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

421–430 of 548 posts

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

#421

Post by talmand »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #282
lorenzhs wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> do the media conglomerates not fallover themselves to make it happen

Apparently they are not willing to do so for their own reasons or their licensing demands are too high for Netflix to sustain their service. I somehow doubt Netflix is turning away licensed content because they don't want to make money from that content.

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

#422

Post by logfromblammo »

6stringmerc wrote: post #172
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.

If memory serves me correctly, Netflix's ongoing issues with negotiating access to major film studio or major TV network content without going broke spurred them into the business of 'content creator' status. I mean, they hired professionals and really just joined in the game their own way, and now they're piling up compelling, high-draw programming. Programming that would be going to AMC or FX or even ABC maybe. The…

Implicitly, Netflix is pointing out to the studios that they may be charging more to license their content than what it costs to produce a directly competing property from scratch.

Why, for instance, should I pay as much for a season of X-Files reruns as for the production of an entirely new series of Stranger Things? Why would I pay as much for episodes of The Sopranos, that I have already seen, and have on DVD, instead of another new series of Lillyhammer? I wouldn't, and neither would Netflix. The original content is a reminder to the owners of distribution rights that Netflix is the one who owns the ball, and they're the ones that will be taking it with them if they decide to go home and play alone.

And Netflix originals are getting nominated for Emmy Awards, in competition with AMC and HBO shows. Producing exclusive original content was absolutely the correct play for Netflix at the time they decided to do it, and remains so for the present.

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

#423

Post by mikeash »

sosborn wrote: post #419
mikeash wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why the analogy is wrong. If you're in a situation where you're definitely not going to buy it (because nobody will take your money and give you the product, for example) then there's no difference to them if you watch it or not. Imagine I really want your car, so I take it. Or imagine I really want your car, so I use a magic wand to make an exact duplicate of it. Are those two scenarios at all comparable?

> (because nobody will take your money and give you the product, for example) This argument fall apart in many of the examples cited in this thread because most of the time, those movies are available digitally for a price. The fact is that most people just don't want to pay that price so they use other means to watch the movie.

The argument works equally well if you simply wouldn't buy it.

The issue, of course, is whether or not you're correctly estimating whether you would end up buying it if you didn't pirate it. But if you take it as given that you wouldn't buy it, then there's no loss.

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

#424

Post by talmand »

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…

There actually has been a few shows on Netflix that had their iconic intro music pulled because they weren't licensed to play the music on a streaming service. Married With Children and Charmed are two I remember.

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

#426

Post by Paul-ish »

paol wrote: post #318
bcrescimanno wrote: post #304

TL;DR: A former Netflix employee isn't surprised because films very little business sense for Netflix. Former Netflix employee here--though I left in late 2013. I remember sitting at a company meeting and Reed Hastings explaining that AAA film content was never going to be the bread-and-butter for Netflix for several reasons. Most importantly: Between traditional, "linear" television and Netflix, the experience that…

If that's the case, that leaves the problem (from the consumer's point of view) of where to get access to a complete(ish) catalog of films. Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days. So we're actually moving backwards. I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.

What if, overall, film watching just goes down?

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

#427

Post by gnicholas »

cybernytrix wrote: post #408
karpodiem wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.' No studios will collectively give a tech company the majority of the licenses to make this possible - so torrents it is.

Renting a movie is less than what you will spend in Starbucks (most of them).

Some rentals are cheaper than Starbucks, but many new releases are $5-$6. Also, I frequently find that a movie I'm looking to rent on iTunes is only available for purchase ($15). I understand why studios push for these sort of arrangements, but since there aren't any brick and mortar rental locations anymore, it means there isn't a way to check out that movie for less than $15.

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

#428

Post by ChuckMcM »

paol wrote: post #318
bcrescimanno wrote: post #304

TL;DR: A former Netflix employee isn't surprised because films very little business sense for Netflix. Former Netflix employee here--though I left in late 2013. I remember sitting at a company meeting and Reed Hastings explaining that AAA film content was never going to be the bread-and-butter for Netflix for several reasons. Most importantly: Between traditional, "linear" television and Netflix, the experience that…

If that's the case, that leaves the problem (from the consumer's point of view) of where to get access to a complete(ish) catalog of films. Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days. So we're actually moving backwards. I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.

I think it is the case and it is where Amazon video is winning seats. Basically if you want to watch any of the IMDB top 250 films you can do so using the Amazon Video app on Roku or many smart TVs by renting it for $4 - $6. (depending on SD or HD).

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

#429

Post by pmoriarty »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #156
andybak wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the comparison is objectionable is because 'theft' is not the same as 'failing to pay a fee'. Theft implies a non-duplicatable object has passed from the possession of one entity to the possession of another thus depriving the first entity of any use or advantage from it. While we might disagree on the moral shading of copyright infringement can we agree that piracy and theft are different things?

...and there's the convenient, highly abstract argument. When wanting free stuff, no mental gymnastic is too hard. I'm a pragmatist. I see folks wanting to avoid disappointment (can't see favorite show) suddenly becoming theoretical philosophers. Like a 12-year-old deciding their older brother's belongings really belong to everybody, because socialism or whatever.

"I'm a pragmatist. I see folks wanting to avoid disappointment (can't see favorite show) suddenly becoming theoretical philosophers."

I can understand (though not agree with) the point of view that people are selfish and just make up excuses to justify to themselves and others that they are in the right whenever they take some action that benefits themselves.

But I don't understand why you would attribute those selfish, self-justifying motives only to those that make copies of digital media but not to those who proclaim to "own" them or who decry copying as theft?

Wouldn't your view also have to apply to the whole concept of ownership, which you'd have to dismiss as a pretension to "theoretical philosophy"?

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

#430

Post by esharte »

Jtsummers wrote: post #204
fixermark wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, sometimes when I forget my wallet at the corner store, the clerk will just let me take the stick of gum because he knows I'm good for it later. There's a lot of reasons that analogies between mom and pop face-to-face businesses and massively-middleman'd intermediary transactions break down; this is just one of them.

> the clerk will just let me take the stick of gum because he knows I'm good for it later. So you're still going to pay for it. That's not the same as the story here, where they paid for it, got a refund, then got it for "free". They aren't intending to go to the content creators and hand them $5 for it later.

The $5 isn't going to the content creators.
Post reply on HN