Hacker News Reader

A large amount of content is available, but it's mostly the second string. Movies I actually want to watch are unavailable on Netflix and Amazon because the studios won't license them for streaming.

Earlier analysis of this phenomenon on HN explained it by saying that once something is on Netflix, all hopes of making money on DVD sales are gone. Hollywood wants to sell physical media because that is what it knows how to do and has always done.

Therefore, movies will only be released to Netflix, Amazon, etc. if the studio is particularly forward-leaning or (more likely) evidence suggests that it's made all the money it's going to make in physical media distribution so there's no harm in offering it up for streaming.

If I recall correctly, Netflix's catalog improved substantially for a good while, but then large portions of it were retracted. That's another thing that has to stop before legitimate digital distribution is "good enough" - studios need to stop pulling movies every time they feel like it. It pretty clearly demonstrates an attitude that digital distribution channels are toys to be put away at any time rather than a core component of their business.

Virtually all "first-string" content is available on Amazon/iTunes/Play/VOD for purchase or rental. Wanting new releases to be available on $8/month streaming services is just not a realistic expectation. What major studio is refusing to sell digital copies?

All of them.

Try watching A Knight's Tale on Netflix streaming. It is an average movie from over a decade ago.

There are a ton of average movies from 3+ years ago that I cannot get streaming, that was just the first one that came to mind. So please, please stop using such arguments when 25% of the time I can't find the movie streaming when I look for it.

EDIT: I probably should add they also revoke access [e.g. the Disney Christmas movie story from a week ago] to stuff that was specifically purchased, not merely bundled with a streaming service. So, as a group, they are pretty uncooperative because they don't want to have to follow the radio model of pricing/licensing which is what they should be doing [especially for movies over a decade old!]

You're mixing up "streaming" and "Netflix streaming". Pretty much any modern movie is available to stream.

A Knight's Tale can be streamed on:

* HitBliss

* XFINITY Streampix

It's available for digital rental on:

* Amazon

* iTunes

* Google Play

* YouTube

* Sony Entertainment Network

* HitBliss

It's available for digital purchase on:

* Amazon

* iTunes

* Google Play

* Vudu

* Redbox Instant

It's available On-Demand with an Encore subscription.

There's no ethical reason to pirate this movie in the US. "Cannot watch it now without paying for it" is NOT the same as "cannot get streaming".

It sounds like your idea of content is "things on Netflix or free on Amazon". No, you will not get new releases there and in my opinion it is unreasonable to expect that.

I was honestly surprised at how quickly The Avengers found its way to Netflix streaming. I figured there was still enough money to be made off iTunes/Amazon/etc rentals and purchases to preclude giving it away that cheaply.

Maybe they made plenty off of it, and wanted to promote their other movies (hint: Thor 2). I personally contributed $20 in movie tickets to the Avengers (saw it twice). I also went and saw Thor 2.

That's because Disney is trying to ingrain their brands into pop culture. Modern Marvel movies can't stand on their own merits so Disney has to give them away in hopes of getting people to see future movies in the franchise. It's manipulative bullshit marketing to cover up the poor writing, bad cinematography, overused CGI and post production added 3D effects. Since Disney bought Marvel in 2010 that's what has been produced. There is no vision beyond maximizing their ROI (selling made in China toys and clothes to children, etc.) and setting up future installments in the franchise. It is dishonest and I hope they fail miserably.

Do you want to see a real super hero film? Go watch Nolan's Batman series.

Fans of The Avengers fans are probably the ones most likely to pirate the movie after a minute's worth of inconvenience.

Meanwhile, Disney can take away a purchased movie from Amazon because the parents probably (a) already have the Disney channel, and (b) are willing to pay for it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911944

I find it extremely disturbing that I haven't been able to find a single major news outlet covering this. Hopefully I'm just failing at searching.

It's a non-story to the mainstream media. Amazon said it was a temporary issue unrelated to Disney's request to stop selling it. Those who had purchased the movie and lost access had their access restored.

That's odd considering the response Amazon originally gave in the post.

I'm not talking about new releases, I'm talking about 86% of AFI's top 100 since 1907.

The Avengers is Joss Whedon. Modern, progressive filmmakers are pretty good about getting their content onto streaming services, but there are still enormous gaps in the catalogs.

I just went through the first 30 titles in the AFI top 100. Out of those 30, only four are not available in the iTunes Store: Sunset Blvd., Some Like it Hot, Star Wars, and The Grapes of Wrath. The other 26 are available and cost $3.99 to rent – all those are also available to buy, for $6-15.

I don’t have the time to search for the rest of the 70 titles in the iTunes Store, but from a few blind tests I did, I’d say the vast majority is available there.

Do you remember how new releases were $5 at Blockbuster? In the 1990s? I don't see why you expect unlimited new releases to now stream to you for $8/month. If you want to stream a new movie, you have to pay for it. The physical DVD wasn't the expensive part of the $5, it was the content.

Netflix already has my credit card, why not Netflix "on demand" for U$ 5 for new releases?

I can't believe they're not trying to secure this already.

Near the end, Blockbuster was getting the new release DVDs literally for free from the studios in return for a piece of the revenue.

New Release rentals became another line item in a movie's total income.

If you want to stream a new movie, you have to pay for it.

How exactly do I do that?

To take this further... Why are we stuck in this business model?

By paying more for it than all you can eat for $8/month on Netflix. Want a brand new movie that just came out on DVD via streaming tonight? Pony up and pay $15 to buy it digitally, or $8 to rent it via on demand etc.

IE: Brand new content is more expensive and always will be.

He didn't say why, he said how. Do you know somewhere I can pay $15 to download or stream new release movies?

http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/ondemand

http://www.dish.com/entertainment/vod/

http://www.directv.com/technology/on_demand

http://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n%3A2858905011%2Cp_drm_rights%3AR...

http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-360/xbox-video/buying-and...

http://us.playstation.com/playstation-store/moviestv/

http://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/movies/

I just looked at a random new release DVD - "We're The Millers" - in iTunes in Australia (the only one of the above options that seems available to us downunder) and the buy price (HD movie) of $29.99 is more expensive than the physical disc from a local retailer: http://www.jbhifionline.com.au/dvd/newreleasedvd.htm ($24.98)

$6.99 rent price is substantially cheaper if you only want to watch it once though I guess.

Not sure if GP meant "new release movie" as in still in cinemas as opposed to "new release DVD"

if i can watch action movies on a 20 feet screen with a $100k audio system for $8 to $12 at my local theater, why would i want to watch it on choppy netflix on my cheap tv a lame stereo?

people who download that don't care much about the movie. they would be watching commercials on cable tv and be likely entertained. there is no sale lost to the studios there.

the lost sales are people looking for classics or hard to find titles. and those are hard to find in pirate sites, and nowhere to be found on netflix, amazon.

edit: the comment from ChuckMcM bellow describe why that happens.

Because you might be married with kids?

Spending $100 on a night out after hiring a baby-sitter vs an evening after the kid's 8PM bed-time spending $5 to $10 at home in front of my nice speakers and 60" TV? When I've got to wake up at 6AM in the morning to get the kids to day-care?

Maybe you'd look down on it, but yeah, Married With Children is a big market, and a legit reason not to want to spend several times the price going out to a theatre where there's a good chance other obnoxious viewers will sour the experience anyways. I never have to worry about that at home.

Also, I can pause the movie, not miss anything, and take a bathroom break. Or let the dog out. Or get a drink.

Reading the rest of your comment I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue for/against.

I don't have access to streaming movies, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that the movie going experience has deteriorated over the years. I for one really like the big screen as well, but the projection quality in theaters is not seldom poor. I can also see that people are fed up with the smell of nachos and fake-butter popcorn in the theater, with overpriced drinks, with others making phone calls during the movie, or spoil your experience in other ways.

Now, luckily, this doesn't happen every single time, and the movies I like usually have a more adult crowd. But I do fancy the testosterone-ridden braindead Hollywood blockbuster every now and then too, and then I can see why some people would enjoy watching a movie in the privacy of their home more than in the theater.

Plus, you can pause when you have to go to the fridge :-)

Of the AFI's top 100 movies of the last 100 years, only 14 are on Netflix. It's not the new releases I'm worried about.

I can't find a list cross-referenced with Amazon's catalog and I'm not going to do it myself right now, but I suspect the success rate is similar. I'd love to see data on this.

It used to be complete overlap [1], I don't think it's that way anymore but Amazon is still worse by a lot.

[1] Circa Sep 2012: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YEwtLdSs6cc/UFUeVg1WMiI/AAAAAAAAAA...

Blockbuster did that price with brick and mortar stores and a limited number of my physical copies of a movie. Netflix has lower operating costs and an unlimited number of downloads it can make available to customers, so they don't need to buy in 100 copies of a film which will be next to useless after 2 weeks.

Amazon allows you to purchase recent movies individually for both "buying" and "renting."

That was due to the Starz agreement.

Now you can find them at obscure websites like:

http://www.starzplay.com

http://instant.warnerarchive.com/

etc.

All not exactly well-crafted and promoted as a new source of revenue.

Meanwhile Netflix beats on and is hitting all-time highs in the stock market.

yeah, as the grandparent post said, they still have their heads up their %%%

lets see: pirate sites = i can watch the movie anywhere. cost some time.

netflix, amazon, hulu = i can watch on windows, android, ios, wii, xbox, several set top boxes such as roku, smart tvs. cost 10 to 200 per month.

that aberration you linked = i only get a single image telling me to download the ios app. im not even sure how much it costs or what they have available.

>Today you can buy new-release movies from your PC, smartphone, tablet, set-top box or smart TV and either download or stream them instantly.

Yes, you can if you live in US or UK. Try that in 80% of other countries in the world... It is extremely frustrating to go to my home country(Poland) for Christmas and not being able to use Netflix, not being able to buy any films and practically only have TPB and Usenet as a source of content as if it was 1999 again.

Same in Turkey. Nobody heard of Netflix outside of the tech circle. There is only a handful of movies on iTunes store, not to mention we were finally able to access iTunes store last year. And, there is no way, yes no way, to legally watch T.V. series online. You can buy box sets, when they finally arrive to local stores. Or you can buy them online, but than there is the limitation at customs for only 5 items allowed, per person, per year. I'm tired of shouting 'Shut up and take my money!', but it seems distributors don't care.

Indeed, I've spent most of the last year and a half in Armenia (and some time in Germany), and have had to come up with elaborate VPN + NAT (for Netflix) / Squid proxy (for Hulu+) setups through the US to get the content I already pay for, with my American Visa, from my American bank, homed to my American address.

It's not just movies.

I like the TV show Downton Abbey, it airs in the UK in the fall, but not in the US until after the new year - I'm willing to pay money, but cannot until they decide to release it here.

I'm also a fan of old TV shows, most of which I cant buy at any price because they are unwilling to release them at any price.

I'm perfectly content to pay for any of this stuff - but often its not available for purchase, only for pirating.

Same goes for movies - I can buy the DVD for 20 dollars or 'buy' an online copy for 12 dollars (sometimes its the same price as the DVD) - but it's DRM encumbered and I don't get a physical file I can watch anywhere I want - How is that a better value?

What I've found and seen in a handful of studies - is the majority will only turn to pirating after exhausting the legal options to buy a media product, thats been my experience. I'd rather pay a blanket license on my internet bill (say 10%) and be able to download whatever I want from wherever I want, whenever I want. Region Licensing, DRM, strange pricing oddities and the like will keep pirating around for the foreseeable future.

"...the studios gave us what we asked for..."

Not quite. I still can't take a movie I purchased using Xbox Video and play it in Windows Media Player. I can't play it on an Android device, an iPhone, iPad, Lunix, OSX... In fact I can't play it anywhere that isn't a Windows Phone 8, Windows Metro or an Xbox. And even then only once I've signed in with a Microsoft ID.

If you had chosen to buy that movie from Amazon or Google Play instead, you could play it on all of those devices (yes, Google purchases can be watched on iOS devices). Amazon even gives you a WMV file for your Windows Media Player in addition to the streaming rights. The studios didn't force you to choose a more restrictive seller. You can't play a DVD from Wal-Mart on your phone either, but making more choices available to you is not a bad thing.

Piracy still has a much better product to offer. No restrictions at all.

Except for the long-term downside you're conveniently ignoring, where the producers of the content don't get paid?

Also tens of thousands of dollars in fines plus possible jail time.

i think you missed his point completely.

there is a industry with a lousy product, that can make a much better offering instantly with very little effort, but they are to afraid to do so.

the consumer who opt for piracy is not actively choosing to harm the content creators. but the ecosystem that preys on those content creators is killing itself by preventing people from even buying their products with comfort, and in doing so is harming the content creators.

think about all the bands that started to distribute their own music. nin is way better off. as well as their fans. the only casuality is the record labels and others that used to prey on the band, who used to provide a benefit for the fans when distribution was physical. now, all they do is screw the content creators and fans in a vain attempt to remain relevant and siphoning dollars as they are used to.

NIN's latest album was published by Columbia Records.

Wait a minute. I see what you did there. Corporations get to think like the parent article (i.e. offshore programmers and call centers are cheaper, and plenty of outright abuses of labor and customers). Why don't regular consumers? Consumers have to account for morality, but corporations don't? That sounds fishy.

Piracy:

- free

- watch on any device you want, keep the file(s)

- no advertisements

- content producer does not get your money

- excellent content selection

- no regional restrictions

- not instant (must download first, then watch) - but: easy to automate auto downloads, can watch offline

Streaming:

- not free, but cheap

- extremely limited selection

- requires proprietary software (OK if you are Windows/Mac/Android/iOS user; not acceptable for Linux/BSD user)

- instant, no need to wait for download

- content creator gets paid

- regional restrictions

- other arbitrary restrictions (i.e. can't watch on Hulu Xbox app, can watch on Hulu in browser, wat do?)

- advertisements on some services

- network connection necessary for viewing

Piracy is a better deal for the consumer. If you do not care about the entertainment industry's profits, it is hard to justify paying for something inferior to the free option.

edit, formatting.

not instant (must download first, then watch) - but: easy to automate auto downloads, can watch offline

Not really. It depends on the format you desire and can fine. There are plenty of flash streaming sites out there that will instantly stream content to you, sometimes in HD (depends on what's been uploaded).

I didn't know this about Google Play. Is there a chart where I can see what each service sells? Like columns for MP4 | WMV | bitrate | HD? | and so forth. Or does each movie/show have different characteristics? I only use Linux so I definitely don't want WMV ;-)

http://www.canistream.it/

That tells you where you can stream or purchase it in various formats. Check what formats Amazon, Apple, Google, Vudu, etc allow you to view the movie in, and you're set.

I don't use Google products, so Android isn't an option for me. In other words, having choice limits my choice. To me this means that the model is broken.

For now I continue to download pirated versions of all the legit versions I own. My goodwill got me burnt by DRM before, but not again.

What about the objection that they corrupt our political and legal systems by buying themselves laws like copyright extensions, DMCA and SOPA? They're not going to stop doing that? Well fuck them, they won't get a penny from me. But I'm still going to enjoy the fruits of our creative culture. Deal with it.

I haven't pirated anything for probably 8 years or so. I always generally preferred to pay for stuff.

That said, you're making a pretty weak assertion. iTunes often lags other distribution channels, oftentimes by months it seems. These oh-so-convenient alternative distribution channels are also DRMed up to the nines. I've bought all the kid's movies on my iPad through iTunes. Can I play them in my minivan through an HDMI to Composite adapter? Only for about 10 seconds. Then the screen goes black and the iPad says "this is not an approved playback device".

You don't have freedom and choice today. Unless I want to have random purchases over three or four services I need to consolidate my purchases for convenience. If I buy an Android phone I can't view the Google Play content at home (without yet another device and HDCP hookup). When HDCP dies the death it deserves, even with DRM still present, life for the honest consumer will get a lot better. Until then... yeah, no, the "industry" is far from giving me what I want.

> The entertainment industry seems to be doing better than ever. Did piracy actually reverse growth at any point in their history?

The shift to digital absolutely did reverse growth in the music industry (part of the entertainment industry) for about a decade. Exactly how much of that can be attributed to "piracy" in particular is a question that's difficult to answer, because it was a combination of not being able to easily buy music in the way people wanted combined with piracy that created a situation in which it was considerably easier to pirate/share music than to buy it.

The thing about companies that complain about piracy is that they do the math based on lost sales. So as long as piracy exists, they can always do their math and show how much sales they've lost. If the amount is significant, they can still complain.

The unfortunate thing is that they can't prove that if piracy was impossible, that the resulting sales numbers would instantaneously match their forecasted numbers. You'd never for example see poor people in a poor country be willing to cough up money for Windows and Office licenses if piracy for Microsoft products suddenly stopped. Likewise for entertainment products like movies. And yet, those companies continue to wave around their calculations as gospel truth.

> Almost every objection to legal purchases made by pirates over the years has been answered

How about the big one: content available in a timely fashion? For example, TV shows still don't show up on iTunes until typically the next day. Movies don't show up on Netflix for a long time. Movies also take a while to show up on iTunes, and even then they're often restricted to purchase-only for a few weeks.

An an Australian, I wish I knew what a "Netflix" was.