Netflix Will Delay Renting New WB Releases 418
DesertBlade tips the news that Netflix will delay renting new releases from Warner Brothers for 28 days, and adds "Luckily I am so far behind in my movie watching that I will probably never catch up anyway." "It's part of a strategy by several studios to create staggered releases of DVDs so that the most profitable transactions are available first and cheaper rental options take effect further down the road. The move could be copied by other studios, forcing consumers to wait nearly a month if they want to rent popular movies from Netflix. ... The studio is hoping that the four-week window will push consumers interested in watching movies at home to buy the DVDs or pay a premium to rent them from stores like Blockbuster or from Internet and cable video-on-demand services. Warner Bros. already imposes a 28-day window on $1-a-night kiosk firm Redbox."
What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Artifically deny your customer the ability to buy your product. They'll love you for it!
Feh.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What a great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm.
The people in front of me blinding me with cell phones.
The people behind me kicking me as they walk by mid movie.
The people on my row stepping on me and kicking me.
The people 5 seats over talking enough that I can't pay attention to the dialogue*.
The crying baby... at an adult date film.
I usually see films at off times now. I like seeing some movies first showing because people who want to see the movie are there.
People might care about germs in flu season but race? Get real.
* Except now the theatres play the noise at 185db to overcome this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only are there those issues, but the fact that every single refreshment costs five times as much as it would at a store for no more convenience or taste. I mean, I don't mind paying $3 for a really good burger because there isn't a way I could cook it that way and it would turn out that good. Sure, I might be able to make a burger that costs $.50 but I'd still have to make it and it wouldn't taste as good. With popcorn it takes what? 2 minutes in the microwave (less time than you would be waiting in line) and costs five times less. Same with drinks, I can get a 2 liter of soda for $1 or so, it costs more for a small drink at the theater.
If I'm paying $15 per person to enjoy a movie (ticket+popcorn/drink), it better be high quality enjoyment. That means A) Very high definition B) Great sound system C) People actually acting decently. Because, really the masses have determined a view of a movie in standard to be worth $1 for a family (look at how successful Redbox is), plus with a DVD you can pause, rewind, skip through boring parts, etc. that you can't in the theater. But instead when you pay $5 per person for a ticket you get generally pretty low quality, a sound system that is only focused on being LOUD, terrible people, terrible options for refreshments, and when you have to pee midway through the movie there is no way you can get them to pause/rewind it for you.
No wonder piracy/rentals have taken up the way they have.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Funny)
1990 called... It wants its prices back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What movie house sells 3$ burgers?! For a good burger (better than I can make myself) around where I live, I usually pay 7$. But I guess that's city life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That was pretty much the first time I"d been to a movie theater to see a movie since Spiderman 1.
I just don't usually go to a theater for many of the reasons you mentione.
I also seem to have a MUCH better soundsystem than most theaters, I have good viewing equipment, can be alone or just have friends over...I have the kitchen near by, I can pause the movie whenever need be, and most importantly, I have a fully stocked BAR nearby
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a nearly-tone-deaf person who reads lips, even I found the volume excessively loud.
The tickets cost me $36 just to walk in the door -- the 15-year-old was an "adult" according to Muvico. It was a noontime movie. 3 sodas, a popcorn
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
it's not about people seeing the movie. It's about established players like Blockbuster willing to pay a larger cut to studios to rent movies first. So the studios are going after Redbox and Netflix to curb the "cheap" rentals that aren't paying kickbacks.
I've noticed at my regional chain store as well more videos are marked "rental" meaning they can't be sold as "used" later. It's a focused effort from studios across the board to create the tiered system. Why "sell" a DVD when they can get the same $15 from a download on Xbox or Apple TV. Why let Netflix or Redbox charge $1 per rental when they can get $4-$5 selling via Apple TV or On Demand Cable. They want to limit the supply, then push the "piracy" card to get the extra demands on consumer electronics.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
They are not *letting* Redbox (nor anyone else) rent DVDs. They have no say whatsoever about someone buying their product and then rending it.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine [wikipedia.org]
These issues (as well as "rental" discs) are VOLUNTARY agreements between the companies and the movie companies, presumably in exchange for lower costs on the rental places' end.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! You know what RedBox did? Rather than buying from the studio in bulk DVD's in sleeve's for a very slight discount they are buying all their movies at walmart retail then having an employee go through and pull the DVD's out a the boxes and stick them in a sleeve. This hasn't stopped Redbox and won't. Netflix agreed to comply so they can get the license to stream the movies digitally because they are making more money on the streaming than the rentals.
All this is going to do is make RedBox more powerful and give them a bigger market share. This is very foolish of the studio's because Netflix is more on their side then RedBox is.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm confused...I thought Blockbuster went out of business?
Everyone I've seen in a few cities, have people on the streets in front of them with going out of business sales...?
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I know that lots of people around here are probably keeping up on all the latest and greatest sources for pirated movies and TV shows, but for most people, it's simply too much of a hassle. I sincerely think that movie studios and TV networks need to learn that ultimately most people aren't really willing to pay for "content". Rather, people are willing to pay for convenient, easy, and reliable access to that content. If they make it as more of a hassle to get the content legally as it is to get it illegally, and too expensive to boot, then they'll lose out on that revenue. I don't say this as someone who approves of pirating, but sometimes it doesn't do you much good to disapprove of reality.
But anyway, I'm just not sure it matters. I don't even know when DVDs are released most of the time. I only know when Netflix tells me that the DVDs will be available. Move that date forward a month, and I probably won't notice.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do people even buy movies? Your typical WB movie is a mild distraction over the weekend. Its not fine art. Its not something you ever need to watch more than once. Without the spectacle of the big screen, the allure of fresh popcorn, and THX sound, its really not much else. Its like TV. Entertainment for the lowest common denominator. Watch it once and forget it about. This is why people gravitate towards rentals and on demand.
What great gems does WB think we're all going to rush out to buy? I just went to their website and heres a list of the items they are showcasing:
The Book of Eli, Terminator Salvation, The Hangover, The Ellen Degeneres Show, Valentine's Day, Final Destination 3D, Whiteout, Sherlock Holmes, Gossip Girl, The Invention of Lying.
Wow, I want to see maybe one of those and only in the theater. The idea of owning any of that is pretty silly. WB, your products are a commodity. Theyre chewing gum. We chew them for a short while and we spit them out. Get on the rental bandwagon and give up your fight to sell me 30 dollar bluray discs of your junk.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
pirate the movie instead
I've found I've just lost interest. The entertainment industry with the constant barage of huge lawsuites, high prices and greed has finally gotten to me. I used to rent movies once a week or so but now it's just gotten a bad taste. I just don't really care what they do anymore. They can charge what they want, I'm on to new stuff: local theater, outdoor stuff, etc.
I stopped buying music several years ago. That had more to do with living in Germany where GEMA (the equivalent of the RIAA) gets money for every
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Funny)
Pirating is just so 19th century.
Perhaps. But the hats are AWESOME.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Perhaps. But the hats are AWESOME."
Yaahrrr... but gettin' the peg-leg and hook installed can be a mite painful.
Aye, an the first time ye scratch yer balls afterward can be a life changing event!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I know! How you you think I got this eye patch!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I use netflix.
I will still use netflix.
I do not download movies or songs from torrent sites because the risk is too high.
I do download BBC material I can not watch in the states (hopefully some day they will take me up on my offer to give them money for this).
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Funny)
"I do not download movies or songs from torrent sites because the risk is too high."
Too true!
If only there was SOME way to use the net to safely download the latest.
What news this would be to groups of people seeking an alternative to bit torrent for their binary files.
Oh, Internet! Why have you failed us so?
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. They used to wait over a year before you could even get the VHS... and we hated the hell out of that.
Artificial scarcity doesn't work. Period. If only they could learn this.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm remembering wrong, but during that window weren't you able to purchase a real VHS copy for some absurdly large amount of money (low triple digits)?
Re:What a great idea! (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah it was like $100
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure why this was modded "funny", it's the truth.
Back in the dark ages when VCRs roamed the earth, the movie studios didn't want you to actually own anything but decided that renting was ok ... as long as the rental stores paid $100+ per copy for each tape. This is why it was $5 a frigging day to rent the things.
Same with LaserDisc but it was even worse because most places weren't renting them ( Yes, get off my lawn. I think I paid something like $350 - $400 for the first Star Wars trilogy on LaserDisc. I still have them )
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes. Rental places tended to do it. I remember being able to rent a copy of Star Trek Generations 8-10 months before I could find a copy for sale.
And I promptly dubbed a copy of it. I suspect that people will do the digital equivalent (grab it off a torrent site) these days.
Companies just don't get it. We have a way to get your shit for free. If you find ANY way to get us to pay for it then count your lucky stars and hope we keep using that method. Try anything that aggravates us though and we g
Re:What a great idea! (Score:4, Informative)
Sometimes. Rental places tended to do it. I remember being able to rent a copy of Star Trek Generations 8-10 months before I could find a copy for sale.
I don't know what the current practice is but VHS tapes for rental places used to be $75 a copy. There was a staggered release where the $15 to $25 tapes didn't come out for a while after rental. I remember trying to get the MST3K movie on tape after it came out for rent and it was at the ridiculous price. I think the theory was they could soak the rental places and then mop up the remainder of the market by mass-producing tapes at a lower price point. It's been so long since I've bought a movie I have no idea if they're still doing tiered distribution or if rentals are available before purchase copies. Physical media is so 20th century.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet I'm not generally willing to pay for non-physical media. I know the iPod generation is throwing wads of cash at Apple's music store, but they're stupid.
You can sell me an object, with some objective value, or you can sell me a service, such as Netflix. With Netflix (mail or streaming), I'm not paying per movie. Sure, there's a floor to how cheap it can get (about $1), but ultimately I'm paying for access to their library, as fast as I can personally con
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the term was "priced for rental." The idea was yes, the prices were absurd -- for anyone but a VHS rental business.
The economics of VHS tapes were different, though. Unlike DVDs, comparatively few people tended to actually go out and buy them, bar a few "core" titles (Disney movies for the kids, Star Wars, Godfather, etc.) VHS tapes were bulky and not easy to store, their packaging tended to look kinda crappy on your shelf, and their picture quality really was not good. Not only did they tend to wear out just from playing them -- and occasionally your VCR would outright destroy one -- but storebought tapes weren't that great quality to begin with. Remember, this was an analog tape medium, and it was in the manufacturers' interests to duplicate them for as low cost as possible. Often this meant they were made from low-quality materials and were duplicated on high-speed equipment. From a collector's/fan's standpoint, all but a very few were 4:3 pan and scan -- so between that and the poor resolution, the only real way to see your favorite movies was to wait for them to come to a local second-run theatre. So it became a kind of Catch-22 -- because VHS tapes were never that attractive, studios were never really able to get the economies of scale that would drive the cost of VHS releases down to where mainstream customers would pay for them.
People did buy laserdiscs, though, and those collectors were among the first to jump on the DVD-buying bandwagon. When regular people got word that DVDs gave you picture quality comparable to laserdiscs without all the disc flipping and swapping, DVD sales exploded. Way back in 2001, when cheap VHS tapes had become more common and DVDs were fairly new, revenue from VHS sales was still far less than that from VHS rentals -- but it was also less than the revenue from DVD sales, even back then. (This according to the Video Software Dealers Association [vsda.org].) I honestly think enough people buy DVD releases regularly enough that this waiting period won't be that big of a deal -- especially in the age of home theater. Even if you have to pay $20 to buy the disc, it's still cheaper than taking a date to the movies.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:4, Informative)
That's absurd, of course they used high speed duplicators. What, do you think they just go buy a bunch of blanks, and put 50,000 tape-to-tape copiers in a giant room to produce the millions of VHS tapes distributed for a new release? The economics of a solution that silly are what clever engineering is made for...
Watch this video if you don't believe me. It's actually a pretty cool video showing a high speed duplication factory in operation. And they specifically state that the duplication happens at 240x real time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0RM1sNs4mo [youtube.com]
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Artificial scarcity doesn't work. Period.
I don't know ... seems to work pretty well for the diamond industry.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because there are more vaginas involved in the application of diamond products than pirated movies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know ... seems to work pretty well for the diamond industry.
Artificial scarcity works for physical products that are hard to manufacture, not for items that can be instantly replicated by anyone with a computer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well its not like I can download diamonds by bittorrent - yet.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the plus side: "Netflix will use the savings to expand its stock of the studio's DVDs and triple the number of Warner catalog titles it provides through its online streaming option."
In other words, you won't have to wait for the DVD so much -- you'll be able to watch it on your computer. Certainly, the newest releases won't be available that way, but still... anything that expands the (legal) streaming movies options is a good thing.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not that happy with the precedent this sets, but I get many of my movies through Netflix streaming these days, which is improving all the time. There are still hundreds of great classic movies I want to see, and I'd prefer an emphasis on those (which tend to be what is showing up on Netflix streaming) rather than getting the most recent crap out of Hollywood as fast as possible.
If you really want to see the damn movie a couple weeks sooner, buy the DVD... or better yet, go to the theatre when it's playing.
There are various trade-offs here, but there are lots of customers who don't use Netflix only as a replacement for the "latest releases" section of Blockbuster.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not at all what's going on, they are adding a 28 day period from when the movie is released on DVD till when it is available on Netflix
/. I don't expect you to read the article but did you even read the title?
This being
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix agreed to this because they are getting a discount on their DVD purchases and letting them cut costs.
Netflix also doesn't have the same business model that BlockBuster has I pay $x a month and I get unlimited rentals, the less I use the service the better it is for Netflix.
WB's research shows that a majority of their sales take place in the first 4 weeks. I assume that they did an analysis and found out that the discount that they give to Netflix will be outweighed by the additional sales.
Netflix has no risk in this deal, actually they may even have a bit to gain, they only buy a limited number of each movie. If one of Netflix's customers buys a movie because they were too impatient to wait for it to appear on Netflix; Netflix now has slightly better customer approval because there will be slightly less of a wait time on some of the new releases.
It's about the streaming (Score:3, Informative)
Netflix agreed to this because they are getting a discount on their DVD purchases and letting them cut costs.
I'm sure that's a big part of it...but the press release also mentioned that WB is giving them access to more of its catalog for their streaming service.
With physical DVDs, if WB refuses to sell directly to Netflix, they can always send someone to Costco, buy a bunch of DVDs, and rent them under the first sale doctrine. With streaming, they need an active contract with WB to do it (legally) at all. If WB decides not to renew that contract...well, there goes their streaming service. Or at least anything f
Re: (Score:2)
They'll love making their way down to walgreens/mcdonalds/grocery store to rent it out of a vending machine instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Warner Bros. already imposes a 28-day window on $1-a-night kiosk firm Redbox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But is it legal to rent that way?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [wikipedia.org]
Citation needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What a great idea! (Score:4, Informative)
You are confusing performance rights with the erosion of the first sale doctrine that decades of propaganda printed on DVDs and VHS tapes has convinced you to buy into.
Actually performing a work (like on a stage) is and always has been seperate and not something transferred by a mere copy of a play, screenplay or sheet music.
COPYright --- see those first 4 letters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not legally they can't, unless they have some existing agreement specifically allowing them to do so
Incorrect. see NEBG v. Weinstein.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's simply wrong. With the exception of "phonorecords", if you buy a DVD, book, video tape, etc, you can rent or give it to others, no special license needed. Copyright law still makes at least a little sense in some areas.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Informative)
This is flat out wrong. First sale doctrine gives you the right to do whatever you want with the physical disk (including rent it to people from a vending machine). The content isn't yours, you still can't do public performance or make copies to rent but the original disk is yours.
The reason you pay more for a rented disk that you lose is probably because they like to gouge you. Also, sometimes "rental" copies are different, often they might have a different set of previews and a lack of special features (but get sold at an initial discount with a higher later replacement cost). In the VHS days, the expensive tapes were actually nicer than the retail copies--blockbuster would buy a couple copies on the expensive tape for long term rental and a bunch on retail quality (fast degrading) tape that they would sell off after new-release status was over.
Please don't spread incorrect info about things like first sale doctrine...it is a very important part of copyright law that a lot of companies would like to see go away and that will be easy if people already think it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are waiting for the movie to show up on Netflix, it won't matter if it comes out 1 day after the theatrical release, 6 months after, or 6 months +28 days.
I'm perfectly fine living 6+ months in the past for movies, so long as those AAA movies are still making it into my queue eventually.
-Rick
If it's good, then it will be good in 28 days (Score:5, Funny)
But "28 Days Later" wasn't that good.
If there's a 'must-see' then we don't know about it until it's out of the first-run theaters. How else are you going to know that the film is good? People that go to first run movies, spend $10 each for tickets, $25 for babysitter, $5 for popcorn, and $4 for popcorn aren't going to tell you that the movie wasn't anything but good. And the second week people are always going to say the film is good to prove that they can wait for quality.
No, you gotta wait until the movie reaches the second-run $3 theaters. If it isn't any good then it won't get to these theaters. The studio will blitz the opening night with deceptive ads for a turkey and then go straight to DVD.
If it's a real 'must-see' then just watch the previews/trailers until you know the whole movie. Your average Hollywood movie can have its entire look/feel/plot experienced in a three minute preview (Spiderman III, Superman Ten, anyone?).
Nah, If it's worth seeing, then it's worth waiting for the DVD. And if it's really good, then it will make it to the library shelf where it will be free for a week or more.
And if it's great, then it's timeless quality. So why not wait a year or two to see it? What difference does it make? Now's the time to go to the library and check out for free all the excellent movies that you decided not to see because you didn't want to spend $10 on an independent or foreign film when it was in the theaters.
Myself, I always save the best for last. Maybe this week I'll watch this movie called 'Star Wars' that I've been hearing people rave about for so long.
I'll just wait longer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The real news here is more streaming content. With my TiVo linked to my Netflix account I almost don't care about the DVD's they send me anymore.
Re:I'll just wait longer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up.
I don't know anybody (myself included) who actually keeps track of DVD release dates, much less counts down in anticipation of a DVD being released. Pretty much every movie that I rent from Netflix is something that I've decided I don't mind waiting for, and apart from the 2-3 movies down at the bottom of my Netflix queue that say "Releases mm/dd/yyyy", I literally never have any idea when a given movie is/was/will be released on DVD.
Okay, so maybe not everybody is like me in this respect. Maybe there are hordes of people who will now be thinking to themselves "Damn! I just can't wait another month! I guess I'll have to buy that DVD after all." But I just don't see it happening that way. I don't know anybody who thinks that way. I do know a couple DVD junkies who seem to think they just have to own every movie ever made on DVD, but this isn't going to change their habits anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
An impulse buy of $20 for a DVD you weren't planning on buying anyways?
Versus FREE?
No wonder national and personal finances are in such a mess.
They are betting that their customers won't care (Score:3, Interesting)
This sounds like a risky strategy. Creating more hassles and delays for your customer does not seem to be a "customer first" attitude. But I guess ultimately the market will decide if it is reasonable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One could argue that ever deciding that the company should make more money is not a "customer first" attitude.
"Customer first" is at best a goal of a company. Most companies want to stay afloat first ... which may or may not be directly tied to a "customer first" ideal.
But to think that companies are actively trying to seek ways to lower their profit in order to put the customer first seems a little idealistic. Sorta like thinking that most customers *won't* choose the cheaper of two products, all other t
Re:They are betting that their customers won't car (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it a hassle? It IS a delay, but as Netflix is the only place I use to check new releases, it's one I admittedly won't notice. In return, we'll get way more instant-watch movies available, which I don't have to wait for and can watch on my laptop or two of the three consoles in the house.
It's hardly an anti-customer strategy when they make the same choice I'd have asked them to, given the option. The only thing currently stopping Instant-Watch from being really awesome is its subpar selection. And really, if I cared about seeing the movies from Netflix soon after they came out, I'd have seen them in theaters.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a hassle? It IS a delay, but as Netflix is the only place I use to check new releases, it's one I admittedly won't notice. In return, we'll get way more instant-watch movies available, which I don't have to wait for and can watch on my laptop or two of the three consoles in the house.
Yeah, I use Netflix almost exclusively to stream movies these days. A delay in new releases is almost unnoticeable to me, since if I wanted to see it, I would have seen it in the theater.
Plus, Netflix has some awesome indie crap-gems on Instant for those of us who love to watch bad movies with friends.
Re:They are betting that their customers won't car (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be risky, but I think his assessment of the average Netflix customer is fairly accurate. At least is describes me, a Netflix customer, accurately. Typically, when you hear of a movie coming out that you want to see, you add it to the queue. It's not out yet, but once it is sitting at the top of the queue ready once it becomes available. Except that movie is in high demand, so it says "Long wait" next to it. The second movie in the queue comes instead. But you don't really care, because you still want to see that movie. It's not like I'm a seven year old that has to see THAT one NOW! It will come when it's ready. In the mean time, I have a long list of movies that I have already said I want to see that will ship in its place until it is my turn. At a certain point, you stop paying attention to what's next, and you just accept what arrives in the mail. Any movie that I really really want to see, I would have already seen in the theaters. Avatar was a good example. Wanted to see badly and also appreciated the big screen experience.
The thing that bothers me a little is how Netflix is being prioritized by the studios due to the fact that they are cheap. The article mentions the same with the RedBoxes. Both are far cheaper for the consumer than in-store rentals or on-demand from Cable/Satelite and they get the worst priority. It's as if the studios resent those customers for finding a great bargain and want to take out their anger on them. But again, if seeing that movie right away is that important, you can pay the premium to do so.
Soo all the more reason for me (Score:3, Insightful)
Something tells me BT sites won't do this (Score:2)
Which makes them retarded. Seriously, one of the best ways to combat copying is to make it easier/more attractive to buy. People are lazy, make it worth their while to pay you, and they'll probably do that since it is easier and less risky than downloading. However, be a moron about it, and they'll go to where they can get what they want.
They still don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
messing with the free market (Score:2)
if it mattered that much then a site that only rents 28 day old wb movies would show up. I doubt that there is that much demand.
28 days diiference? Not quite. (Score:2)
But then theres the shipping time. Unless you want to pay extra for overnight or 2 day shipping. If you want free super saver shipping, you can wait 10 days or so. Netflix is 2 days. So its only 20 days difference.
Re: (Score:2)
There are stores that sell movies other than Amazon, like Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy in the United States, all of which have thousands of retail locations and sell new media on the release date.
Great way to "prove" piracy hurts (Score:3, Interesting)
Really.
People only buy movies they really, really like. The others, they rent them.
Delaying rent will not cause people to buy them bu to download them. Thus "proving" that piracy is really, really bad, evil and unAmerican...
It looks like they are getting smarter :-/
Piracy (Score:2)
Resentment (Score:2)
I won't spend $30 on a movie just because they make me wait a month. They are only creating resentment and increasing the dissatisfaction customers already have. How long will they ride this wave of arrogance??
Another legal pipeline bits the dust (Score:2)
But now the rules have changed. Today it is a 30 day delay. Tomorrow it might 60 or 90. If one is not willing to buy a DVD, one does not get the movie. Purchase does not compete well with free.
Awesome job! (Score:2, Interesting)
As everyone has already pointed out, making it HARDER for customers to get YOUR product is only going to DRIVE THEM to find it another way. IE BIT TORRENT or any other piracy trend.
This is quite clear, in the recent decision by the BBC to broadcast the recent Dr Who two-parter in the US the DAY AFTER it broadcast in the UK. Gee. What were my choices, bit torrent, or wait a WHOLE DAY to DVR it? I chose to DVR, cause it was EASIER and better to watch on my TV.
Re:Awesome job! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pop it out of the player, pop it into the Mac, copy and rip the files to the hard drive, pick out the movie and copy it to a fresh DVD. Nice clean movie. Still a bit of a pain and getting closer to just downloading it from a torrent site.
Keep going Sony. Nice work. Alienate even more people. You do this enough and folks that shy away from torrent sites because of legal concerns or moral concerns will find that paying you less and less gets a better product. Amazing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no fan of those pre-DVD-movie ads either, but how much time does it take to put the DVD in your Mac, rip it to the hard drive, burn a new DVD and then play that one? Wouldn't it take less time to watch the 10 minutes of ads (or go to the other room and do something else while they run)? Especially if it is a rented DVD that you'll be sending back in a few days.
Rogue (Score:2, Informative)
When Netflix was a rogue outfit that bought DVDs "off the shelf" and thumbed their noses at the studios it was an awesome service.
Streaming seems to have turned them into a negotiating machine that gives the studios what they want at the expense of the Netflix customer. The result is that it has become a clearinghouse for unpopular content.
I just tried 'em again for a month, and it has become dismal.
-Peter
Re: (Score:2)
WB must be giving them a massive discount on discs to do this. In theory they can parley that savings into better customer experience in other ways, maybe first-run WB content on streaming.
It's a plan (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a plan to make crappier movies and still make money from them.
Some people rent movies as they come out, before they buy them, to make sure that what they buy is good movies.
By delaying renting for a month (of February in a non-leap year), the studios are making the more impatient and impulse-buying people buy hyped movies, and you can't back out on that, unless of course you outsmart these guys and wait the month before renting the movie, deciding that it's crap and not buying it.
Companies prey on impulse buyers. Patience is a virtue.
Re:It's a plan (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree on the 2nd sentence there -- I won't buy a movie unless I've seen it. There were 1 or 2 overhyped movies that I bought prior to watching them, and never again. If they are delaying my ability to see it first, they are only delaying my ability to purchase it. And if I've waited a month after its come out already, I might as well wait a few more months for it to hit the bargain bin price. So not only have they lost out on me being able to purchase it, they've lost out on my purchasing it anywhere near the "retail" price. Good work. Epic FAIL.
Just Say No to revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm the only one, but... (Score:2)
I really don't need to see "new releases" right away in order to feel like I'm connected in some social sense. Would it be nice? Sure, but it's no more a grand conspiracy against movie consumers than limited-time platform exclusive video game releases are against video game consumers.
I'm sure someone will find a flaw in my logic.
Oh Jeez Not this Shit Again (Score:2)
Well boo fucking hoo. Hey fatass. Get off the couch and do something besides watch TV all day.
Cant be any bigger argument for piracy (Score:2)
"It's part of a strategy by several studios to create staggered releases of DVDs so that the most profitable transactions are available first and cheaper rental options take effect further down the road"
a quite elaborate marketerspeak for "a new way to rape the customer". and then they come complain about piracy ...
The upside for Netflix (and us) (Score:4, Informative)
The summary did not mention what Netflix gets out of the deal: more on-demand content. From the article:
As someone who has Netflix Instant Queue available directly on my television (thanks, TiVo), I'm more than happy to wait another month for a latest release if it means I can decide on a Thursday evening that I'd rather watch "Big Movie A" instead of "Big Movie B" without having to wait 2 days (one day to mail back, one day to receive) to see it.
Just when you thought they couldn't get dumber... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why this is not going to work (Score:5, Interesting)
NOTE: My wife and I have SEVEN full bookshelves of DVD & Blu-Ray. We're movie nuts. We love to watch them. We love to go back and watch ones we particularly like. If they're good, we'll buy multiple editions we want--I've bought two copies of Iron Man, two full sets of Lord of the Rings, and lord knows how many Star Wars. I'll rebuy the latter two on Blu-Ray when they come out. I like to think we're the model of good customers. I don't bit torrent films because unlike some I like the way it looks on the shelf. The same as I like the way my books look on the shelf. Screw E-readers and stacks of ripped discs.
We also consume Netflix and Comcast OnDemand ravenously, and sometimes the Amazon download rental service or the local actual DVD rental store. Why?
I don't want to buy EVERY film I see. Some I'm fine with only seeing the once. I don't know if I'll like it. We only go to 10-15 films a year maximum in theaters (probably a lot compared to most). It's one of our main hobbies. Do I buy every film I see in theater on disc? Of course not. Half of them I'll never want to see again because they're either not memorable, not important to me, or total shit. Do I buy films that I've rented? ABSOLUTELY! All of them? Absolutely not! I recently watched GI Joe on a flight. Then we downloaded it on Amazon on a lark. My wife loved it, and she hates that sort of film. Now I want to buy it on Blu-Ray--why? It's fun, and it's a fun film you can watch again and toss on with company over to show off the pretty HDTV and laugh about the heinous execution of our childhood memories of GI Joe. Most importantly, again:
It's rewatchable.
Put out consistently quality, engaging films. Aim for every film to be Oscar caliber in some way. That doesn't mean every film has to have an Avatar budget or 99% of the Royal Shakespeare Company in the speaking cast. Pay for a good script. It doesn't have to be a great film--see my GI Joe example above. It's not a great film, but visually? Amazing, and rewatchable for sheer fun with people over. Pay for a good director. Pay for good lighting, decent CGI, good cinematograpy. Make films people will ****WANT**** to see more than once. You many music CDs I've bought in my life for one track that, after I played that track several times, I never listened to that CD ever, ever again? The same thing. Your trailer may be ace--but the film shit. Don't make shit films, and I'll be more likely to buy them. I'm sure the same goes for everyone else too.
Most importantly, don't piss on your devoted customers that pay your salaries. Rentals drive sales. Quality films drive sales. Crap product to simply have a release will never drive sales.
You ever notice how each week we get 3-5 new major film releases? You ever notice how 3-4 of them are substandard to the others? I think they're put out as loss leaders. You put out shit like that, and then complain that people don't all buy your annual release catalog on DVD? What did you expect would happen?
You work at our pleasure. We don't watch your products at yours.
Redbox isn't doing this (Score:3, Insightful)
Redbox sure isn't waiting 28 days on Warner Brother release (or Universal). I saw the Hangover(WB release) just a few days after the December 18th release from a redbox. From a previous post someone said that their brother works for Redbox and basically buys every copy from every walmart in the area at midnight and stock machines. If you don't sell to Redbox, they basically with use the First Sale Doctrine without you.
Netflix really only has a few reasons for doing this. They know streaming is the future, and they need to reduce costs to be more profitable. Netflix basically don't have much real competition left and have a lot of momentum. So now they are just focusing on profitability rather then growth and competition.
Re:Redbox isn't doing this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm usually a year behind, so I consider all options. Until blueray takes over and I'm forced to pirate just to watch movies, services like Netflix are great.
I also like the Amazon service; I don't really care if it's DRMed to hell if it's just a rental that I'm going to watch once.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We use the hell out of our Netflix subscription...6 out at a time, and sometimes even that doesn't feel like enough. It works out well though...she tends to rent interesting documentaries and sci-fi, while I tend to rent the classics she hasn't seen and horror movies she hasn't seen. We both work together on choosing anime and TV series.
Having a massive selection of b-horror movies and silent films ready and waiting is awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:28 days later (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:28 days later (Score:5, Insightful)
That's movie-studio thinking. And yeah, on the face of it, it does make sense - break the law, commit a morally wrong act for the sake of 28 days?
But that forgets what movies have become. Torrents being free is only half of it - the other half is service. Piracy is fiercely competitive on service: they are quire remarkable in getting whatever you want, however you want, as quickly as they possibly can. The studios have taken some steps towards competing: cinema releases are increasingly worldwide and DVD releases have a shorter delay. But they're not really close - it's like the big airlines trying to do the low-cost airline thing, they just don't have the mentality for it.
It's why some people pirate despite having their cinema card, a Netflix sub and shelves of store-bought movies. It's not that they aren't prepared to pay, it's just piracy is the better service. Sure, plenty of pirates are doing it just because it's free, but there's a big chunk of people with a range of different reasons. Each step the studios take towards competing with piracy is a chunk of people for whom paying becomes their better choice. Each step away from competing with piracy, like delaying Netflix for 28 days, a bunch of people turn on the torrents. Many will actually be annoyed about not being able to get what they want by paying for it.
I'm not trying to defend pirates, I've never illegally downloaded a movie in my life (though I'll not pretend to having never watched any). But there's what's right and there's what is. Quite basic market forces.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great comment - you forgot one thing - Pirates can often put out a superior product - i.e. a DVD that doesn't force you to sit through FBI warnings or unskippable trailers. You get the movie you want, immediately.
Re:28 days later (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo. I wanted to watch Inglorious Bastards. So, I head off to Netflix and it's not on streaming and the DVD is on wait. Lets ignore for a moment that we live in time where we shouldn't need physical media AT ALL in order to rent something (or even buy for that matter). Next I go to the xbox movie section and I see IB. I think good, I can rent it here. Nope, it's only for purchase and it's only SD. I'm trying my hardest to give someone money to rent their content and they won't let me! At some point more and more people are going to say f' it and just go straight to TPB. The hassle of finding it to rent just isn't worth it when I can find and download it in minutes.
BTW, I think the music companies have started to learn this lesson, even if they were pulled along kicking and screaming. Look at Amazon and ITMS now. No DRM, Amazon has a great changing selection of $5 albums, and both make it easy to find whatever you are looking for and purchase for a fairly reasonable price. Why can't movies follow suit?
Re:28 days later (Score:5, Informative)
Why wouldn't this line of reasoning stand up in court if you were to be busted for downloading a movie? Really the way I see it is if its rent-able by netflix and I have an account in good standing I should be entitle to watch anything I could rent no matter the means of transfer.
Largely because you are creating a copy of a work protected against such behavior, you'd legally still be on the hook.
The laws aren't designed to limit your access to the material. Instead they intend to control the circumstances under which that work can be duplicated. Just because you have the means to access it does not mean you have permission to create a copy.