6 ms·

"I am convinced that the Popcorn Time-killer is going to be a Netflix without borders. They should remove national restrictions for films,..." Does someone hav

• bobcostas55 11y ago
  This is just a guess, but I imagine the issue is that different distributors own the rights for different regions, and that includes online distribution.
• kuschku 11y ago
  For example, in some european countries, Game of Thrones is available through Netflix – obviously, in the US, this would destroy the market of HBO Go. Essentially, the reason is that publishers want to push their own platforms.
  • digi_owl 11y ago
    And also why we see ISPs less and less willing to fight, as they have moved beyond just delivering a internet connection to delivering "triple play" (net, cable/streaming, voip). Meaning that they now need to have the distributors on their good side. Kinda reminds me of a claimed exchange between Disney and Microsoft, when MS was trying to peddle their then new movie file format. They held a meeting, and the MS rep opened by asking the Disney rep how much they were willing to pay to use the MS format. No no no, countered the Disney rep, how much are you willing to pay for our content.
    • loganu 11y ago
      [ISPs] have moved beyond just delivering a internet connection to delivering "triple play" (net, cable/streaming, voip). I thought this bundling was more to protect their profit margins. In Canada, for example, Telus has cable, internet, cellphone, house phone products available. For every product line you purchase, there's a discount. When they charge data overage fees on cell phones and internet plans, they make huge money, and subsidize the cost of running other product lines which help their lock-in effect. (Sorry for the poor wording)
      • digi_owl 11y ago
        It is, but it also makes them beholden to the content distributors. The last thing they want is to be delayed in offering the latest blockbuster or hotly debated drama.
      • soylentcola 11y ago
        I think part of it is that they can charge content owners/distributors (cable networks) more money with higher subscriber numbers. It's why I can pay $69/mo for 100/10 internet service from Comcast but for $99/mo I get 80 channels of cable plus HBO on top of internet service. If I were to buy only cable TV, that same package would not cost just $40/mo but they'd rather have me boosting their cable sub numbers than just paying them for a data pipe so they heavily discount the price.
  • arrayjumper 11y ago
    > For example, in some european countries, Game of Thrones is available through Netflix. I'm not questioning your conclusion but your premise is false. Game of thrones is not available on Netflix in any country (https://flixsearch.io/search/game%20of%20thrones https://flixsearch.io/search/game%20of%20thrones)
• dibujante 11y ago
  In Canada, it's "the law" (not really, but effectively): the CRTC mandates that a certain percentage of all content on Canadian Netflix be Canadian. Since there is simply not much Canadian content on a global scale, Netflix would have to scrape the barrel getting additional licenses in order to "buy" more space for other content. So they don't, and Canadians pretend to be US Americans when they watch Netflix.
  • loganu 11y ago
    Right, completely forgot about this. I think CanCon is a good idea in theory, but Netflix could buy all the Little Mosque on the Prairie, Trailer Park Boys, and Corner Gas spin-offs that Canada could possibly produce, and it wouldn't make much of a dent in the amount of content that Netflix could push. Edit: Others have pointed out Netflix doesn't fall under CRTC guidelines after "internet tax" was threatened.
  • jeromegv 11y ago
    This is a myth, this CRTC rule is mandated for broadcasters. CRTC does not rule content on the internet. Source: http://blog.fagstein.com/2014/11/10/crtc-tv-myths/ http://blog.fagstein.com/2014/11/10/crtc-tv-myths/
  • Nacraile 11y ago
    This is simply not true. The CRTC threatened to add a tax on Netflix and similar services (to "compensate" for them not being subject to the content requirements imposed on traditional broadcasters). They backed off of that, and instead have relaxed the requirements on traditional broadcasters. http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/03/12/crtc-lowering-canadian-content-quotas-to-boost-quality.html http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/03/12/crtc-lowering-can... Sorry, but you can't blame the shittiness of Canadian Netflix on the CRTC.
    • orbitur 11y ago
      > Sorry, but you can't blame the shittiness of Canadian Netflix on the CRTC. Correct, don't blame the CRTC, blame Bell/Corus/Shaw/Rogers for buying up popular content and then locking it up so it's only available through Crave and Shomi tied to a cable subscription, or not online at all. I'm still mad at Bell for making no attempt at matching what HBO Now does in the States. People are clearly willing to pay for the service, but they are desperate to keep people locked into TV.
• ska 11y ago
  This is likely due to distribution rights for many media (e.g. books, films) typically being regional, and separately negotiated.
• griffinmb 11y ago
  Netflix licenses the right to stream films and pays based on that agreement rather than per-view, which is why movies are phased in and out. They have to continually renegotiate contracts. As for geographic restrictions, movie distribution rights typically aren't global. When a movie is produced, one distributor has North America, another distributor gets Europe, etc. Netflix, unfortunately, still has to navigate these out-dated distribution channels. It's the same kind of reasoning that leads an American film to have a multi-month delay before being released in the UK despite the lack of additional overhead (subtitles, etc).
  • loganu 11y ago
    The geographic part makes sense. As for buying licenses - I guess purchasing the rights to broadcast could be considerably cheaper than a pay-per-view model. I'd be interested in how those negotiations occur, or if there are set prices. Take it or leave it.
  • tajen 11y ago
    Software licenses in France are still under this law which was designed for records. In IP transfer contracts, we must write which countries and supports are covered by the IP transfer. Everything else is excluded by default.
• objclxt 11y ago
  > Does someone have some insight into why Netflix has time and geographic restrictions on content? I can understand, in some cases, publishers not wanting to let their movies or TV out to foreign countries Sure, co-financing deals happen all the time. Netflix does them a lot with 'exclusive' content in the US that was actually made elsewhere. For example, a studio in the US and a studio in the UK get together to produce a TV series. They both front up half the budget, meaning they get a full series for half the usual cost. Both studios maintain distribution rights in their respective countries.
• aktiur 11y ago
  In the specific case of France, there are at least two reasons: - there is a stringent legal regime ("media chronology") that sets compulsory delays for publishing a movie on alternative mediums after it has got into theatres : publishers have to wait 4 months to get DVDs out, free TV channels won't be able to screen the movie before 30 months, and VOD subscription services have to wait 36 months (!) - Moreover, exclusivity on the national territory is a common practice for TV series, and a lot of the popular ones have been sold to major TV channels. Ironically, Netflix had already signed such a contract with Canal+, a French channel, for its signature series House of Cards, which is thus not available on the French version of Netflix !
  • unprepare 11y ago
    >that sets compulsory delays for publishing a movie on alternative mediums after it has got into theatres Is there supposed to be some kind of benefit somewhere here? What was the pitch for such a bill? I can't think of any reasoning that benefits the consumers of france.
    • tormeh 11y ago
      Usually for laws like that the pitch is that there's some indirect benefit to the populace, like a healthier film industry which produces more quality films, keeping theaters open which allow you to continue to buy that huge screen/sound theater experience or heightening France's importance to foreign movie studios. That kind of thing. As for whether the tradeoffs are worth it... well, I'm pesimistic.
      • michaelchisari 11y ago
        French cinema is incredible and world-renown, and the theater is part of that cinematic culture. Culture is as important or more important than economy in France. The opportunity to make a billion dollars on one film is valued less than the opportunity to break even on something beautiful. I can see clear advantages to that. Although there are disadvantages as well.
• criley2 11y ago
  "I am convinced that the Popcorn Time-killer is going to be a Netflix without borders. They should remove national restrictions for films,..." Haha you can tell when opinions are offered about services that the speaker doesn't use. Netflix is laggy on movies (in terms of how long before Netflix gets access after initial release) and extremely hit or miss on selection. They're canning Stars and picking up Disney, which still gives them a very low total % of movies, and still prevents them from accessing the movies early. Popcorn Time lets you watch rips and cams long before a legal Netflix has access. People aren't using Popcorn Time to watch content available on US Netflix, they're using it to watch content that is locked behind contract and available in theatres or still in various exclusivity periods. The same thing they use Bittorrent for. Go check the top downloads right now on a major tracker: None of the popular movies are available on ANY Netflix. It's frankly delusional to think that Netflix's laggy, spotty access to last years movies will "kill" a service that illegally grants you access to movies earlier than Netflix will ever get.
  • qzcx 11y ago
    In my personal use situation, if I want to see a movie from this year I go see it in a movie theater. If I'm just looking for something to watch, I pull up Netflix. Typically I can find something interesting and decent. I don't need popcorn time, because it isn't worth the effort/risk/moral grey area when I have legal paid options. As long as there are no commercials in my Netflix, I'm happy.
  • loganu 11y ago
    The quote from Abad is speaking about a product that doesn't exist yet. A Netflix-like experience without massive holes in content. That may or may not be Netflix, if it ever comes to be realized. You're attacking Netflix as-is, and saying that this couldn't occur. Yes, Netflix is laggy. Personally, I find the interface awful, browsing and navigating to be horrendous. The question is: could a well-designed Netflix-LIKE product exist, with enough content available that a large number of people will use it instead of torrents? Would simultaneous theatre/online releases be enough?
  • MichaelGG 11y ago
    >People aren't using Popcorn Time to watch content available on US Netflix I use Popcorn Time even when content is on Netflix. It's a better experience. Subtitles will reliably work (with nice formatting). I can adjust volume levels for low-volume movies. I can shift the centre of the content up - really useful when using a large projector. (Popcorn Time allows alternative players like MPC-HC.) And, oddly, the streaming often works better. Netflix might start quicker, but it takes a while to pop into HD with no way to force it. I'd rather just take a 5 minute break and wait for things to fully buffer and know I'll have a solid experience. Plus I can skip around without restarting the buffering. And since Netflix nerfed their site and recommendation system (you can't mark a film "not interested" without performing about 5 clicks on 3 screens - and they still recommend shit) -- discovery is just about as good.
• conceit 11y ago
  Artificial Scarcity is one strategy to drive prices. There's the real effect of scarcity, as from a region lock, and the psychological effect of having to decide quickly before an item is sold out. Buy now, only three left!!! Price Differentiation is also a thing: The movie is so expensive that netflix couldn't afford it for more than a few months, it's that good. btw: "Popcorn Time-killer" is questionable use of punctuation.
  • loganu 11y ago
    "Popcorn Time-killer" Direct quote, not my writing. But I personally see the capitalized "T" signifying it's the product, not a generic time-killer.
  • wpietri 11y ago
    I suspect that the driver behind region locking is instead a mix of differential pricing and high coordination costs. First-world consumers will pay more for a movie than third-world ones, so you can see why people would try to charge different prices. Global marketing is also an enormous pain; much easier for studios and distributors to divide things up by region and not try to coordinate global rollouts. And I'm with you on the punctuation.
  • paublyrne 11y ago
    btw: "Popcorn Time-killer" is questionable use of punctuation. I agree! The hyphen does not clarify any ambiguity in terms of ownership or meaning of the word killer, so no need for it. But I'm not a dictionary.
• exelius 11y ago
  Yes; because publishers license movies this way. It's a fundamental part of how media properties are funded. Here's a basic explanation: A production company wants to make a movie (or TV show; the differences are small). Production companies are small and have limited assets (less to be sued for later) so they have to go out and raise money to make a movie. To do this, they sell distribution rights for the movie. Movie distribution has traditionally been done regionally -- one company will do it in the US, another in France, and another in China. Everything is done on a percentage basis -- the production company gets X% of gross, the distributor gets another Y% plus expenses, etc. The distributor's goal is to maximize the revenue they make from the movie. To do this in an organized and standardized way, distributors have come to consensus around a number of different "windows". The first window is usually theatrical release -- screenings are tightly controlled, ticket prices are high, etc. The second window is usually pay-per-view, about 6 months later. A year or so after that will be the "Premium" window (i.e. all new movies get divvied up between HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz, etc.) Another year or so after that, a show/movie will hit catalog status, and will be sold as part of a "package" of shows/movie that the distributor feels they can get more money for together than they could alone. They sell different types of distribution rights as well -- streaming rights, broadcast rights, etc. Just because you paid for one doesn't mean you paid for the other. Catalog content is "graded" for popularity and sold in a package to networks like TBS, TNT or even companies like Netflix. Now, all of these windows are coordinated with advertising (which is why distribution is localized -- advertising plays differently in different countries). The distributor is also usually in charge of promotion as well. But because there are already large distributors in different parts of the world with relationships to sell content to their region, it becomes hard for any global player to displace them. Add to this the fact that many countries have laws requiring local ownership of media rights and you'll see that it's very unlikely that this will happen soon; if ever. You can also get situations where Fox owns the rights to a movie in the US, but Universal owns the rights to the same movie in the EU. If Fox negotiates their contract with Netflix, and Universal with Amazon, the movie will be on different services in different countries. Even more confusing here is that sometimes the studios will assign transferrable rights within certain windows to distributors that can be resold -- as happened with Epix (a "premium" cable channel) licensing their movie catalog to Netflix (and now Hulu). The content owners (or rather, the companies that own distribution rights) absolutely do not want to see their content available forever on one service. You have to create urgency with users, or else they get complacent and develop an expectation that content has no value because they just pay this one subscription and get access to everything. By using short-term licensing deals and shopping them around to multiple companies, they 1) re-negotiate pricing terms regularly 2) shatter the consumer expectation that content is available forever and 3) retain ultimate control over their content catalog. Movies in catalog are never sold as individual films, always as part of a content package. The studios figure out internally what money gets allocated to what show (this is intensely political and often very dirty business -- you see lots of law suits as a result). Netflix also has their own proprietary viewing data -- they know how many people started the video and did not finish, what % they dropped out at, etc. Netflix does not have to share this with the studios, and in fact they do not. Netflix will renegotiate contracts based on better data than the studios have -- and often Netflix will decline a contract because there's just not enough projected viewership lift (i.e. either too many of their subscribers have watched already and are unlikely to watch again or just that the content never found traction). So the idea that this industry will move to a "pay per view" model is optimistic -- the content industry is built around the fact that certain movies are worth more to consumers than others, and Netflix is taking advantage of this model. Even Netflix "original" shows are not immune to this -- Netflix often owns distribution rights for those shows in only part of the world. Regardless, there are too many entrenched interests here for this to change any time soon. Netflix is simply a different distribution channel, but the media industry has come up with these complex ownership schemes to spread the risk of a single media property out among several partners. Without this type of complexity, you couldn't fund a $100 million movie -- no one entity would be willing to take the risk without assurances on the distribution side that they can get the movie to market without trouble. Unfortunately, it means that it can be complex for consumers outside the major media markets to acquire media content. Piracy needs to exist to force these companies to address these markets, so I view things like Popcorn Time as ultimately a good thing for the industry.
• takeda 11y ago
  The studios grant limited time licenses. Netflix basically negotiates with them how much they will pay for providing the movies and for how long. Once the contract expires they remove it, unless they renegotiate for next term. Because Netflix was first and is most successful (I'm guessing Amazon Prime is 2nd) they movie studios are extra demanding how much Netflix should pay them. Some of them even right away refuse to share because they either are competing or investing in a competitor. Because of the pain these studios provide, Netflix started making its own content as well. Basically all the unpleasantness you have in Netflix (missing, removed content, regions restrictions etc) is due to studios trying to milk as much money as they can from it.
• jakejake 11y ago
  The geographical timing is there based on the timing of the theatrical release to get the greatest profit from the film. The movie ideally has a cinema run, then when ticket sales slow they release for purchase on physical media (or premium services), then after those sales slow they release for digital renting. They don't want the movie available on Netflix in a country where the theatrical release has not yet happened, or it's still in it's first run. Some of it is left-over from when films were in physical form and loaned out to theaters. There are only so many copies made. Now that modern theaters receive the movies as a download, that's not really a justification however there's still the publicity tours that accompany the release. They want a proper premier with the cast in each country. There's also language translations and such which would normally be done after the movie was already released. Basically there's various things they want to do which are difficult or impossible to do on a global scale, so they focus on one part of the world at a time. When your country is low on the list, it means the movie doesn't make it to your country for 6-12 months.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]