Hulu will take on the Epix catalogue. "Our subscribers have been asking us for more, and more recent, big movies," Hulu said.

"We listened. Through this new deal with Epix, we are proud to now be able to offer a huge selection of the biggest blockbusters and premium films.""

I thought Hulu still had ads even if you pay. That's a non-starter.

I looked at Hulu and Hulu plus. Hulu plus is a paid subscription that does have lots of content and would probably be acceptable ... except ... IT HAS F*ING ADS! I want NO ADS. I'm so sick to death of all the ads being shoved at me everywhere I turn these days.

I wouldn't, because Hulu has commercials, and after years of Netflix, I find them extremely irritating.

Netflix still has enough programming to be worth $8-9 a month. But as their movie offerings drop, their value proposition weakens.

Hulu only has commercials on their second-run (day-after-air) content from broadcast sources. They have a substantial back catalogue of stuff that doesn't include said commercials.

I get why they have commercials: a $10/mo. service that provides shows the day after they air would devalue that content too much without commercials and would be uncompetitive when pricing to exclude them. For a comparison: a season pass for the newest season of Doctor Who (S9) on iTunes/Amazon Instant costs around $31 (it happens to be a featured show on iTunes), or about $2.58 per episode. It does not include commercials, and can be cached and viewed offline, and is available the day after it airs. After three episodes, you've just about met the budget for a full month of Hulu Plus.

>Hulu only has commercials on their second-run (day-after-air) content from broadcast sources. They have a substantial back catalogue of stuff that doesn't include said commercials.

Did they change to this recently? I had a Hulu Plus subscription a couple of years ago and they had ads interrupting everything, regardless of date.

If they've removed ads from their back catalog I may consider re-subscribing...

Is Hulu available outside the US?

This is how you bring back movie piracy

Did movie piracy go anywhere?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com