
YouTube Seeks Streaming Rights to TV Shows, Movies - prostoalex
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/youtube-seeks-streaming-right-to-tv-shows-movies-1449104356-lMyQjAxMTA1MjAyMzMwMjMyWj
======
basseq
This is a smart move by YouTube, but as a consumer, exclusive streaming rights
are annoying as hell. It means content services (YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.)
become walled gardens. "Oh, you want to watch _Shawshank Redemption_? You have
to go to this other service and pay _another_ monthly subscription." Not going
to happen.

From a content creator (studio) perspective, I have to imagine this is
ineffective. Might they make more money with "open" rights for anyone?
"Doesn't matter who you are, pay us $0.50/hr for streaming this content and
we're good."

Again, as a content _provider_ , absolutely you want exclusive content as a
reason for people to join your service. (I have Netflix for _House of Cards_
and HBO for _Game of Thrones_.) But as a _creator_ your goal should be wide
distribution.

~~~
Analemma_
> From a content creator (studio) perspective, I have to imagine this is
> ineffective.

It's effective if you consider what their real goal is: to keep any one
streaming provider from becoming too popular, and then in a position to start
making demands from the creators. They're deathly afraid of streaming ending
up like music did with iTunes, where Apple had the record companies in an iron
grip until they were broken by streaming. Thus, they want to keep each service
as weak as possible, so they can remain in a position to yank popular titles
if any of them get too uppity.

And, honestly, it's working. For a while, it looked like Netflix would be
_the_ movie-and-TV streaming provider, and everyone else was going to be an
also-ran, but now Hulu and Amazon Video are respectable competitors. I don't
really like that, but their success means that there will definitely never be
one service which has everything. Everyone would just switch to that one to
pay only one subscription, and that service would have way too much leverage
over the creators.

------
Touche
Title is a little misleading, they are seeking streaming rights for their
subscription service; they already have streaming rights as part of their
rental service
[https://www.youtube.com/user/movies](https://www.youtube.com/user/movies) as
of a few years ago.

YouTube is a bit late to the game on this sort of thing. 5 years ago they were
the only name in streaming video and they let Netflix blow by them by offering
premium content that people want (kids might spend all day watching 5 min
clips of video games and cat antics but adults want the premium content).

~~~
yaur
My view of what the industry was like 5 years ago, is that content creators
only wanted to deal with small companies that they could control and that
didn't have the bankroll to take it to the FCC. All of them were terrified of
Google getting into the space and all of the contracts I saw could be canceled
on a change of control. One of our counter parties explicitly mentioned
concerns that we would get bought by Amazon or Google.

------
mtgx
I wonder what stringent copyright takedown policies they'll agree to this
time. Every time Google makes a content deal, it seems to become an even more
aggressive copyright cop.

------
mahranch
> _YouTube Seeks Streaming Rights to TV Shows, Movies_

I find it hard to believe that they haven't attempted to do just that a long
time ago. And probably many times since. I can only conclude that they were
unwilling to give up certain rights or couldn't agree on revenue contracts in
exchange for the rights to stream. Whereas the smaller companies (at the time)
really had no choice and accepted those terms. Smaller companies like Netflix,
Hulu, etc didn't have youtube's negotiating power, and streaming for youtube
wasn't a make or break thing. They could take a pass if they so wanted. If
netflix were to take a pass, it could've meant the end of their business.

Now youtube is watching companies like Netflix turn into direct competitors
and has since changed its mind and is probably becoming more pliable. I think
youtube had an established revenue model and these big companies (Fox,
universal, etc) wanted more than youtube was willing to give up. Youtube
should have realized, however, the internet is too dynamic. Sure, a direct
competitor isn't going to pop up overnight, but you'd be surprised just how
quick they can establish themselves.

~~~
Retric
Several streaming companies are mostly owned by the content owners. Which
creates a conflict in terms of cross licensing.

ex: _Hulu is a joint venture of Disney–ABC Television Group_

~~~
mahranch
Sure, but those ownerships are a recent development. They didn't own them from
the beginning, or even for the majority of their existence.

------
bane
I feel like this is something you'd do _before_ you launch a paid streaming
video service.

~~~
msabalau
Well, their current offering is really: you get a streaming music service, and
for the same price as any other streaming music service you also get an ad
free YouTube experience, and the ability easily save YouTube videos for
offline viewing. Additional video content is just sweetening the pot.

~~~
mikecb
Yeah, I thought it was worth it just for the music. I'm ecstatic to hear all
this news.

------
pjmlp
What about sorting out the whole issue with GEMA in Germany for starters?

------
iraphael
Would having movies and TV shows make Youtube Red appeal to you, at $9.99/mo?
It's cheaper than Netflix.. But I guess that will depend on the shows they get
the rights for.

~~~
dublinben
How is this "cheaper than Netflix" at $9.99 when Netflix starts at $7.99?

~~~
iraphael
My bad, you're right. I mistook Netflix's family price for the starting one I
think

------
bitmapbrother
I wonder how long it is before Google secures an exclusive NFL deal. That
would really shake things up.

~~~
timthorn
Such as with BT Sport in the UK, who outbid Sky for football rights.

------
NiftyFifty
You are the owner of the infrastructure, not the content. Whole different
animal on the copyright law.

