 | |
Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footHow will this entice consumers to not pirate movies even more now. | |
|
 |  woody7
Premium Member
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA |
woody7
Premium Member
2010-Jan-7 1:39 pm
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footHollywood is like old politicians, set in their ways, until they retire nothing is going to change | |
|
|  ScottMoOnce in a Lifetime
MVM
join:2000-12-15
New York, NY
2 recommendations |
to buzz_4_20
said by buzz_4_20:How will this entice consumers to not pirate movies even more now. Because copyright infringement makes it illegal. There's no "out" clause that says movie studios owe you a cheap movie right off the bat and if they don't its OK to infringe on their copyrights. Get over your sense of entitlement. If you want their entertainment, then you play by the rules. If its too expensive, seek other, cheaper entertainment. Its not like they're selling air or water. You don't need brand new movies to live. You have legal choices in a free society. | |
|
| | |
| |
1 recommendation |
to ScottMo
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footsaid by ScottMo:said by buzz_4_20:How will this entice consumers to not pirate movies even more now. Because copyright infringement makes it illegal. There's no "out" clause that says movie studios owe you a cheap movie right off the bat and if they don't its OK to infringe on their copyrights. Get over your sense of entitlement. If you want their entertainment, then you play by the rules. If its too expensive, seek other, cheaper entertainment. Its not like they're selling air or water. You don't need brand new movies to live. You have legal choices in a free society. You are correct, but you are missing the point. There will always be some that do bad things like piracy just because they can. But the movie industry is alienating it's core customers. The target audience for this industry is getting more and more fed up with their foolishness and that leads to more and more people saying "Screw them, I'll just download it". You can rant about it being wrong but that doesn't change the way the market is reacting. | |
|
| |  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey |
to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:said by buzz_4_20:How will this entice consumers to not pirate movies even more now. Because copyright infringement makes it illegal. There's no "out" clause that says movie studios owe you a cheap movie right off the bat and if they don't its OK to infringe on their copyrights. Get over your sense of entitlement. If you want their entertainment, then you play by the rules. If its too expensive, seek other, cheaper entertainment. Its not like they're selling air or water. You don't need brand new movies to live. You have legal choices in a free society. You totally missed his point, and gave the exact response that feeds piracy more. The point is... Hollywood would slow or stop piracy but using modern methods of delivery rather then a loose money to it. | |
|
| | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:said by buzz_4_20:How will this entice consumers to not pirate movies even more now. Because copyright infringement makes it illegal. There's no "out" clause that says movie studios owe you a cheap movie right off the bat and if they don't its OK to infringe on their copyrights. Get over your sense of entitlement. If you want their entertainment, then you play by the rules. If its too expensive, seek other, cheaper entertainment. Its not like they're selling air or water. You don't need brand new movies to live. You have legal choices in a free society. great theory in practice, but I somehow think those pissed off customers won't see things that way and just download illegally. Actual pirate who will always pirate and don't care are bad enouhg. Turning normal decent people into pirates who wouldn't pirate under NORMAL circumstances well that's stupid. | |
|
| | | ScottMoOnce in a Lifetime
MVM
join:2000-12-15
New York, NY |
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footBut "normal decent people" aren't going to turn to legally downloading a film just because - oh my gawd! - they have to wait 4 weeks before they can see it on Netflix. The movie will eventually become available for streaming or download on Netflix or Amazon. Its not like it never will. Just because, in the grand scheme of things, you have to wait 4 weeks, doesn't turn "normal decent people" into wanton copyright infringers.
There seems to be a view that there are only two choices: get the movie right now in legal means or right now illegally. There are other choices. No one is "forcing" people to download to watch a movie. They're just forcing you to wait 4 weeks. | |
|
| | | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2010-Jan-7 4:32 pm
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footsaid by ScottMo:But "normal decent people" aren't going to turn to legally downloading a film just because - oh my gawd! - they have to wait 4 weeks before they can see it on Netflix. People that feel "fucked over" whether rightly or wrongly can do things you don't expect. The fact is if Hollywood was samrt they would have same days release for ALL meida. And you would basically kill piracy. Now those that pirate for profit will still do so but I'm not talking about that. If you release movie in theaters, DVD, blu-ray, video rental, PPV and online rental all on the same day you've given people that are interested in that movie a plethora of chocies to obtain the movie legally. Since most people are decent and are in fact willing to pay for product there is ZERO incentive to torrent. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footI'm going to have to support Warner Brothers here. From reading what was posted it sounds like they were willing to offer their movies to be rented through Netflix on the day they are released on DVD. They just wanted a large sum of money in order to do that.
That's just good business. After all same day rental is available via Pay Per View. That will just cost you more money if you want to watch multiple movies even at 99 cents per movie.
While I like the idea of getting cheap movies which is what Netflix offers I can't blame WB for wanting to maximize their profits in a way that offers the customer what they want (same day rental) in a manner that sees the studio get paid for each rental. | |
|
| | | | | |  NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium Member
join:2002-03-05 |
NOVA_Guy
Premium Member
2010-Jan-8 9:46 am
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footIt's only a good business move if you support corporate greed and monopolistic practices. The entertainment industry has shown time and time again that they are willing to collude with each other to screw the American public out of as much money as they can. And then there are their actions to extend copyrights into the realm of "forever"... just so they can continue to profit from one single idea in perpetuity...
In a competitive market, the far better business move would be for them to innovate and provide their customers with the choices they want. Hollywood and the music industry have demonstrated a continued reluctance toward doing this, and obviously show no signs of stopping any time soon. Unfortunately they have also bought enough politicians to extend copyrights, make movie "piracy" a "crime" (in quotes because there really isn't a victim), and control what we can do with the entertainment media we buy-- all with the average person having little to no say in any of it. | |
|
| | | | | | |  SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT |
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footIt's not just Americans, it's the entire world.
Look at Europe. | |
|
| | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL |
to nanoflower
said by nanoflower:I'm going to have to support Warner Brothers here. From reading what was posted it sounds like they were willing to offer their movies to be rented through Netflix on the day they are released on DVD. They just wanted a large sum of money in order to do that. Here's something for you to chew on: If you buy a DVD, you can lend (or rent) that DVD to anyone you choose at any time you choose. WB is using streaming rights as a bludgeon to keep Netflix from exercising their rights under federal law. That doesn't sit well with me. | |
|
| | | | theeinstein
Premium Member
join:2003-07-31
Fernandina Beach, FL
1 edit |
to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:But "normal decent people" aren't going to turn to legally downloading a film just because - oh my gawd! - they have to wait 4 weeks before they can see it on Netflix. The movie will eventually become available for streaming or download on Netflix or Amazon. Its not like it never will. Just because, in the grand scheme of things, you have to wait 4 weeks, doesn't turn "normal decent people" into wanton copyright infringers. There seems to be a view that there are only two choices: get the movie right now in legal means or right now illegally. There are other choices. No one is "forcing" people to download to watch a movie. They're just forcing you to wait 4 weeks. The fact is I am the customer filling the pockets of those bastards! I should be given the choice as to how MY selection is presented.. I am fed up with people like this who believe if Im told to wait well I'll just wait.. How about you grow a sack and make them provide the entertainment we desire in a format we want! | |
|
| | | | | |
bwl4art to ScottMo
Anon
2010-Jan-7 7:33 pm
to ScottMo
It's either buy the disk or wait 4 weeks........ why should I have to wait 4 weeks? Of course it turns "normal" people in pirates and those numbers will continue to increase exponentially as long as the copyright holders try to squeeze every last cent from the public. | |
|
| | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL |
to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:But "normal decent people" aren't going to turn to legally downloading a film just because - oh my gawd! Actually, they do. I've had many people wonder to me how it is they might acquire movies, tv, and software without paying for it. They pretty much universally do whatever is most convenient, whether that be paying for the content or making an unauthorized copy. They just want their stuff quick and easy. People, almost universally, do whatever is easiest, nothing more, nothing less. | |
|
| | | | | |
to ScottMo
News Flash, most of Americans are not 'normal decent people'. Hell, I see fellow Baptist at the liquor store hiding behind shelves so I dont see them doing something 'wrong'. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:You have legal choices in a free society. What free society? Those laws you speak of? Hollywood is writing them. | |
|
| | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footsaid by russotto:said by ScottMo:You have legal choices in a free society. What free society? Those laws you speak of? Hollywood is writing them. Correct. Originally, copyright laws lasted only 20 years. Disney (amongst others, im sure) has paid off those necessary to extend the copyright laws to an almost infinite stage. Imagine Star Wars would be public domain by now. | |
|
| | | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2010-Jan-7 4:49 pm
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footsaid by ImBatman:said by russotto:said by ScottMo:You have legal choices in a free society. What free society? Those laws you speak of? Hollywood is writing them. Correct. Originally, copyright laws lasted only 20 years. Disney (amongst others, im sure) has paid off those necessary to extend the copyright laws to an almost infinite stage. Imagine Star Wars would be public domain by now. Actually it was 14 years. And even in the mid 70's it was a max of 56 years. It was 28 years then you had to ask for renewal for another 28. If you didn't request a renewal your stuff became public domain. And yep Disney is behind new copyright law. The Sony Bono act in 1998 extended copyright form 75 years to 95 years for companies and from 50 years to 70 years after the death of a private creator for works made after 1923. So for example an Irving Berlin song from 1924 is protected by copyright until 2059 because he managed to live to be 101 and didn't die until 1989. But hey a reasonable person can see that 135 years clearly falls under the Constitution's "limited times" clause for copyright. Coincidentally the copyright on the first Disney cartoons was to expire in 2001 before this act. Now they expire in 2021 so expect an extension of copyright to be passed in the next few years. Which by the way ALL of these extensions violate the constitution. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | 88615298 |
to ImBatman
said by ImBatman: Imagine Star Wars would be public domain by now. at the time of it's release Star War was protected until 2033. which I think is fair enough. God forbid in 23 years someone uses Star Wars without paying George Lucas or his heirs on his nearly 60 year old movie. | |
|
| | | |
tmh to ScottMo
Anon
2010-Jan-7 3:54 pm
to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:Because copyright infringement makes it illegal. There's no "out" clause that says movie studios owe you a cheap movie right off the bat and if they don't its OK to infringe on their copyrights. Get over your sense of entitlement. If you want their entertainment, then you play by the rules. If its too expensive, seek other, cheaper entertainment. Its not like they're selling air or water. You don't need brand new movies to live. You have legal choices in a free society. There's the law, and then there's reality. The reality is: digital content can be copied. People want this digital content. People are going to get it. Law enforcement's fundamental assumption is that there are always more enforcement resources than individuals violating the law. When millions of individuals decide they're not going to take it up the behind, pay again and again for the same content to run on different platforms, don't even own what they paid for in the first place, they're going to find easier ways to get it. And 'legal' enforcement is always going to be inundated under the flood. On the bright side: it's job security for generations of lawyers to come. Maybe that's why the old system's still in place. | |
|
| | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT  ·StarLink
|
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footsaid by tmh :
There's the law, and then there's reality. The reality is: digital content can be copied. People want this digital content. People are going to get it. Digital or Analog, they both can be copied. I remember going to Thailand and getting a copy of "The Matrix" on VCD months before it came out on Video (this was in 1999).. It even had the banner on the bottom that it was property of some company. I have a Professional S-VHS Deck, a Beta Hi-Fi Deck, and a LaserDisc player attached to my computer. Most of our tapes and LDs are on the home network now and the media is in storage. | |
|
| | | |  tmh
@verizon.net |
tmh
Anon
2010-Jan-15 7:12 am
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footsaid by SimbaSeven:I remember going to Thailand and getting a copy of "The Matrix" on VCD months before it came out on Video (this was in 1999).. It even had the banner on the bottom that it was property of some company. Ah yes! Good old VCD. Constant bitrate MPEG1 video and MP3 audio. About equivalent to VHS quality, although I can't recall offhand what the bitrate was. While it never really caught on Stateside, it was wildly popular in SE Asia. What's more interesting is that most DVD players can still play VCDs, and some even the more stringent SVCD format. | |
|
| | | | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footsaid by tmh :
Ah yes! Good old VCD. Constant bitrate MPEG1 video and MP3 audio. About equivalent to VHS quality, although I can't recall offhand what the bitrate was. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_CDVideo Bitrate is 1150kbps MPEG1 @ 352x240 Resolution Audio Bitrate is 224kbps MPEG1 Layer 2 @ 44.1khz. | |
|
| |  Marduk
join:2004-09-05
West Chester, PA |
to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:said by buzz_4_20:How will this entice consumers to not pirate movies even more now. Because copyright infringement makes it illegal. There's no "out" clause that says movie studios owe you a cheap movie right off the bat and if they don't its OK to infringe on their copyrights. Get over your sense of entitlement. If you want their entertainment, then you play by the rules. If its too expensive, seek other, cheaper entertainment. Its not like they're selling air or water. You don't need brand new movies to live. You have legal choices in a free society. Of course, but if everybody thought like that, there would be no rapists, bank robbers and shoplifters. The point: The more of a pain in the ass Hollywood is, the more their movies ARE going to be pirated. | |
|
| | |
| | |
| |  Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphone
Premium Member
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast |
to ScottMo
Please remind me how this circumvents going down to the video store and rent that movie? | |
|
| | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT |
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footThanks to Redbox and Netflix, most of the Video Stores are going out of business. Both Blockbusters here in Billings went under. | |
|
| | | |  bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium Member
join:2001-06-09
Derry, NH |
bear73
Premium Member
2010-Jan-8 2:09 pm
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footand that is a problem how? its the digital age.... everyone wants it NOW and as easy/convient as it can be had... and it's not just Netflix that has killed the brick and mortar stores... its Cable/Satellite PPV too... and as soon as the media conglomerates come through with a PPV tv and movie system that they have promised/waxed poetically for YEARS to be able to pick up your remote and choose a show to watch when YOU want to watch it, they'll kill off Netflix too... and make a boatload of money while they're at it. Hell.... why do you think there's 8 different HBO channels now? cuz when I want to watch something on HBO, I want to watch it when I WANT to watch it... THAT is why Tivo became so popular, and the VCR before it (creating the phenomenon of time-shifting) | |
|
| | | |
to ScottMo
said by ScottMo:said by buzz_4_20:How will this entice consumers to not pirate movies even more now. Because copyright infringement makes it illegal. There's no "out" clause that says movie studios owe you a cheap movie right off the bat and if they don't its OK to infringe on their copyrights. Get over your sense of entitlement. If you want their entertainment, then you play by the rules. If its too expensive, seek other, cheaper entertainment. Its not like they're selling air or water. You don't need brand new movies to live. You have legal choices in a free society. so then we should apply that same idea to car making and let the employees get for life residuals for things made ONCE. neat thing about movies and media is the ease and cheapness of copying yes yes. so dont give me the bullshit mister that they dont owe us cheap movies perhaps paying arnold 20 million for anohter film is the way to cheap right? | |
|
| | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium Member
join:2002-03-05
1 recommendation |
to ScottMo
Since when does something being illegal stop someone from doing it? Crimes are committed in society every day.
The OP's point is that some customers who were using NetFlix to get new releases might be tempted to seek alternatives to NetFlix (i.e. piracy) to get those new releases now that they will have to wait an additional month to see them.
Does it make it right to do so? No. Do people have a right to do so? No. But will it happen in some cases? Yes. This is simply another case of Hollywood not recognizing their customers' wants and needs, or simply not caring about them. (I'd say it was more the latter of the two.)
Personally I've given up on Hollywood. I don't buy DVDs, CDs, etc. anymore unless it comes from a used bookstore type of place. This has nothing to do with not having a desire to see some of the more recent movies-- it is simply because the RIAA/MPAA doesn't make a dime off of used DVDs/CDs, and I refuse to feed those demons though buying things that provide them with profit. Until they adopt business models that fit their customers' desires and get their butts out of politics, they can all burn in hell. | |
|
| | bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium Member
join:2001-06-09
Derry, NH |
to ScottMo
what you are failing to recognize, as is teh film industry, is that the core/target audience wants to get their new releases and have them in a digital format to view on their ipod/zune/netbook when it is released. thay want to rent it when its released to view on their flat screens, they DON"T want to be dictated to how/when they can view it. what benefit is there REALLY to purchasing a movie over renting? you get a pretty box to sit on your shelf. and a large library takes up an entire wall. I prefer to have them saved to a HDD/server and take up 1/100th the space. and that is becoming the norm as more viewers become tech savvy, and more desktops are built to serve as an entertainment system and laptops can output SVideo/HDMI. all the music/movie industry is doing is being obstinate as they look out their front door looking at the giant glacier inch closer to whiping their house off the countryside... and one of these days there may be a tremor that will start an avalanche to boot! | |
|
| | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footsaid by bear73:I prefer to have them saved to a HDD/server and take up 1/100th the space. and that is becoming the norm as more viewers become tech savvy, and more desktops are built to serve as an entertainment system and laptops can output SVideo/HDMI. I have several old Softmodded Xboxes (XBMC) that do this task easily. Don't even need the DVD-ROM drive, just tie them to the home network and pick a file to play. ..that plus a 14TB array (8x2TB RAID5).. You'll be set for awhile. | |
|
| | | | bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium Member
join:2001-06-09
Derry, NH |
bear73
Premium Member
2010-Jan-8 2:15 pm
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footyes, I have a similar gig (old desktop outputted to my TV and stereo/home theatre) with a 1TB storage in-board and another 500GB (currently) in external drive cases. Next upgrade will be to build a similar rig, but with "green" drives and inboard space of several TB drives.... or maybe I'll just flip to a home server from one of the box makers. I hear WinHomeServer is pretty good. More interested in making a system that consumes as little power as possible now. | |
|
|  badtrip
Premium Member
join:2004-03-20
1 recommendation |
to buzz_4_20
said by buzz_4_20:How will this entice consumers to not pirate movies even more now. The "entertainment" industry just doesn't get it. I'll bet that Netflix actually decreases movie copyright infringement. Two major reasons why folks download copies of movies off the web are: 1) it's effortless 2) it's cost is trivial Netflix is both effortless and has a trivial cost, thereby negating the two major reasons why someone would download a movie. I, personally, would rather queue up a dvd in Netflix and wait a couple days then DL the same movie. It's almost like Hollywood *wants* folks to download their movies for free. | |
|
| | | |
33358088 (banned)
Member
2010-Jan-8 1:41 am
Re: Hollywood yet again shoots themselves in the footsaid by badtrip:said by buzz_4_20:How will this entice consumers to not pirate movies even more now. The "entertainment" industry just doesn't get it. I'll bet that Netflix actually decreases movie copyright infringement. Two major reasons why folks download copies of movies off the web are: 1) it's effortless 2) it's cost is trivial Netflix is both effortless and has a trivial cost, thereby negating the two major reasons why someone would download a movie. I, personally, would rather queue up a dvd in Netflix and wait a couple days then DL the same movie. It's almost like Hollywood *wants* folks to download their movies for free. 3 no drm 4 no spyware 5 i get what i want how i want when i want 6 it is far form effortless thanks to the EFFORTS of hackers and coders, go look at a trackers code and then surce code of say rtorrent and all the libs and stuff required FAR from EFFORTLESS just that you perceive it such is the key. AND when you make people WANT to do this kinda a level a work YOU KNOW YOU DID SOMETHING TOTALLY WRONG IN YOUR BUSINESS | |
|
| | bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium Member
join:2001-06-09
Derry, NH |
to badtrip
said by badtrip:The "entertainment" industry just doesn't get it. I'll bet that Netflix actually decreases movie copyright infringement. Two major reasons why folks download copies of movies off the web are: 1) it's effortless 2) it's cost is trivial Netflix is both effortless and has a trivial cost, thereby negating the two major reasons why someone would download a movie. I, personally, would rather queue up a dvd in Netflix and wait a couple days then DL the same movie. It's almost like Hollywood *wants* folks to download their movies for free. I was the same way when I had netflixs. I lust wished that the on-demand catalog had a few more in it. | |
|
| | |
CuriousJorge to buzz_4_20
Anon
2010-Jan-7 4:07 pm
to buzz_4_20
My big question is: did this just save Blockbuster? If Netflix can't stream new movies for 28 days, are they still able to ship them out for rentals? Cause the wording of the articale seems to imply they won't ship them either, which means your local video rental store could have just been saved if the rest of the deals Netflix has to make are this bad. | |
|
| |
•••• |
|
2 recommendations |
to buzz_4_20
I refuse to buy any new movies from Hollywood as I am on a personal boycott.join me if you want to and head over to the used section where you buy your movies and Hollywood does not get a dime from it. | |
|
deadzoned
Premium Member
join:2005-04-13
Cypress, TX |
:(This is just sad. Have they learned nothing at all from history or are they just being deliberately obtuse at this point? | |
|
|
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
 MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ |
Morac
Member
2010-Jan-7 1:30 pm
streamingI'd be willing to wait 28 days if new releases could be streamed or if Netflix would get rid of the stupid Blu-Ray surcharge. Somehow I don't think either of those things are going to happen.
Personally I decide if I'm going to purchase a DVD/BR before it even comes out so the 28 day delay won't make a difference. It could even prevent purchases since sometimes I'll a movie I've watched on Netflix if I really like it. | |
|
| | |
Re: streamingI'm OK with it but it depends on what movies they get. If they could get the entire WB library that is over 1-2 years old then it is worth it.
Would be interesting to see the terms of what they have access to. I'd guess WB set some threshold that if a movie isn't selling X many units, it's thrown to streaming, which would mean good movies that are a few years old may not be available. | |
|
| | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2010-Jan-7 3:08 pm
Re: streamingsaid by xenophon:I'm OK with it but it depends on what movies they get. If they could get the entire WB library that is over 1-2 years old then it is worth it. The agreement with New York-based Time Warner allows Netflix to add movies including “All the Presidents Men,” “Caddyshack” and the “Matrix” series, to its digital library, Sarandos saidI hope it's worth it to you. | |
|
| |
Beemer5770
Anon
2010-Jan-7 1:30 pm
Wow - what an ignorant ideaI mean, really? By postponing Netflix rentals by 28 days, they'll also be postponing at least *some* portion of sales as well. For myself, if it's a Waner Bros. movie, I'll wait 29 days after it's release before buying/renting. | |
|
| DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey |
Re: Wow - what an ignorant ideaI agree, Hollywood doesnt think Netflix is a preview service. I have bought stuff because i was able to watch it on netflix first. Second the later window doesnt bother me, because i refuse to go to a theater. So basicly their just delaying there own sales further. Hollywood always does whats worse for it. | |
|
| |
SharkT
Anon
2010-Jan-7 1:32 pm
Good for Netflix/bad for HollywoodMost Netflix customers I know are thrilled. They're more than happy to make the trade for a lot more streaming movies. The typical "I have to have it immediately" fan is going to either buy or grab a torrent anyway, not wait for the mail. | |
|
 dellsweigExtreme Aerobatics
MVM
join:2003-12-10
Campbell Hall, NY
1 recommendation |
A different take on this | |
|
|
•••• |
bngdup
join:2007-02-20
Old Bridge, NJ |
bngdup
Member
2010-Jan-7 1:39 pm
Pointless move, bound to failThe way I see it this is far worse for Warner Brothers than it is for netflix. If anything it will encourage people to watch a new release from a competing studio.
If someone was going to buy the DVD from the store they would have done so with or without the 28 day netflix delay. Just because someone may have watched / copied the movie during that period does not mean they would have bought it from a store.
Netflix users will still get their movies, and more from streaming whilst Warner Brothers will most likely see continued decline in DVD sales | |
|
| | |
Re: Pointless move, bound to failThis is a lame move thanks for increasing torrent downloads | |
|
|  TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA |
to bngdup
Exactly. This helps Netflix more than it hurts them. Netflix could add movies to their listings early with a "Save" button. They do this now for some titles which will be out soon. Clicking on the "Save" button adds the movie to your Saved Queue. When the movie comes out on Netflix, it automatically moves to your normal Queue and will be mailed in order.
I'll gladly wait 28 days on a bunch of movies that, chances are, I'm in no real hurry to see in exchange for 1) Netflix paying less money (translation: less price increases for me) and 2) more streamed movies. | |
|
 gatorkramNeed for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
1 recommendation |
R5 DVSsWhat is so stupid, is over in R5s region of the world, they get new movies out on DVD much much faster than we get them here in R1.
Reason? Because piracy is so bad over there.
Answer? I guess we need to pirate more?
Who is this really helping? Making me wait 28 more days, isn't going to make me go out and buy a movie.
We already wait way to long, what is 28 more days?
Stupid stupid stupid... | |
|
|
••• |
 foo
join:2007-06-28
Chicago, IL |
foo
Member
2010-Jan-7 1:55 pm
they asked for it.i've just canceled my service with them. idiots. | |
|
|
•••• |
| |
Heck nOStupid hollywood! I don't buy DVD's and I WONT. It's all about broadband streaming now | |
|
 gballMaster Yoda
Premium Member
join:2000-11-28
South Bend, IN |
gball
Premium Member
2010-Jan-7 1:58 pm
dangnow I gotta add Warner Bro. movies to my 'don't ever buy' list now..I sure hope Avatar isn't a Warner Bro. movie.. | |
|
|
••••••••• |
TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2010-Jan-7 2:15 pm
Not Bad For NetflixWhen there's a movie we want to see, we add it to our already long Netflix DVD queue. Let's say I want to see Sherlock Holmes when it comes out on DVD. I add it to my queue either on the release date, prior using the "Save" feature (which adds it to the queue for me upon release), or whenever I think of it. Even if I added Sherlock Holmes on the exact day it was released for DVD sales, I wouldn't get to it for many weeks since there are so many other titles in my queue. There aren't many movies that are that important to me that I *must* get them *now* or else! Meanwhile, Netflix will be able to stream many more Warner Brothers titles. This is huge to me since I use Streaming on my Roku much more than I use Mailed DVDs. So even if I'm waiting 28 days for Sherlock Holmes to arrive, perhaps I'll be able to stream all the Batman movies (well, except for Batman and Robin which I wouldn't subject myself to.  ) and animated series's to my Roku. | |
|
| |
For some movies, I won't wait 28 days!Torrents will fill that 28 day gap! | |
|
 BK
join:2001-09-10
Chicago, IL
1 recommendation |
BK
Member
2010-Jan-7 2:33 pm
calculated risk..I see Netflix doing this because its a calculated risk. The risk they will lose some amount of customers that want these new releases immediately but gain some by having more streaming content.
Its hard to say how this will play out, because lots of people have very large queues that this will basically have no effect on. Those who don't have the large queues will be pissed though.
Without any real data, just by Netflix doing this move, I think its safe to assume the majority of netflix users have large queues that this will have no effect on. | |
|
 David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2010-Jan-7 2:36 pm
They did this to redbox too.Except you can't see say "Harry potter" movies for about a week after it's available in stores. | |
|
 NOCManMadMacHatter
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO |
NOCMan
Premium Member
2010-Jan-7 2:39 pm
What pisses me offIs that if a movie was good enough that I watched it in the theater I'm already likely to buy it. What I do not consider worth 10 dollars for a ticket and another 20 dollars for a popcorn and coke, I want to rent.
So all they're doing is increasing the chance I'll just forget about it being released and not doing either. | |
|
| | |
Re: What pisses me offI am just the opposite. If I saw a movie somewhere else I'm less likely to buy it.
I have tons of movies I watched once and then they live out the rest of the days on the shelf gathering dust. | |
|
 pog4
Premium Member
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI |
pog4
Premium Member
2010-Jan-7 2:41 pm
waiting an extra 28 days for DVDs? okay!I really don't care about the extra wait for DVDs. If a movie was any good, I probably already saw it in the theater. If not, an extra wait is not going to do me any harm. LOL!
OTOH, beefing up the online catalog? I'm all for that. | |
|
jus10
join:2009-08-04
Gainesville, VA |
jus10
Member
2010-Jan-7 2:43 pm
Well, I no longer go to the movie theater ...And now that Bluray wants me to replace all of my DVDs I don't buy movies anymore. (Since there will always be something better, I just stick with renting). Netflix is the only source of discs these days. So the 28 day delay doesn't really matter all that much to me. I don't consider a movie "released" until I get get it in a happy red envelope.
Hollywood should tread lightly around Netflix. If you lose your business with the rental masters, I won't see your products at all. That's something I'm sure your buddies in advertising think about quite a bit. | |
|
| |
Capn
Anon
2010-Jan-7 2:45 pm
NetflixOne thing netflix needs to approve upon is the QUALITY of the instant streaming movies! | |
|
|
••••• |
| |
AmazedI am amazed that no one has made an allusion to the film title "28 Days Later", considering it's theme of Rage (customers) and Zombies (Hollywood) | |
|
|
|
·
) and animated series's to my Roku.
