Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

streamingobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 548 posts

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#281

Post by wildmusings »

$10 a month.

$10 a month.

$10 a month.

I'm repeating this because this is something that seems to be escaping people here. You're paying $10 a month for access to a massive library of content. Having every popular movie available for instant streaming is worth WAY more than $10 a month. If you want to watch recent blockbusters and popular movies, you can rent them on Amazon or iTunes.

To the people using this to morally justify their pirating, give me a break. Renting/buying movies on Amazon or iTunes couldn't be easier. The only problem is that you would rather steal than pay.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#282

Post by pbhjpbhj »

lorenzhs wrote: post #162
Y-bar wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of overhead, specifically, would that be? Swedes speak to the same english-only customer service representatives as US customers do. And CDN cost should scale mostly linearly with the size of the customer base.

License dealings are often per-country, and there are different exclusive deals in different countries which prevent anyone else from offering some film or show on their streaming platform. There's a lot of legal overhead per country, unfortunately.

>"There's a lot of legal overhead per country, unfortunately." //

Which it's worth remembering is entirely self-imposed by the industry.

Why, if Netflix comes along and says "we want to give you more money by showing this media to Swedes too" do the media conglomerates not fallover themselves to make it happen. It needs a couple of checkboxes on a form somewhere.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#283

Post by gordon_freeman »

AlexB138 wrote: post #248
gordon_freeman wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the best and straightforward workaround. Thanks for letting us know that we can rent on Play and watch it on YouTube. I just didn't know that's possible. If you want to rent the movie or show on Amazon Video but are avoiding using that option just because it doesn't work on chromecast then here is what you can do : 1. Install Amazon video app on phone. Here's link for Android : https://www.amazon.com/gp/video…

Don't you have to leave your phone's screen on the entire time to use screen casting?

Yes. It's essentially mirroring the phone screen so you've got to focus on watching movie or a show and not worry about playing with the phone notifications. That's a trade-off.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#284

Post by Fogest »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #144
givinguflac wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be missing the point that you continually bringing it up does not make it accurate or even relevant. You wouldn't download a car! This is a dumb argument.

I know this: the subject is complex and many varied and valid arguments are made on all sides. But amazingly, folks accept whatever argument gives them free entertainment. Objections are suddenly 'irrelevant' when watching their favorite TV show is at stake. Folks who wouldn't go in the back window of a bar to avoid the cover charge, will gladly go in the back way online to hear their favorite band. And they rely on…

Well if the front door was inconvenient and hard to find, and then I paid for it and the front door wouldn't work, then yeah maybe I would go in the back window. Your argument is so flawed, and it really seems like with your comment above that you just are looking for a reason to call the younger generation "entitled".

Stop using physical examples, they don't correlate to a digital good that can be duplicated digitally, with no physical presence.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#285

Post by mbesto »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #202
sgeisenh wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy and larceny are entirely different crimes. Nobody "stole" anything, in this particular situation. In order for something to be "stolen", the victim must lose something that they already had. You might try to argue that streaming services lost a sale, but they never had the sale and they make the process so arduous that they would never get the sale. To be clear, I am not promoting piracy, it does pose ethical…

The 'book value' of items in the corner market is negligible. The real value is in having that soda available, cold and ready for you. And in marketing that fact. So in a very real sense, stealing the soda and stealing the movie are hardly any different?

> So in a very real sense, stealing the soda and stealing the movie are hardly any different?

But again, stealing a soda voids the ability for someone else to obtain the good. "Stealing" a movie via piracy doesn't neglect someone else from obtain the good. This is the GP's point - stealing implies there is something of loss.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#286

Post by Lawtonfogle »

roboguy12 wrote: post #85
SCdF wrote: post #28

It sucks that Netflix is pushing their own content as a solution. Don't get me wrong, some of their own content is great, but I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content, I want to subscribe to one. Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again.

Last weekend my wife and I wanted to watch the movie Goat. It was pretty recently in theaters, so we didn't expect it to be on Netflix. We searched HBO Now, Hulu, Starz, and all of the other video streaming services that we have (and pay money for!). We found two options - rent it on Google Play Movies, or rent it through Amazon Prime. Now, we wanted to Chromecast it, and Amazon (to the best of my knowledge) does not…

Given how selective enforcement works, I would say you did it the legal way in as much as so.eone doing 70 on a 65 interstate while everyone else is doing about 70 is legally driving. As long as the infringement isn't massive it is largely tolerated and if the law as written was fully enforced, it would result in the law quickly being changed. Much like if they started handing out tickets to everyone who went even a 1 mph over the limit the law would change.

Now, I don't like selective enforcement and think it has many problems, but it does seem to be how our legal system functions these days.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#287

Post by justifier »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #240
justifier wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reference to shoplifting is so knee jerk and tired it fails to even apply to this instance If you read it again you'll see the person paid for the product and then the product they paid for was kept from them Same thing happened to me, I tried to rent a film on touyube but the stream consistently erred after 2s of low quality viewing.. what really bugged me was I could watch any trending video on the free servic…

Then they got a refund. Then they pirated. If I read it right?

Right, but is that how you define shoplifting?

Shoplifting is when someone buys something, then has it withheld from them, then get a refund, then access that product from someone else offering to share it with them?

I guess I was trying to move the conversation away from what I see as a flawed analogy to what I think is technically interesting, and that I have first hand experience with, in that the companies offering paid services fail to support them to the same standard as their free services

For the record the phone time seeking the refund, for me, lacked an appropriate roi so i am out the money and was stunted from exposing myself to the media.. media which the creator and distributor trusted goog with making available to me

There are so many interesting subtleties it's frustrating to bury the conversation in a flawed analogy

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#288

Post by ccozan »

gordon_freeman wrote: post #209
UnfalseDesign wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't a problem with our Wifi, since Netflix/Youtube and other services worked just fine, it was a problem with Google Play streaming to the Chromecast. Movies you buy/rent in Google Play Movies are actually available in YouTube as well. There's a section in YouTube called "Purchases." I've used this to stream Google Play Movies purchases on my Fire TV. I would imagine the same would work for an Apple TV since…

That is the best and straightforward workaround. Thanks for letting us know that we can rent on Play and watch it on YouTube. I just didn't know that's possible. If you want to rent the movie or show on Amazon Video but are avoiding using that option just because it doesn't work on chromecast then here is what you can do : 1. Install Amazon video app on phone. Here's link for Android : https://www.amazon.com/gp/video…

In addition to this, most smart TVs ( I have an LG from 2013 ) have an Amazon app, so no need to screen cast. I use this to watch directly on TV content from Amazon. Never had any issue with playback, even on slower lines ( now I have fiber, is always HD ).

I have to admit, nice trick with Google Play and Youtube, will check too.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#289

Post by thirdsun »

caractacus wrote: post #83
draugadrotten wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again. Lawyers are the primary reason why Netflix is becoming less convenient, and by pure coincidence, lawyers will benefit from an increase in piracy. Money talks.

So why doesn't this happen in the music industry? And a few exclusives here and there doesn't count. Spotify / Apple / Amazon / Tidal / Deezer have 99.9% of the same content with a few high profile albums that are only found on one or another service.

Also, it's not just streaming. I buy all my music as lossless audio and I can do so from any store that offers the format, without DRM or any other strings attached. I actually own the files.

I wish the TV / movie would learn a thing or two from the music industry.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#290

Post by pbhjpbhj »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #271

I bet Netflix would absolutely love to provide all of these movies. I don't have any insider knowledge, but given their past behavior, I cannot help but think the content providers (of which a lot are owned by cable cartels) are preventing this. They are either prohibitively pricing the movies or are trying to dictate too many terms under which viewers have access to the movies. Then there's the fact that some of the…

If we had 20 year copyright terms then most of the back catalogue issues would be moot. Companies would have to get their act together and make the most of licensing new works with the added competition of others offering only PD works.

Of course the poor starving actors of all those old movies -- Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Chaplin, Greta Garbo, etc. -- would perish under such a regime. They might even stop making new works! /s

Post reply on HN