I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.
Netflix's DVD service still exists.[1] They have a fantastic selection, compared to their streaming service.
[1] - https://dvd.netflix.com/
How is Netflix able to get rights to send physical media, but not stream? It seems to me that literally the only real difference is physical media means there is a limit on number of concurrent viewers.
From a copyright perspective, that's a fundamental difference from streaming.
That being said, physical media has far superior audio and video quality. A Bluray disc vs streaming 1080p (especially a Netflix stream) is a world of difference. Streaming media is usually bit-starved to near death. If you care about quality (and you very well may not), it's the only way to fly.
If you don't mind the subpar video and audio quality, then I can understand why people use the streaming service. It's just not for me, though. I have a 49" 4k TV and a Bluray player that upscales for a reason. I don't want that swill they serve up over ethernet, lol.
An unfortunate situation.
The value Netflix provides is primarily convenience. There are other ways to watch movies and TV shows, the reason to use Netflix is that it's more convenient than the alternatives.
Having to deal with physical media (and wait for them to be delivered) is less convenient than other alternatives to Netflix. Therefore, it's a flaw of Netflix.
I'd much rather put up with the minimal hassle and a bit of a wait to get a great selection of DVDs.
The "hassle" amounts to me opening up an envelope, putting the DVD in to my DVD player, putting it back in to the envelope when I'm done and throwing it in to a mailbox on my way to work.
Sure, it's not as easy as hitting play in a streaming app, but not really a big deal, either.
Which was exactly my point. It's a flaw of Netflix that it's streaming collection isn't as good as it's DVD collection.
I don't plan for movie night days in advance. I'm not going to rent that shit in the mail. So after a few years of not touching my DVD player, I threw it out.
The content owners are the real ones losing out here. I'd pay $4 to stream any movie, there's just no service I'm aware of that offers them all digitally at that price.
I just recently started using VidAngel though, and I'm happy with it so far. They advertise being able to filter movies, but you can always just filter a single word if you don't want anything filtered. It's $1 for SD and $2 for HD. They have an interesting licensing model though so you sort of have to have a constant $18-$19 deposit with them.
Whenever I wanted some mega-obscure Japanese or Thai movie, Netflix never had it and Blockbuster always did.
Oh well.
I meant to give it a try once I ran out of interesting movies to watch on Netflix. But I guess I waited too long, because now they're out of business.
Despite Netflix not having absolutely everything, I think Netflix still has a really good DVD selection, with plenty of relatively obscure films (along with tons of mainstream ones).
It could definitely be better (on selection, and also wish they offered more letterboxed and full-length films instead of shortened ones), and I wish there was more competition in this field. But overall I'm pretty satisfied and would recommend their DVD service to others.
It might take some custom hardware, but just a few larger central stores vs something like redbox for example.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/is-zedivas-new-re...
It turned out that the courts were not impressed by this workaround.
https://www.wired.com/2011/10/streaming-movie-service-zediva...
No studios will collectively give a tech company the majority of the licenses to make this possible - so torrents it is.
For a real film buff being able to go rent F. W. Murnau's "Noseferatu", Michelangelo Antonioni's "Blowup" or Polanski's "Knife in the Water" was really important to me and something I took for granted. Almost every large city had a least one such film nerd rental place. And now that video stores are gone there's just a void for so much of this content.
One beacon of hope though which is supposed to launch soon is a streaming venture by TCM and The Criterion Collection:
I am really forward to this that and I hope its huge success.
Noseferatu: https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/Nosferatu_The_V...
Blowup: https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/Blowup?id=5esCY...
Knife in the water: https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/Knife_in_the_Wa...
I prefer Google to the Amazon option. Much better device support (it works on pretty much every device out there) and the overall UI is just fantastic.
https://www.amazon.com/Nosferatu-Silent-Max-Schreck/dp/B001O...
https://www.amazon.com/Blowup-Vanessa-Redgrave/dp/B000I157KO
https://www.amazon.com/Knife-Water-Leon-Niemczyk/dp/B004D22R...
Amazon + Netflix + Blueray player has become my perfect combination. The few titles that I can't get streaming I just buy the discs.
Make sure you try it first with a free or test movie before buying.
In the economic sense consumption means a resource is used and cannot readily be re-used at its original quality. Copying a file does not deprive anybody of anything, I cannot even see a reasonable argument when the case involves a market where the good is not even offered for sale.
Though obviously they'd much rather have you pay for it and watch it.
When they made the transition to streaming, they had to acknowledge that they could no longer provide the one-stop shop with everything to watch. Instead, they had to pivot to a model largely based on "something for everyone to watch." My personal opinion is that they missed a good opportunity to socialize that pivot.
But where are all the Woody Allen movies?!!
It's not necessary if you accept the cost that the makers of these films want to charge you.
Not every country has a licence to sell certain movies. Literally can't pay the money the makers of the films what they want to charge me because they don't want to charge me. This also applies to music and other products (though other products can't necessarily be pirated).
My options are:
a) Pirate the movie at no cost to the creator
b) Do not watch the movie at no cost to the creator
That a small percentage of people can't... OK that's true. but bringing that up as a reason why piracy can be justified doesn't really seem conductive to a cross-discussion.
Good luck finding anything but the most popular animes legally in the US. I don't think I've ever even seen a Japanese drama through a legal means.
If a title is not available in a region, the copyright holder implicitly doesn't care at all. They care about piracy of their goods in regions where it's legally available for purchase. So sticking to arguments that revolve around that seem to make more sense, otherwise you are "preaching to the choir" as it were.
c) Watch another movie, paying its creator
(possibly the same as in option a)
You can't just replace "Vocaloid Music" (Miku, Rin, Luka) with "other synthetic vocals". It's "similar" but it is not "the same".
The cultures around Gumi and other Megpoids differs from that around Miku and other Vocaloids.
When a billionaire buys a Van Gogh or it is sold to some museum far, far away, we look at other van Goghs. If all van Goghs were to get out of reach, some other painter would be brought to the spotlight and become _the_ painter.
(And edit on my grandfather post: s/minority/majority)
That isn't how that works. Cultures get built around things - those things don't "choose" their culture. Even creators do not get to "choose" the culture their work belongs to. For example, Pepe the frog. Contrast the popular 4chan/pol/ usage of Pepe the frog with the viewpoints of the creator of Pepe the frog. Even the artist recently drawing Pepe taking a piss on Donald Trump won't stop or change the culture that has built up around the meme. Sometimes trying to not be part of a culture backfires. Ben Garrison learned that the hard way. The more he asked 4chan to stop - the harder 4chan pushed. Eventually it seems like he has given up fighting against it.
>When a billionaire buys a Van Gogh or it is sold to some museum far, far away, we look at other van Goghs. If all van Goghs were to get out of reach, some other painter would be brought to the spotlight and become _the_ painter.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Not too big into art culture and don't really care if I have a cheap $30 copy or the $30mm original of the painting. If I wanted a van Gogh I'd get a van Gogh. Even if it weren't an original.