Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure they have. Torrents are popular and effective. They work great. The studios clearly prefer we use them; their repeated decisions leaving them as the sole functional choice show that.
"The studios clearly prefer we use them" : what do you mean ?
Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List
301–310 of 548 posts
Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is definitely not true. If you're looking for stuff that's popular here and now, you'll do fine (especially if you're a fan of Hollywood blockbusters). But as soon as you start looking for back catalogue stuff, you're in a mess of dead torrents and broken links. Want to find a mostly-forgotten science fiction movie from the mid-90s (in my case, Strange Days)? Two hours of hunting for a way of downloading it led…
Well p2p such as torrent is for the bottom feeders. There are better methods available.
In terms of breadth and quality of content, private torrent trackers are far and away the best download method.
Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List
#303It 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.
> I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content Funny how so many people screamed for al la care programming and now that it's happening everyone is realizing it's actually worse. I know people hated it, but there is something to be said about traditional TV and how it's consumed. Having a centralized menu/guide of all the content you can view makes it much easi…
It pretty much works this way for music, why not movies and TV shows?
Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List
#304Former 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 Netflix brings with a combination of a low subscription cost, no commercials, and the ability to watch as many episodes of a show as you want to watch whenever you want to watch them is VASTLY superior.
Netflix survives and thrives on binge-watching--and people just don't do that with movies (they have a LOT of data to back up that statement). Combined with the realities of the costs associated with feature film licensing and there's very little incentive for Netflix to put any emphasis on films.
The only way they could do it is to tack on a pay-per-view service for films (because their subscription fee alone will absolutely NOT cover the cost of licensing more feature film content) and they are highly averse to such a service. The general feeling is that it's better for the average user if they can open up Netflix and watch whatever is there without ever thinking about whether it's an "included" title or a "PPV" title. When I was there, we regularly revisited this assumption and research always found that it continued to be the prudent move.
Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The main reason is that licensing works totally differently for music. For music, you go to a central licensing source and pay for the license. They will license to anyone with money. For movies, you have to negotiate separately with every movie producer for every title. In other words, to start a music service, you need money. To start a movie service, you need money and connections to every Hollywood studio.
Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List
#306Meanwhile in the warez land everything is just 1 click away, hassle free and non-DRM encumbered.
This is definitely not true. If you're looking for stuff that's popular here and now, you'll do fine (especially if you're a fan of Hollywood blockbusters). But as soon as you start looking for back catalogue stuff, you're in a mess of dead torrents and broken links. Want to find a mostly-forgotten science fiction movie from the mid-90s (in my case, Strange Days)? Two hours of hunting for a way of downloading it led…
Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List
#307I can understand that the media companies don't want to cooperate with Netflix by denying them access to their IP but it's sad that they haven't been able to launch a real alternative to Netflix during all these years.
They're hoping that you'll buy the physical media. That's been the plan with Redbox - force a 28-90 day delay on new releases so customers will rush right out and just buy it on DVD. reality is that people usually just wait. The studios don't really want to cooperate. They want complete control over how you watch their product.
In the UK we no longer have rights to format shift (we did, but they were rescinded), so if you bought it on DVD and want to watch on your tablet - well you'll probably have to buy it again or infringe the letter of the copyright law.
What's that? Want to stream it to another device from your computer, ha-ha, no chance. If media companies made such things legal (they control the copyright laws) then there's no telling what might happen. People watching the media they paid for, how absurd!
They want to sell you a cinema viewing, sell you a DVD, sell you a tablet download, and even then sell you a streaming copy to watch on your TV (because who has a DVD player now).
Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List
#308It 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.
I don't think it's Netflix's choice that they're getting rid of their broader range of content, more to do with licensing agreements. I assume they had so many films in the past because they had old licensing deals, when the production companies were more willing to go "Yeah, sure, let's give that small company a cheap deal to stream our movies online. What does it matter, no one watches movies on their computer, they'll still buy our DVDs or subscribe to our cable packages"
Now they recognise Netflix as a major competitor, and people are actually ditching their cable packages, and watching Netflix rather than buying DVDs. They can't compete with their old business model, so their only option is to demand extortionate prices or simply refuse to do business with Netflix, Amazon, etc.
It's the frustrating reason why companies like Fox, Universal, etc are able to be so successful, because they own the studios, the distribution, and the cable channels. They don't have to worry about getting someone else to give them content, or to distribute theirs. It's frustrating that Netflix is going to same way and being forced to rely on producing their own content, with less opportunity to show others.
Netflix are increasingly becoming like just another cable channel, with it's own set of content, and that's before you even get into all the regional differences. It's still an improvement over the alternative of bundled cable TV packages in terms of pricing and convenience, but I wonder how long that will be the case.
Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spent 35 minutes trying to find a resolution and didn't get one. So they should expect to pay money AND time to watch content legally?
It would be ideal if they wouldn't have to spend time, but just because things don't work it doesn't mean you're now entitled to take something you didn't pay for. If the blender I bought doesn't work I should be able to take it back to store and get a refund. But just because I spent 30 minutes driving back to store, that doesn't mean I can just take another one from the shelves and walk out without paying.
Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content Funny how so many people screamed for al la care programming and now that it's happening everyone is realizing it's actually worse. I know people hated it, but there is something to be said about traditional TV and how it's consumed. Having a centralized menu/guide of all the content you can view makes it much easi…
What we're getting isn't a la carte; we're getting a bunch of bundles with more chaff than wheat.