Hacker News Reader

Comment by ariehkovler | Hacker News Reader

Back in the day, when Netflix was the most successful DVD rental company, people used to point out that Netflix sent more Gigabytes of data every day as DVDs in the mail than the whole Internet transmitted in a day. Netflix was given as an example of how the Internet couldn't compete with physical delivery. Ironic.

Interestingly, the old Netflix DVD business is still alive and still profitable, though it's been rebranded as DVD.com - there's a piece about it here: http://fortune.com/2018/05/21/netflix-dvd-business/

View on HN

I don't live in the US, so I Don't know, but as far as I understand, DVD.com can legally offer essentially every title that exists. This is because in the US, if you own a disc, you can rent it to someone.

If true, this is awesome and so much better (for me) than any streaming service.

Legal grey area; iirc MP3.com operated on a similar premise and got burned to the ground. I believe there was also a company that had racks of video or dvd players and would stream the movie over the internet, claiming similar protections.

Of course, in a nutshell Netflix is doing the same, only legally. Those companies were too early and too dodgy.

Zediva. $1.8M in fines.

There's a few others that skirted around similar laws as well, like Aereo which was shut down for rebroadcasting OTA signals using customer rented antennas.

It's only gray because they were copying the content. Shipping out the physical disc is fine, AFAIK.

Right. This presumably is also why library e-book collections contain a finite number of "copies" (licenses) of each book, and if all those copies are checked out, anyone else who wants the book is put on a waiting list. They're allowed to loan the copies they've paid for already, but not to make additional copies.

DVD.com sends you the actual, physical DVDs. MP3.com streamed you songs you "owned" from elsewhere. DVD.com can't stream things legally.

Yeah, that definitely depends on your preferred method of consuming movies and TV.

If you're the sort of person who decides they really want to watch Film XYZ and is happy to wait a few days for it, DVDs are perfect.

On the other hand, some people watch TV to fill an hour or two here and there on an ad hoc basis. If your approach is "I feel like vegging out now, so let's flip through the channels and see what's on", the instantaneous nature of streaming is perfect because you don't have to plan ahead to watch the things you're interested in.

I had no idea they rebranded it as DVD.com. I remember a few years ago when they tried to rebrand it as Qwikster and it was an enormous failure. I guess they pulled it off this time by not really marketing it.

The Qwikster thing wasn't as much of a failure as the "we're going to split this service you like in two raising the price of your current plan 1.8x in order to save you money" messaging.

Their mid-tier plan offers "1 discs out-at-a-time". Something makes me think they don't have their best working on this side of the business.

Why? I have an old grandfathered minimal plan. Works fine for me.

The comment was about the bad grammar in the plan description, not the substance of the plan itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com