That's basically where things are headed. People are going to have 4K sets in their living rooms that rival the quality of what theaters can provide, all for a lot less per person. I'm not saying that they're better than theaters or that it's "the best way" to watch a film, but that's where we're going.
Sony Pictures mad at Netflixs failure to block overseas VPN users
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
I do. I think theatres selling discs of films to people as they come out could work like merch at concerts.
And others do too, which is part of the interest for some folks with The Interview and its digital revenues. Of course its not really a fair test, given its unique circumstances in terms of promotion.
As far as I remember Sony devices are among the top Netflix streamers. They have reasons not to butt heads. There's reasons why we likely would have never heard about small spats like this.
Yeah. the PS3 was the #1 device for a while. But that was before the plethora of much cheaper devices.
What are you talking about? Sohu pays the U.S. studios for the rights to stream it free with ads. So you think it's okay to use a China VPN to watch these shows?
captainraincoat
Banned
Rupert will cry to his buddies in the liberal party to hurry up and enact great big internet filter so he can try and jack up the prices of the foxtel packages and streaming services (which they all own).....Netflix will release over here and will be a shadow of itself.....Rupert and the liberal party will then realize that they have made the problem of piracy worse and that the internet filter is a waste of money and by then the horse has well and truly bolted and Australia becomes the number one country for piracy...all thanks to one old fucker and a government out of touch with the times
should also mention the cheapest paytv package that has breaking bad and game of thrones is $90 per month.......once again...fuck you rupert
Marty Chinn
Member
You guys understand that a lot less money is to be made this way right?
Let's say a family of four go to a movie. The ticket sales brings in more money to the studio than buying the movie on disc. Why would a movie studio want that lost revenue? Now take a movie like Frozen. Family sees that at least once, and now buys the movie for their kids when it comes out. That's money lost if we go that route. Why are movie studios interested in that? Multiple tiers of revenue for a movie allows studios to make more money than just distributing it like that all at once or even bypassing the theater.
I was speaking much more recently. I'm pretty sure house mentioned it in one of the PS4 events.
I know consoles are the most used streaming devices.
http://m.homemediamagazine.com/streaming/parks-most-homes-stream-video-game-console-34246
It kind of reminds me of the whole mp3 explosion and the aftershocks that are still felt somewhat today. These big multinational companies need to learn to adapt to the growing demands of a typical consumer throughout each decade and generational change or they wind up looking like a herd of donkeys. They need to stop placing artificial walls down in order to gate content and if they're having issues with licensing then there are a few middle-men practices that are obviously bloating up a schedule.
I don't know whether this is sarcasm or not.
I don't know whether this is sarcasm or not.
You're talking about things the way they are now as if they are set in stone. They are not.
Marty Chinn
Member
What sarcasm? If you distribute it via theater, physical disc, and streaming all at the same time, there will be less revenue. Staggered releases and different tiers helps make the most money for a movie rather than releasing it in all forms at once. It's quite common and known that even if a movie doesn't make back it's money in the theater, it can still profit after it goes through the different forms of distribution.
Great, explain to me the business plan that makes them more money instead of less by doing this?
Netflix.
EDIT: The fact that it took so long for Sony to release The Interview on their own network speaks volumes. Hell, they could've sold that exclusively for Xmas at $15 a pop and made a killing.
Marty Chinn
Member
I'd like a Ferrari for $100. Ferrari is leaving money on the table by not giving me a Ferrari for $100. That's $100 more than they had yesterday that they could have right now. Why won't Ferrari give me a Ferrari for $100?
The Interview isn't my argument, I'm just mentioning it because everybody knows about it.
(I think that's what you're referring to, I'm not sure.)
You're giving Murdoch to much credit. Though Newscorp is a factor.
What I was talking about wasn't piracy. Sohu legally licenses TV shows, and pays a much smaller fee than say, Netflix, because not as many Chinese people watch US TV shows (compared to say US viewers watching US shows). They also pay a very small fee for the ability to license some Chinese shows to US audiences (because the number of U.S. viewers watching Chinese shows on Sohu are very small). So, if you have a US IP and you try to watch a US show on Sohu, it won't let you, but you are free to watch some Chinese shows (some Chinese shows are blocked, though, depending on the license).
Now, do you think it is okay to get a VPN and pretend you are a Chinese user, so you can watch the U.S. shows for free (with Chinese ads for powdered milk and F2P games that you will never buy)?
http://www.mediabusinessasia.com/article.php?id=672
Marty Chinn
Member
Stating Netflix is the business plan to make more money is foolish. Netflix has over 30 million subscribers in the US. They pay $8 a month for streaming. That's 240 million in subscription fees a month. In June 2014, the top 5 movies alone made 840 million in the theater. That's not including the rest of the movies. That's not including additional revenue those top 5 movies made in TV distribution rights, streaming rights, digital sales, and physical discs. That was the first stage of revenue. How does launching on Netflix make them more money?
When people start understanding how things work and why things the way they are, then maybe people can have a better discussion on how to make things better. Otherwise it's just people asking for a $100 Ferrari and wondering why Ferrari is leaving money on the table.
Baldwin_the_First
Member
I did use the Canadian Netflix, but solely because I took no time in figuring how to do the VPN or DNS thing. I might just do one day, but based on the fact that I don't know what VPN nor DNS is, it might be complicated. lol
I guess I'd ask why you'd be so pro-corporate instead of pro-consumer.
The answer I accept in many cases is: because the alternative is that the industry is unsustainable. That is, you have a choice between paying X or getting nothing at all.
But that isn't the case here: the movie industry could easily lower product budgets and scale back projects to allow for a more readily accessible, pro-consumer model. I've had this conversation with you regarding games, and I suspect your position here will be the same as it was there: you may be particularly attached to huge budget projects, and as such have a personal investment in seeing these enormous budgets protected and sustained.
Marty Chinn
Member
It's not about being pro-corporate. It's about understanding the motivation behind business decisions. Business are in business to make money. They're not only doing it for their interest, but out of obligation to their stock holders and investors. Companies aren't going to make decisions, no matter how pro consumer they are just for the sake of being pro consumer. They need to make money from it not make less. So unless there's a model out there where they at least make as much if not more by releasing a movie in theaters, on disc, and streaming at the same time, then you're not going to see it happen no matter how much you wish it to be. Channels via ala carte comes to mind. People quite often want things but don't understand why they can't have them. I'm for consumer rights, which is one reason I argue for physical media over digital media, but I also understand from a business perspective of why things happen.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Isn't the issue less that consumers are getting the content illegally and more that Netflix is allowing them to procure it?
There's no way Sony is going to sue everyone using a VPN. They are going to put the hurt on Netflix if they think they are losing money from the current arrangement and if their overseas partners or overseas companies decide they should sue Netflix.
You can harp about being pro consumer or not but it isn't really Sony's fault or Netflix's fault, but the way the industry is set up. It is going to hurt Netflix and hurt consumers as a result because until now they haven't been enforcing the rules on streaming services they've always enforced on traditional broadcast. The media corporations are going to make the Internet their bitch and Netflix is between a rock and a hard place since they only have one revenue stream full of product they don't ultimately control.
There's no way Sony is going to sue everyone using a VPN. They are going to put the hurt on Netflix if they think they are losing money from the current arrangement and if their overseas partners or overseas companies decide they should sue Netflix.
You can harp about being pro consumer or not but it isn't really Sony's fault or Netflix's fault, but the way the industry is set up. It is going to hurt Netflix and hurt consumers as a result because until now they haven't been enforcing the rules on streaming services they've always enforced on traditional broadcast. The media corporations are going to make the Internet their bitch and Netflix is between a rock and a hard place since they only have one revenue stream full of product they don't ultimately control.
Well, it is pro-corporate, even if that is an incidental consequence of your position.
Obviously, most people understand that. Again, I'm asking why you're taking the pro-corporate position here. For instance, a company like AT&T could very likely raise rates right now and get away with it; in many markets, their competition is weak or non-existent.
Now, it's easy to explain why this is possible; in the absence of robust competition, large companies can raise rates where prices are highly inelastic, thus increasing their profit margins. But explaining that this is so is very different from explaining that this is fair or that it's beneficial for the consumer. The fact that monopoly power can exist does not mean we should advocate for it.
You aren't for consumer rights here -- you're arguing pretty vociferously here to protect an oligopoly. Again, there is a solution to this problem: unlike your analogy, I can pay $100 here and still have my Ferrarri by just lowering these massive production budgets to compensate for lower revenues but higher penetration.
Why is a Ferrari available to consumers in the US at a certain date for a certain price but not available in Australia.
Then when they bring the Ferrari to Australia it's 1 year later at double the price.
As a consumer I'm going to be buying my Ferrari from the US if I live in Australia or not buying a Ferrari at all
The big problem with his analogy is that it's clearly possible to create very high quality films at much lower budgets than, say, 200 million dollars. In fact, nearly every list of "best films of all time" or even something as relatively populist as "oscar winners" tend to be dominated by films with relatively paltry production budgets.
So, when arguing that you can't sell Ferrari for $100 (or to be more realistic, let's say $20,000), it rests on the understanding that a car of the quality of a Ferrari cannot be made cheaply without driving the company out of business. But what if there were cars of very similar quality that did sell for $20,000? At that point, it would be difficult to justify the price of Ferrari beyond corporate protectionism.
It's content that's available in Australia but at probably more than triple the price.
And being against the ToS is not illegal.
It's as simple of this for Sony and Netflix.
Sony: You need to stop allowing those in other regions from accessing our content because we believe consumers from other regions are accessing it causing our distribution partners in those reasons to be angry
Netflix: Ok. It is against out ToS and we do block them
Sony: It's not enough
Netflix: We don't want to inconvenience our legitimate customers
Sony: Well then you need to pay us more for the content
Netflix: No
Sony: Then no more content for you.
Marty Chinn
Member
If understanding why business do some things but won't do others and pointing that out to people is being pro-corporate, I guess you can label me doing that, but I'm by no means pro-corporate.
I'm not sure everyone does understand that. There's always so many unreasonable requests for what companies should do because they feel their money is being left on the table without realizing that if they did that, they could actually make less money which is why they don't do it. Yet they still complain money is left on the table. I don't think everyone does understand that.
They already do this, so it's not even a likely scenario. In this case if someone complained about it and that they're dropping AT&T and complain that they're leaving their money on the table, then I might actually defend why it might happen. For reasons that you said plus the fact that the money gained from raised rates is greater than likely the amount of subscribers they expect to lose which is why they would do it. Is that pro-corporate trying to explain why it happens? It's important for people to understand why things happen I think if they're going to discuss how things can improve or how to fight against it.
I never said it was fair or beneficial to the consumer. Being fair and beneficial to the consumer only is in the interest of the business if it doesn't hurt their bottom line. How many people demanding ala carte only want to pay $5 a channel and can't see how that's not feasible when they want 2 channels? You can't expect companies to take in less money but people don't see that.
I'm arguing why it's not reasonable what they're requesting. It's as pointless as me asking for a $100 Ferrari. It'll never happen because it doesn't make any business sense let alone is feasible.
Yes, you clearly are. You don't want to be, so you keep insisting that you are not, but you are being so right now, in this particular thread, at this particular time. I am not suggesting you are a bad person generally, or that in other situations you aren't pro-consumer. I'm just saying right now, you are advocating corporate protectionism.
This is why people -- both those versed in economics and those who aren't -- are labeling you pro-corporate here.
It is reasonable and I explained why and how: production costs could be lowered to allow for higher penetration at lower margins. Again, I suspect that you are personally particularly attached to higher budget productions and thus don't consider this solution personally palatable even though it's a perfectly plausible solution.
If you couldn't make a great film for cheap the way you can't make a car of the quality of a Ferrari for $20,000, then I would agree with you. But that's clearly not the case; in fact, there is if anything an inverse relationship between film quality and production budget, as high budgets lead increasingly to risk aversion.
George Costanza
Banned
So... Sony and others insists that VPN users are "VPN pirates" and that even if they're paying for content legally, they're still stealing?
Burn the world! Burn it!
Burn the world! Burn it!
Marty Chinn
Member
Understanding why things are the way they are is simply me understanding how the business works. That doesn't mean I'm pro-corporation.
This assumes that as you scale for lower production costs and lower margins for higher penetration that this continues to be the trend. You don't have an infinite scale that allows you to do so. There is a range where this is viable and once you fall out of that range then it no longer is viable. I understand the whole price/demand spectrum, ie higher the price, the lower the demand and vice versa, but there's factors where costs can only go down so much and demand can only be so high. Often the rate at which you need to sell to make up for the lower margin isn't reasonable. So what you claim is true, but only to a degree.
Going back to the movie example, the multiple tiers is designed to gain revenue multiple times on the same product even often from the same consumer. An example of this is someone sees a movie in the theater and then buys the movie when it's made for home release. That is a product being sold twice to the same consumer. How does one make up selling the content twice to someone if they make it so that the consumer only needs to buy one form of it? This is the problem that games have where they get released once and have no other method of producing more revenue like movies do. Movies are more likely to turn a profit or at least break even from the multiple tier structure than games are from their single tier structure. This is one of the reasons that the movie industry still makes more money than the game industry. Of course cost of entry is another, so don't hold me to just that one aspect. I only point it out because games used to be directly compared to ticket sales of the movie theater.
I'll even go it one further. I think people need to point the finger at Netflix because if they don't play fair and take advantage of the situation, that's going to affect all US Netflix subscribers in the form of either increased rates or loss of content from Sony compensating for Netflix's inaction.
For those looking for a more direct comparison: it's true that in gaming, the only way to sustain the current AAA industry is through the model the big publishers are chasing: $60 games with oodles of DLC and premium content and season passes and so forth. One could reasonably argue that if you aren't willing to pay significantly for each console game you buy, then the market will collapse.
And that's true, if you begin with the assumption that product budgets need to continue escalating. Of course, that's clearly not the case; most of the biggest games in the past decade have not had huge budgets (e.g. Minecraft, Angry Birds, DotA, Wii Sports, etc.) It would absolutely be possible to create retail console games that did not need to be $60+DLC+In-Game-Purchases if we could step down from the production budget arms race.
And that's true, if you begin with the assumption that product budgets need to continue escalating. Of course, that's clearly not the case; most of the biggest games in the past decade have not had huge budgets (e.g. Minecraft, Angry Birds, DotA, Wii Sports, etc.) It would absolutely be possible to create retail console games that did not need to be $60+DLC+In-Game-Purchases if we could step down from the production budget arms race.
Again, there is a significant difference between suggesting something is true or realistic and suggesting it is good or beneficial. To repeat my separate example, I understand that monopolies (and oligopolies) will try to maximize their profits at my expense whenever they can -- that's very different from implicitly endorsing the behavior or defending it as justifiable.
Of course, everything has limits. I definitely agree there.
And I thought I'd add this quote from the Australian Attorney Generals office (along with a bit of a blurb from http://www.netflixaustralianow.com.au/netflix/is-watching-netflix-in-australia-via-a-vpn-legal/
"A spokesperson for Attorney-General Robert McClelland told The Australian last week: “In relation to the use of VPNs by Australians to access services such as Hulu and Netflix, on the limited information provided there does not appear to be an infringement of copyright law in Australia.” So it doesn’t violate any copyright law in Australia. Australia also has a parallel import law in conjunction with the USA which also clearly defines accessing Netflix as legal."
This article gives a bit more info as well - also says the content creators need to adjust their models
http://www.afr.com/p/technology/why_it_best_if_netflix_stays_out_43FRnkZgRxtoeqzrIuqigO
"A spokesperson for Attorney-General Robert McClelland told The Australian last week: “In relation to the use of VPNs by Australians to access services such as Hulu and Netflix, on the limited information provided there does not appear to be an infringement of copyright law in Australia.” So it doesn’t violate any copyright law in Australia. Australia also has a parallel import law in conjunction with the USA which also clearly defines accessing Netflix as legal."
This article gives a bit more info as well - also says the content creators need to adjust their models
http://www.afr.com/p/technology/why_it_best_if_netflix_stays_out_43FRnkZgRxtoeqzrIuqigO
Marty Chinn
Member
Again, you assume I'm endorsing it. Going back to the simultaneous release of a movie across multiple mediums, clearly people think it should be done. I'm saying why it can't be done. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want a Blu Ray day and date with the theatrical release for $20. That would be great especially since I have young kids now which makes it harder for me to actually go to a theater. I even understand why people want this. I don't think it's reasonable for me to expect it though and I'm saying why other people shouldn't expect it either.
Ban Puncher
Member
My US Netflix remains accessible.
For now.
YAR HAR F U SONY
PAYING FOR NETFLIX IS NOT DASTARDLY
WATCH WHAT YOU WANT CAUSE A 'PIRATE' PAYS FEES
VPN PIRATE
For now.
YAR HAR F U SONY
PAYING FOR NETFLIX IS NOT DASTARDLY
WATCH WHAT YOU WANT CAUSE A 'PIRATE' PAYS FEES
VPN PIRATE
Ding ding, if the likes of Netflix are distributing shows by proxy to other countries it lessons the value of said shows when tv companies try to sell them abroad to other tv companies.
The only company who gains from turning a blind eye to vpns is Netflix.
Netflix probably needs to be careful, they are only as good as their content after all.
Marty Chinn
Member
Either way Sony isn't getting your money. You clearly don't understand that. It's not about supporting Sony. It's understanding that Netflix is in the wrong here.
Exactly.
If they want they can fix this selling global licenses to netflix at a reasonable price which I suppose,they never did as netflix is expanding outside the us but it still struggle to build decent libraries
bodyboarder
Member
Feel free to let me know where I can go download a Ferrari for free.
Ban Puncher
Member
If they're gettingn my money then why are the wanting to stop me from watching their stuff?
Do they expect me to buy the movies or rent them?
I know they want Netflix to pay more but it seems like they don't think it's reasonable enough. So in that sense, fuck Netflix too.
Plus aren't they increasing prices anyway? I'm sure I got an email a while ago about that.
Anyway, it seems like VPNs will end up being blocked. http://torrentfreak.com/netflix-cracks-down-on-vpn-and-proxy-pirates-150103/
Marty Chinn
Member
Sony is not getting your money. Netflix is getting your money and not paying Sony for it. Is it hard to understand why Sony might not like that?
Ban Puncher
Member
Netflix pays Sony for shows.
I pay Netflix to watch Sony shows.
How is Sony not getting my money?
I don't really care about Sony to be honest. All this will cause is all VPN use to be banned and Ill lose a huge amount of movies. Not just Sony movies.
This isn't an official Netflix feature so I don't see why Netflix has to pay anyway. But since it's not official, I guess you can't blame them for removing it. I wouldn't be happy though and I would seriously think about cancelling.
Is it hard to understand why people are sympathizing with Netflix in this case?
Marty Chinn
Member
Netflix paid Sony for US distribution rights. Not worldwide rights. Netflix then in turn allows worldwide distribution at the cost of US distribution rights. The rate is based on US subscribers and projected growth in the US. It does not factor in people outside of the US. So Netflix pays less and reaps the benefits while Sony doesn't get any of the money it should from distributing it world wide. Sony doesn't see your money and Netflix does.
It's misguided when Netflix's actions are going to do more harm to their customers than good in the long run. Netflix is taking advantage of this to gain more money in the short term at the expense of Sony and their customers in the long term.
How is it going to do more harm to their customers than good in the long run? Honest question. As an example, how is VPN usage going to harm French customers in the long run?
- Status