The Wolf of Wall Street came out like 10 years ago, and you're telling me the only way to watch it is to buy it for $15 on Amazon? Keep dreaming.
I don't have an expert answer, but I'll bet the answer has "copyright holders" in it somewhere.
The problem is that the experience of watching a movie at home only shifted a little bit during the transition from physical to streaming, while the legal and licensing framework between the two are so different they are hardly comparable. Copyright holders took great advantage of the change to a new format allowing them to redefine the meaning of licensing so that they have more control and can extract more value.
https://www.businessinsider.com/redbox-employee-buys-100-dvd...
There's a similar scenario where the last Blockbuster Video in Bend, Oregon restocks its DVDs by buying at Walmart, but it's detailed in one of the documentary videos about it that the manager of said Blcokbuster has a special off-the-record arrangement with Walmart management.
Even now, any film display outside of the home still requires a public performance license, the studios have just decided to put their efforts into enforcement on the location and business side, rather than the supply/sales side.
I don't think that is right. The first sale right is a limitation of the copyright holder's distribution right. This right was first recognized by the Supreme Court in 1908 and was clearly established by the time of video rentals. Video tapes were initially priced very high as the studios were selling to the rental stores, but eventually the studios simply found they could make more money selling copies to individuals and the prices came down.
That's the logic for high-demand titles. The reasoning for not making all the junk available at a fixed cost is the flip side: if users had a giant library of good-but-not-hit content, they'd be less likely to chase around their HBO or Netflix or whatever licenses.
Basically, we're going to end up with a streaming platform from every studio/distributor where you'll pay them directly instead of paying the broadcaster since the internet has made it so easy for studios and distributors to become "broadcasters" too. What seemed like a good thing at first is actually going to be worse in the end for consumers. We're going to be paying the same as before for each movie purchase/rental and then even more than before to license each show we want to watch.
There is absolutely no incentive for a copyright holder to release their material on a global scale on a single platform for a comission or similar where one can sell dozens, if not hundreds, of times same material (sell, not comission) for a period of time and renew the contract every three years or so. In order to do that, tv stations wont touch material that everyone has accesss to, because people will opt to watch maybe there and then because of that advertisers will then opt out... It's a complicated circle.
This idea of "regions" is infuriating if you happen to live in a non-first-class "region", meaning anything that is not the United States. Often you will be denied purchase, which is ridiculous in the context of discussions about "piracy".
Spotify has shown the right way to do it: just offer the stuff in a way that is convenient and let people pay for it. Their growth numbers speak for themselves.
I don't think Spotify are a great example really. They're almost a 14 year old company, and last wuartet was the first time they were profitable. They've already stated they're expecting a loss this year. Is it sustainable?
I would also expect that we'll see a rift a la Netflix, over time we'll see different companies start to hold exclusives to their own streaming platform.
they still 'need' regions because they generally charge US customers more. more often then not, US has to pay cost + IP costs + margin, where as people in say India pay cost + margin.
I think this remains true for dvd/movies. Think about it, I heard the cost of a movie ticket for a hollywood movie is about 1$ in pakistan.
I'm in favor of getting rid of regions, and outlawing the practice of making mostly US consumers pay the bill for IP costs illegal, but until that happens they 'need' regions. how else are they going to charge people in china 2$ and people in the US 20$.
Sorry but no. Spotify is not available anywhere but in a few selected regions.
Exclusivity contracts can benefit the copyright holder in the former model by locking customers into a higher sheckle perview deal, or in the later model it can be used by the provider to gain customers.
Really though, when the Grinch Cartoon is only available on Comcast during Christmas you just pirate it for the first time in 10 years.
It's completely baffling. Amazon really dropped their 'customer obsession' on the video side.
But it is crazy that it is available for rent on iTunes but not Prime.
In the era of VHS-DVD-BluRay one could buy movies, and they play in any player. When I get a new player, it just works.
Now, we need to juggle accounts, billing, subscriptions, and player authorizations. Having a FireTV and Roku plugged into each TV is an absolute pain in the ass.
What needs to happen is the establishment of a standard protocol for providing content and authorization. Each layer of the problem needs to be abstracted and compartmentalized. The Apple App world destroyed the server-client relationship.
First there needs to be a standard protocol for a service provider to deliver content after receiving authorization.
Next there needs to be a standard aggregation protocol. This is the step everyone misses. The best analogy I can think of is the Google Reader to Feedly-Innoreader relationship. I could set up Google Reader with my config, and then sign into ANY other compatible front end that supported Google Reader and use their product without setting it up from scratch. I want a place that combines MoviesAnywhere with billing management. One place to go to subscribe and cancel subscriptions. This place might just be an API with no client front end, the actual interfacing with the service could be handed off to the clients. People might reply Roku or Apple, but they still miss the point that if I set up a Roku, my config isnt portable to Fire or Apple or Google. I can access my same Gmail and Amazon account from Firefox and Chrome without rebuilding my profiles and losing my config. HTTP/HTML is what makes the Web Server/Web Browser relationship so beautiful, anyone can implement it.
Finally there needs to be an open way for anyone to write a client that connects to the aggregation services. Consumers should be able to have a Roku in one room and a FireTV in another, and an LG in another.
As long as each client vendor tries to suck people into their ecosystem, and as long as each service provider wants to handle subscriptions and billing themselves (or the client apps trying to take it over so Amazon/Apple/Roku manage my billing) people will continue to find the friction and lack of portability to be too big a pain in the ass. It sucks to have to commit to being an Apple or Google or Amazon or Roku house. It sucks that each service provider has to write a client side app for Apple, Google, Amazon, and Roku and that upstart services sometimes can only support some of them.
As long as Layers 1-3 are combined into 2 frankenlayers, consumers will continue to grow more frustrated as more services pop up, and become more trapped in ecosystems.
Layer 1: Video Provider - CBS, Netflix, Disney
Layer 2: Subscription Manager - ???
Layer 3: Media Player - anything the consumer wants, never trapped
Piracy Solves this problem.
Layer 1: Video Provider - Usenet, Torrents
Layer 2: Subscription Manager - Plex, Emby, DLNA, media servers
Layer 3: Media Player - Kodi, or any competitor.
Just like how I can sign into the same gmail account from any client, I pray for the day I can walk up to a media center, sign in, and load my lifelong profile, without needing the media player to be proprietary-compatible with each and every service provider, and without needing to sign into 20 services to see what's playing. Going to a friend's house and only seeing what they are signed into is infinitely more inconvenient that carrying a DVD to their house. And these companies wonder why password sharing is such a problem? It's cuz if I want to watch my shows I have to sign into my account on their device under their Amazon or Roku profile, and now that login is cached. At least Cable/sattelite worked in every room of a house, you add an HBO subscription and boom every box is instantly updated.
--
[0] - Yes, I'm fully aware that they're following their economical incentives. But at some point we really should start calling out falling into short-term profit-maximizing traps like these as being dumb. And/or antisocial.
[1] - This is foretold by calling streaming services "platforms". As our industry proves time and again, whenever there's a need for a platform, everyone and their dog will develop one, hoping to become the winner that takes it all - in the process ruining the whole space for all users with their vendor lock-in bullshit.
The cable companies are not an independent Layer 2 anymore.