Netflix Long Term View • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix Long Term View

#141

Post by mxfh » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 4:07 AM UTC

sandworm wrote: post #140

mxfh wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's accessing the internet from a different IP, not a different location, the whole idea of an IP (without additional information) being equivalent with a proof of physical location will most likely not hold up as a legal concept in a higher court. So called geo-fencing by IP only is fuzzy by definition. The copy is licensed since it's made available by the distributor to the customer. It's the distributors duty to…

First sale doesn't apply because you are purchasing a "license" not a "copy". Licenses are essentially contracts through which parties can create all sorts of restrictions that wouldn't apply to copies. Top of the list are restrictions on selling the license to others, ie non-transferability. The problem with Netflix really starts long before the consumer. With something like Black Books, which predates the netflix c…

Netflix is clearly running a two-sided strategy, having less then strict checks on the consumer side while telling the studios they will enforce their restrictions.

The purchase of a DVD grants you the license to play the stored content for unlimited private screenings from the medium provided. It's both a license and a copy. The first sale doctrine overrides the "For Home Use Only." clause (which is a part of a license) still present on many DVDs and allows libraries and retailers (notably old netflix) to rent out the medium.

Re: Netflix Long Term View

#142

Post by mxfh » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 4:13 AM UTC

Can someone tell me how geo-fencing within the EU is still a thing to stay when one of the EU's main digital agenda goals is to establish a digital single market market?

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/our-goals/pillar-i-di...

[Edit] Some sources:

Geographical Restrictions, (and different pricing) for digital goods within the EU are clearly discriminatory against the customer. As stated here:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/i...

Under intellectual property law, right holders may geographically restrict licenses. Therefore intellectual property law allows businesses to compartmentalise the market. Restrictions of passive sale are contrary to the consumers’ freedom of access to goods and services on the DSM, and are not permitted under European law.

Prohibiting geographical restrictions would not require fundamental changes to the international system of intellectual property rights. It would simply ensure that all licences granted for the territory of one Member State are valid for the whole territory of the EU. The tendency to market compartmentalisation is inherent to territorially restricted IP rights.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/201...

Re: Netflix Long Term View

#143

Post by zanny » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 4:17 AM UTC

Just a tangent, but the 600m for advertising and 500m for product development is not a Netflix only thing, but it always pisses me off so much to read it.

That first number, the bigger number, is a black hole. Advertising is the worst, with its only competitor in my book being the legal system, industry in the industrialized world. It produces nothing of value, because all it tries to do it move money from predisposed destinations to the advertisers. It is buying market share, without making anything with the money. The later is actual productivity, goods and services people can use and want and experience and benefit from.

I'd go into another tangent about how advertisings size is out of control and it only gets worse due to how people are getting poorer on average (less money per individual) while wealth concentrates in the rich (ie, those that would own a company like Netflix) which means that when you rake in huge profits and a big money pot, what do you spend it on? Making goods and services is pointless if there is no money left in the market to explore your products and buy new things. Instead you throw those profits into advertising, into a non-productive discipline whose only job is to manipulate people into giving you money they would have spent elsewhere. But this post is already long enough that nobody is going to read it anyway!

What a colossal waste, everywhere advertising happens. And it is only on track to get worse.

Re: Netflix Long Term View

#144

Post by vasilipupkin » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 4:48 AM UTC

Perceptes wrote: post #127

vasilipupkin wrote: post #123

What confuses me is this: Why doesn't Netflix allow me to pay a little bit more, as an option, and, in exchange, have every single movie available to watch online? I mean, sure, they can produce their own shows, but only some of them will be good. So why limit content so much? I pretty much stopped using Netflix, instead I go to Amazon Instant Video I may be missing something, but strategy of producing original conte…

The producers of the other content are not willing to license it to Netflix anymore, because they want to sell it via similar services themselves.

ok, great. What are the services? I mean, I don't care about netflix. I just want to be able to access a website where I can watch any movie ever made, any time, for a price. If the price is 20 bucks, fine.

Re: Netflix Long Term View

#145

Post by vasilipupkin » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 4:50 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #128

vasilipupkin wrote: post #123

What confuses me is this: Why doesn't Netflix allow me to pay a little bit more, as an option, and, in exchange, have every single movie available to watch online? I mean, sure, they can produce their own shows, but only some of them will be good. So why limit content so much? I pretty much stopped using Netflix, instead I go to Amazon Instant Video I may be missing something, but strategy of producing original conte…

> What confuses me is this: Why doesn't Netflix allow me to pay a little bit more, as an option, and, in exchange, have every single movie available to watch online? Because much of the content they don't have is because the content owner is competing with Netflix and won't license it, or because some other Netflix competitor has purchased an exclusive license. Some of it is Netflix managing in-total licensing costs,…

are you talking about Amazon Instant Video when you say competitor?

Re: Netflix Long Term View

#146

Post by dude_abides » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 5:08 AM UTC

My attempt at a tl;dr:

We cannot afford to license all content from all studios (and compete with Comcast/AT&T etc), so instead we will spend 5b trying to create our own content (and compete with HBO instead).

Oh and we will be spending half a billion on marketing.

(did I misread)

Re: Netflix Long Term View

#147

Post by kolev » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 5:14 AM UTC

dude_abides wrote: post #146

My attempt at a tl;dr: We cannot afford to license all content from all studios (and compete with Comcast/AT&T etc), so instead we will spend 5b trying to create our own content (and compete with HBO instead). Oh and we will be spending half a billion on marketing. (did I misread)

Time to bid a farewell and switch my mindset to Google Play, Vudu, and Amazon Instant Videos. I get less bang for my bucks with Netflix and I'm not into TV shows to justify with their "original" stuff. Why do they want to get into this game when all HBO needs is to open HBO Go to everybody for $7.99/mo?

Re: Netflix Long Term View

#148

Post by 4ydx » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 5:50 AM UTC

Man this transition feels like it is going to take my lifetime. Years ago it felt like an internet based on demand (+cheap) option should have been available. It is a simple thing to fantasize about but a difficult thing to realize it seems. For me personally the price point still feels too high given that I never get to own any content.

Re: Netflix Long Term View

#149

Post by danjayh » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 6:12 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #124

nissehulth wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a future for proprietary platforms. Not too long ago, the music industry tried that. They were not successful, services like iTunes or Spotify won the customers. It seems to me that the TV content owners have to make that same mistake, then there will be streaming providers that have "everything". Perhaps not Netflix, but something similar.

I don't think people consume music in the same way as movies or TV. My wife and I have accounts for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and we'll get HBO Go. When you're going to sit down for 30-60 minutes, it's not a big deal to search a couple of places. And throw in some central search like what Roku does, it's really no big deal.

I think that the real problem is that most people will not pay for 5 different streaming services. Remember, the median family income in the US is only about 50k, which I'm guessing is less than most people here make by themselves. I predict that the dismantling of "has everything" Netflix results in a resurgence of video piracy (or maybe redbox) -- overall, a net loss for the industry.

Re: Netflix Long Term View

#150

Post by thaumasiotes » Sat, Feb 21, 2015, 6:18 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #18

One of the things they bring up, which is that apps are replacing channels, annoys me. I'd rather do a global search and then present me with delivery media (channels/apps/whatever) instead of having to pick the app and then do individual searches. It's a pain point. Also, if they want to capture the hotel market, I mean people on the road staying in temp accommodation, they'll have to deliver blue content (or yellow…

> they'll have to deliver blue content

Where are you from? I was pretty shocked to learn from chinese people that they thought the english euphemism for pornography was "blue". This is the first time I've seen someone use it.