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

311–320 of 548 posts

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

#311

Post by [deleted] »

emodendroket wrote: post #65
TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #58

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

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

#312

Post by imagist »

Competition in the streaming content industry does not benefit consumers as long as streaming providers compete by trying to monopolize content. There are a few solutions to this which I can think of:

1. Add government regulation that makes exclusive licensing of content to streaming services illegal. This feels heavy-handed to me. Streaming entertainment just isn't important enough to warrant the attention of government.

2. Companies self-regulate: this would be cool, but it's not gonna happen without some serious outside intervention.

3. Removal of copyrighting that allows companies to enforce their licenses. This is arguably bad for content producers, but in practice content producers aren't receiving the bulk of the profits--labels and studios are.

4. Go back to an ownership rather than a rent model of content distribution. DRM essentially breaks this, however, and again it's unlikely that content distributors will stop using this.

I favor 4, but at a personal level, 3 is the only one really available to me, de-facto.

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

#313

Post by dorfsmay »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #154
dorfsmay wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was enforced technically. Netflix has upped the game to the point nobody is able to provide a service to watch non-canadian Netflix in Canada, which renders Netflix useless.

You may have to find a manual solution. Have you tried spawning a VPS in the US and connecting to it via Shadowsocks?[1] I apparently can sign up for an account when routed through such a setup and Netflix doesn't seem to think it's a VPN (this was a VPS hosted in Germany, however). I can give more details if interested. [1] https://shadowsocks.org/

Do you then have to create a separate account "from the US"?

Netflix made sense when we could watch movies from any countries, not just the US. A lot of smaller countries would have movies not available in US/Canada but still in English.

Also: I'm happy to pay for content, but if I have to hack my way around to the point that it's harder than pirating...

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

#314

Post by jackfrodo »

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…

What is the definition of "binge-watching"? For me, that would be three episodes of Bojack Horseman, or about 75 minutes of content. On the other hand, I would happily watch a Tarantino film, say 140 minutes, in one sitting. I guess it doesn't count as a "binge" but it keeps me in front of Netflix longer than a television show.

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

#315

Post by donretag »

jccalhoun wrote: post #81
jhbadger wrote: post #5

While I'm sure it's not entirely Netflix's fault (media companies realizing their back catalog has a value), it seems to be a common evolution for movie services to move to providing their own content. Look at HBO. In the 1980s, it was all about showing movies (the name even meant "Home Box Office"). Now it is all about Game of Thrones and what not. With things like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, etc., that…

I have noticed a lack of black and white movies on netflix. I know Hulu has the Criterion Collection which has some prestige black and white movies but there are tons of them that seem like they should be cheap for netflix to license. Has TMC bought them all up and refuse to license them to netflix or does netflix think no one wants to watch black and white movies?

How many B&W movies have made it to the public domain? Why are companies not streaming public domain movies? There are many classics available for free.

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

#316

Post by emerod »

karyon wrote: post #133
ekianjo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy between shoplifting and copyright infrigement gets really, really old.

I've made that argument myself, but agree that the current video streaming situation is just dumb. Could you explain me why that analogy is wrong? I understand there is no damage done as in, they don't have less money than they had before, but they still have less money than they would have if i bought/rented the video.

If transfer of ownership does not actually occur when a digital product is "purchased", then how can one argue that ownership is lost when a digital product is "stolen"? In both cases, what is happening involves licensed use, not ownership. What is lost when a digital product is pirated is not ownership, AKA property rights; what is lost is potential demand for licensing rights. What is lost when a physical item is stolen is actual possession, which would enable one to use or sell the actual item. Losing actual possession of the item will also cause loss of demand, though, since someone else having possession enables them to use or sell the actual item in competition with the legitimate owner, who is concerned with maintaining market demand for the physical items.

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

#317

Post by YuriNiyazov »

jackfrodo wrote: post #314
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…

What is the definition of "binge-watching"? For me, that would be three episodes of Bojack Horseman, or about 75 minutes of content. On the other hand, I would happily watch a Tarantino film, say 140 minutes, in one sitting. I guess it doesn't count as a "binge" but it keeps me in front of Netflix longer than a television show.

Not quite. Iirc, Bojack has 10-12 episodes per season. If you watch the first three today, you will watch the next three tomorrow. If you watch django unchained today, that's not a guarantee you will rewatch kill bill tomorrow.

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

#318

Post by paol »

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.

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

#319

Post by sun_n_surf »

Netflix is now basically an OTT TV channel. This puts to rest the content aggregation platform model for video which, unlike music, is highly differentiated with higher cost, which rules out commoditization.

This basically reduces online video to two categories: user-generated content platforms and commissioned, curated content platforms. In my view there is only room for one player in the former (YT), but in the latter category, it is basically business as usual for the traditional TV networks. 

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

#320

Post by caractacus »

jedberg wrote: post #273
caractacus wrote: post #83

Earlier 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.

The major DSPs in the music space have to license each music company separately. YouTube, Amazon, Soundcloud, Spotify, Apple - all have individual dealings with the majors and with groups of or individual indies. It's definitely not as simple as requesting a blanket license for all music everywhere and paying a single fee.

Sure, there are three major music companies and six major film studios plus a bunch of major tv networks / distributors but it's still a long set of negotiations.

I think the difference is that the music companies understand the value of each service having ubiquitous access to every piece of music. UMG's decision to stop their artists agreeing exclusives with single platforms demonstrates this to some extent.

Post reply on HN