
For Cinephiles, Netflix Is Less and Less an Option - jfb
http://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2014/09/12/netflix_streaming_dvds/
======
mindcrime
It's almost like the executives at the studios and distributors who own the
rights to these films don't realize that, if I can't easily, quickly and
conveniently buy access to their film legally, I will just bittorrent the damn
thing. And personally I don't even feel guilty about it. It's 2014, join the
21st century or suffer the consequences.

I don't mind paying for content, and - in fact - I largely prefer to do so, so
there will be more new content coming. But I am not going to bend over
backwards to accommodate these laggards and dinosaurs refusal to pay attention
to the world we live in.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's almost like film consumers don't realize there are transaction and
frictional costs to the licensing and distribution of a film, even for
streaming, and many films are not popular enough to earn back those costs in
the foreseeable future.

I don't think people realize how expensive it is to _manufacture_ a film. I
don't mean in terms of hiring big-name actors _or_ in terms of striking prints
and pressing DVDs, although those can be very expensive indeed. But even if
you stay digital all the way it can be very expensive. Look at this
distribution contract, in particular the list of deliverables on pps 19-20:
[http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_bui...](http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/entertainment_sports/distribution_agreement_form.authcheckdam.pdf)

Every time you have a rights transfer (eg to a new licensee) there's a
agreement and a bunch of deliverables along those lines, which have to be
negotiated and QCed. It's not a matter of just taking what people have an
uploading it to (say) Netflix's servers; if there's something wrong with the
digital copy or it isn't conformant to (ever changing) standards, then
dissatisfied viewers are going to blame Netflix. The absolute bare minimum to
get a piece of content through a distribution pipeline is about $5000.

People will put up with bad torrents of something because, well, it's free.
But if they've paid for something (even though a subscription service) and it
doesn't play back properly, that becomes a PR problem.

~~~
CamperBob2
_It 's almost like film consumers don't realize there are transaction and
frictional costs to the licensing and distribution of a film, even for
streaming, and many films are not popular enough to earn back those costs in
the foreseeable future._

Gee, that sounds a lot like somebody else's problem.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _Gee, that sounds a lot like somebody else 's problem._

I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something, but that sounds an awful lot like
some sort of weird consumer entitlement (that is shared by many). I mean, how
is it _not_ the consumer's problem?

I am far from a big industry apologist, but why do many consumers of digital
content believe that the content should be delivered on their own terms at a
price they set, else stealing it is justifiable?

I mean it's not like air or water where you have to consume it or else die. If
the industry produces a product that is woefully expensive and delivered
extraordinarily inefficiently for most consumers, then isn't the correct
consumer response to do without? I am trying to see the difference between
this and believing that it's OK to steal a car because the manufacturer hasn't
made it "affordable enough" for you.

What am I missing?

~~~
ryanpardieck
When have consumers ever cared if a firm makes such a costly product that it
can't be profitable? Consumers will never care about that. Appeals to make
them care about "manufacturing costs" are pointless.

I think it's a little disingenuous to keep calling it "stealing." It's
copyright infringement, and in my experience people have never felt as badly
about doing it as compared to stealing. For instance, think back before
digital books became popular: if you had a truly epic book of poems and you
had several friends who wanted to read it and copies of the actual book were
unusually difficult to procure, I think it used to be that many people would
just run a large chunk of the book through a xerox machine without thinking
twice. Similarly, I know people who used to get very into making custom mixed
CDs as gifts for people. Copying an artwork has never been considered a crime
on the level of stealing someone else's possession.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Well, I find myself in a funny position, as I'm not much of a corporate/big
industry apologist, so I don't really have a motive to be disingenuous. These
questions are earnest head-scratchers for me.

To answer your first question, consumers care about manufacturing costs every
time they agree to pay the producer of a good the producer's asking price.
But, this is not so much about caring about manufacturing costs as it is about
respecting ownership rights.

In any case, it's really splitting hairs to say that it's copyright
infringement vs. stealing. In fact, I believe that making that distinction is
what is disingenuous. To the extent that a copyright has value, it's because
people respect that it represents ownership of a thing and, thus, the right to
capture any value that the thing produces. When we don't respect that, then we
have effectively taken any value from the creator for his/her creation.
Meanwhile, we enjoy value from the creation, whether we use it for ourselves,
re-sell it, or otherwise. How is that not stealing?

I do get that people have always made a distinction between copyright
infringement and stealing, but my question is why is that so? Actually, my
original question extends further than that to ask, why is it that people
additionally feel entitled to do so?

~~~
ryanpardieck
Sorry I'm like a week late here, I don't check HN very frequently.

It's not just "people" that distinguish between copyright infringement and
stealing; the law does as well. I find it extremely odd that you're asking why
people feel "entitled" to make a perfectly lawful distinction.

It's my personal opinion that traditional ownership of property and the
intellectual property afforded by copyright are such different concepts that
all debate tends to collapse into incoherence once the concepts are taken to
be the same.

For things that I personally own, there is no idea of a "public domain," and
my belongings are not temporarily granted exclusively to me for the good of
the public. My macbook is my macbook, full-stop. Copyright, on the other hand,
is a temporary monopoly on the distribution of a creation because, at some
point in time, the state deemed it beneficial to the public to incentivize
artists/creators/inventors with this kind of financial benefit.

Why do we have any concept of a public domain if copyright and traditional
ownership are perfectly interchangeable as ideas? Why is there no concept of
"fair use" for my macbook or my car, but there is such a thing as "fair use"
for any novel I might write?

My personal take: there isn't really any analogous concept of "ownership" for
most things that could be considered artworks or intellectual creations. I can
be credited as the original creator, and I can attempt to control the
distribution of physical manifestations of my artifact, but in what sense do I
actually "own," say, the dirty limerick that I wrote? The only way I can
_truly_ own it is to simply never show it to a soul. But that's not very
satisfying, is it? And yet it's perfectly satisfying to keep my macbook solely
to myself ...

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _It 's not just "people" that distinguish between copyright infringement and
> stealing; the law does as well. I find it extremely odd that you're asking
> why people feel "entitled" to make a perfectly lawful distinction..._

I don't mean technically or literally. I mean in spirit. The legal
distinctions you're making are obvious statements of fact. There's no need to
debate them. It's your conclusion that the distinction should rightly lead to
people making a _moral_ distinction when violating one law vs. the other
that's odd here.

For instance, you make a distinction between owning your macbook and copyright
ownership, as if the latter is only conferred by the state, whereas the former
is some sort of natural right. Maybe your failure to acknowledge the sameness
of the two is the problem here. That is, the protections you enjoy around
ownership of anything is a societal contract that is upheld by the state. Of
course, this explains why, in some cultures, there is no notion of private
property ownership at all.

I just find these discussions to be intellectually dishonest and loaded with
rationalizations that skirt the moral issue. All of this talk of ownership
really hangs on economic questions. And, if you want to be able to own your
macbook without someone making some abstract argument that, say, the origins
of the source material are free products of the planet and thus your macbook
belongs to everyone, then it seems you also have to acknowledge the economic
value of copyrights.

~~~
ryanpardieck
I think you've latched onto the wrong thing here. Clearly both things are
conferred by the state. I was not arguing that one was more worthy because it
somehow _wasn 't_ granted by the state, but rather that they are granted for
clearly different reasons, because the two types of "ownership" are so vastly
different that they required different laws.

The fact that both of these concepts are enforced by the state doesn't change
the fact that there is still no real possibility of my macbook entering the
public domain after an arbitrary numbers of years. That one form of property
_does_ do this, and another doesn't, would suggest that we're talking about
two extremely different things, no?

If there were a fundamental "sameness of the two", then making an exact
replica of my macbook would be the same thing as stealing it from me. Clearly
that's not the case though. Copyright deals with who has the permission to
make legal copies of a thing. Generally it's a much stickier question than the
question of who owns a physical item. _Sometimes_ I can legally copy a thing
without being the copyright holder, though rarely, I'd say, can I legally
steal something.

I don't think I'm arguing that people _should_ make a moral distinction. I've
argued that largely they already do. People have never cared about copyright
infringement like they do theft.

Here's something I wonder about: have people ever gone significantly out of
their way to respect copyright? or have they only do so when respecting
copyright was also the most convenient way?

I'm not sure the answer means too much either way ...

\---

FWIW, I either get my media legally or I don't bother getting it at all(1).
I'm watching Game of Thrones currently through physical video store rentals.
I'm not sure this is necessary but sometimes I feel like it's worth putting
out there.

1 - The only exception was some long out-of-print books I wanted to read,
which I downloaded illegal pdfs of since they were not available new, or in
the libraries I searched, or in the used book markets I searched. So, that's
the one notable time I violated copyright.

------
fein
Nice perspective, but perhaps a bit misguided. Netflix would LOVE to have
every single movie ever made by man on the service, but there is more at play
than just "get the file, now stream it".

The entire mainstream film industry is doing everything they can to make sure
generic streaming services like Netflix and Amazon _don 't_ become as large as
they could, and our current legal framework involving distribution of content
is quite hostile to these services.

This is also following the concept that storage gets cheaper as time goes on.
More movies = more storage fees, but I don't think this overhead is nearly as
large as some would assume.

~~~
guyzero
The issue is that they no longer have classic movies available through their
DVD services. There are no legal or licensing restrictions there due to the
First Sale Doctrine.

~~~
acdha
It's true that first sale prevents the studios from restricting Netflix's
usage but it doesn't require them to make new copies for Netflix. If they
aren't selling the DVD commercially, as is the case for many classic films,
there's no way to legally create a new copy to replace a damaged disc.

~~~
hayksaakian
wouldn't that qualify as legitimate use of a backup copy? if the original is
destroyed?

~~~
dragonwriter
> wouldn't that qualify as legitimate use of a backup copy?

The archival copy privilege as an exception to the usual rules that copyright
excludes anyone from making copies without specific permission from the
copyright holder [1] applies only to works classified as "computer programs"
under the law. While DVDs do include computer programs, the main element of a
DVD is an audiovisual work and likely wouldn't be included in the exception,
so even if it would be a legitimate use of a backup copy, the kind of work
isn't one in which there is any right under copyright law to create such a
backup.

[1] 17 USC Sec. 117(a)

~~~
nkurz
While I presume your quote is correct, I don't think you are applying it
correctly. That is one exception, but there are others. Although I don't think
there is clear case law, ripping audio CD's for archival backup is almost
universally presumed (even by the MPAA and RIAA) to be legal in the US:
[https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/united-
state...](https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/united-states-
copyright-office-ripping-illega)

And it's frequently presumed that creating backups of legally owned video
DVD's would constitute fair use under US copyright, but is instead illegal
because it requires breaking DRM to do so, and the DMCA offers no such
exception: [http://lifehacker.com/5978326/is-it-legal-to-rip-a-dvd-
that-...](http://lifehacker.com/5978326/is-it-legal-to-rip-a-dvd-that-i-own)

But if you happen to come across an unprotected commercial DVD that you
legally own (I have only ever come across one, "Cane Toads: An unnatural
history") I think you probably would prevail in asserting that it is fair use
to create a personal backup copy for use in case the original is destroyed.

------
njovin
> Essentially, Netflix cannot afford to buy the rights to all the movies you
> want to watch.

This isn't a Netflix problem, it's a licensing problem. If the rights-holders
aren't willing to sell the rights to their films at a price that the market
will pay, then those people who want to see those films will find a way, legal
or not, to obtain them through other channels.

I will happily pay to stream a movie online, whether as part of a subscription
service or directly to the producers. However, when the producers don't
provide any means to do so, I've never had a hard time finding a DVD-quality
copy that I can download and watch in my home theater in less than the time it
would take to drive to Blockbuster and rent it.

~~~
samstave
Netflix needs to be able to have a "consignment" model:

Content owner adds content to Netflix via API.

NO costs between eachother. (Netflix eats upload/hosting costs)

Agree to fee based on viewership counts for each piece of content.

Pay view-royalties to content owners based on this fee.

This is how netflix should force the market.

~~~
anigbrowl
That's called YouTube :-/

It's not that simple. QC for a film is complex, and it has to be done because
when someone watches something on Netflix they expect a minimum amount of
technical quality even if the creativity is entirely absent.

I mean stuff like no messed up video frames, audio glitches, consistent volume
levels and so on - it can be the worst film in the world but people still
expect it play back properly and will blame Netflix if it does not, just as
they would blame Netflix for an improperly encoded DVD that failed to play
back.

Everything that gets uploaded by Netflix has to be passed by a broadcast
engineer first, and while they are not paid massive amounts of money they are
still paid and films have to be watched, QCed and cataloged in real time. No
matter how crap it is, any film that's available for streaming on
Netflix/Amazon has taken at least half a day of skilled labor.

It would be nice to think that if something gets as far as being pressed onto
DVD it would meet minimum standards of technical quality but the reality is
sadly different. You would not _believe_ the appalling quality of the stuff
that people try to sell.

------
ISL
Seattle's awesome local movie repository, Scarecrow Video, is reinventing
itself as a non-profit to survive in the new environment. A recent Kickstarter
[1] has offset operating costs for the near future.

They have four copies (2 DVD, 2 Laserdisc) of Sweet Sweetback:

[https://www.scarecrow.com/45/search.html?keywords=sweet+swee...](https://www.scarecrow.com/45/search.html?keywords=sweet+sweetback)

[1] [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-
scarecrow...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-scarecrow-
project)

~~~
sirmarksalot
I jumped on the Kickstarter as well, but I'm nervous as to whether it will
work. Reclassifying as a non-profit doesn't change the fact that employees
have to eat, and movies need to be purchased. I'd personally be willing to pay
a membership fee or recurring donation in order to keep them in business, but
I don't know how well that scales.

Their cache is in obscure movies, but their bread and butter is the new
releases, just like any other video store, and the latter is being supplanted
by online streaming, which fails to address the former.

Worse, the entire business model is dependent on the availability of shareable
physical media, and the legal permission to rent them to customers. In the
shift to digital formats, video stores will end up cut out of the equation
entirely. What happens when the video store can no longer offer new movies?
Will they be able to cover their expenses with just legacy content? I'm
somewhat doubtful.

------
Agathos
"...and Netflix sells off its vast supply of DVDs for drink coasters..."

Can we get off this, at long last? CDs and DVDs are terrible coasters. They're
too thin and not at all spongy or porous, so the condensation will creep all
the way around to the table side. I once ruined a desk by leaving a cold drink
on a CD overnight. Admittedly it was a cheap, second-hand desk, but still.

~~~
anonbanker
been using CDs and DVD's as coasters for years. I still have a stack of Win95
OSR2 discs I bring out for special occasions, and haven't experienced a ruined
desk or coffee table yet.

------
nkurz
While we can lament the lack of legal streaming options, it's probably worth
remembering that there are other perfectly legal subscription by mail DVD
services in the US besides Netflix. Below are two that I know of. Are there
others?

Greencine are good people. As you can tell from their about page, they are
significantly less 'glitzy' than Netflix. They also pride themselves on having
DVD's that Netflix doesn't, including this one.

[http://www.greencine.com/static/about.jsp](http://www.greencine.com/static/about.jsp)

[http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=24395](http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=24395)

Facets Multimedia is a nonprofit based in Chicago that offers DVD by mail
memberships, and lots of people seem to love them. The also have this movie:

[http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/aboutHistory.php](http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/aboutHistory.php)

[http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=8...](http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=884578)

------
spindritf
Cinephiles, just like audiophiles before them and bibliophiles a bit later,
simply started their own torrent trackers.

~~~
Omniusaspirer
It's hard for me to believe any Cinephile would use Netflix at all, the
bitrates on their streams are painfully low and it's absolutely noticeable
even on medium sized screens. And that's not even mentioning the audio
quality.

~~~
swang
A Cinephile is someone who is into movies and discussing the themes, theories,
plots, philosophy of movies. They are not really concerned with bitrates as
long as its watchable.

~~~
acdha
… and bitrates are more of an issue for things like HD action movies. That old
French movie from the 70s which hasn't been professionally retouched is
probably going to be fine.

------
kqr2
He should have also considered greencine which focuses more on independent and
cult classic films:

[http://www.greencine.com/main](http://www.greencine.com/main)

 _Sweet Sweetback 's Baadasssss Song (1971)_ :
[http://www.greencine.com/webCatalogMore?prodid=21298](http://www.greencine.com/webCatalogMore?prodid=21298)

------
kolev
Outside of world cinema, Netflix is good only for the kids stuff. I find
myself watching more and more stuff on Vudu recently. A good, but kinda
neglected service is GoWatchIt
([http://gowatchit.com/](http://gowatchit.com/)), which helps me follow
upcoming titles. Another complaint: the 500 movie limit is a joke and having a
single queue vs multiple queues is something that should already have been
implemented over the years. At least, add the ability to filter within "My
List" by genre, etc. I'm really disappointed by the dead-slow pace of
development at Netflix. The lack of tools to see more movie info is also
displeasing.

~~~
snuxoll
Netflix isn't even a good option for children's programming either, they just
failed to renew their license for Sesame Street and they don't have any Viacom
content licensed, so that leaves everything on Nick Jr. out.

If it weren't for the few Netflix originals (Trailer Park Boys, Orange is the
New Black, House of Cards) I'd just drop Netflix and only use my Prime Instant
Video because my daughter watches a LOT of Sesame Street and Blue's Clues.

~~~
ghaff
House of Cards is what got me (reluctantly) to eventually re-up for streaming
after Netflix carved it off. But like way too many monthly payments of mine,
it's something I marginally get my money's worth from given that I am an avid
Amazon Prime customer in any case and there's a lot of overlap.

------
ececconi
I remember being in college when Netflix streaming first came out. At that
time, almost everyone I knew had a mail-order Netflix subscription. It was
revolutionary at the time. I remember when they suddenly started throwing in
streaming as a bonus to all the DVD subscribers. I had no idea that this was
where they were going to eventually pivot. Netflix lured everyone in and
changed the video rental industry with it's amazing mail-order service. Any
video you wanted to your door in a couple of days.

Fast forward to a decade later when there are very few physical stores that
rent movies, and Netflix turned into a service of convenience. No longer is it
a service where you can get any movie you want in the next few days. Rather,
it's a service where you can get something you'll enjoy in the next few
seconds. I've noticed that a lot of the enjoyment now comes from TV series as
opposed to movies.

At the end of the day I'm glad there are other alternatives to Netflix such as
Amazon Instant Video. Getting any movie has never been easier than before. I
just hit my Roku and I can watch almost anything within a minute. Thing is, we
are coming off having too much of a good thing. When Netflix first started, it
was easy to consume what you wanted for a low price.

Now, if you want to consume exactly what you want -- it might cost you more.
I've found many movies that aren't available for rent on Netflix, Itunes, or
Amazon. I have to buy these titles online to watch them! The other side of the
coin is that it's never been cheaper to consume such a variety of media using
Netflix. It just might not be exactly what you want. As long as it's good
enough for you, though, it's good for Netflix's bottom line.

~~~
hackuser
> I just hit my Roku and I can watch almost anything within a minute.

Do you mean 'anything you want' or that selection seems almost comprehensive?

The article claimed that the streaming selection is poor, and substantially
smaller than the Netflix DVD selection. My impression of Roku's services is
that there is much I cannot find.

~~~
ececconi
I mean anything I want. Usually I'm covered between Amazon Instant Video and
Netflix.

I'm really only into mainstream movies though, so I do understand my opinion
might not be the best one.

~~~
zobzu
Ive both and it doesnt have anything close to anything I want. the selection
is limited, you can get whatever you could see currently in a plane basically.
Old stuff? yes if its cheap or very popular, but 90% of the old stuff you cant
access. new stuff? nope.

a large part of both catalogs are also exactly the same movies/shows.

~~~
ececconi
How do you get about watching the things you want to see?

~~~
ghaff
In my case, I have the bottom Netflix DVD option (up to 2 discs per month--1
at a time) plus I buy the occasional movie. And the occasional RedBox although
that usually involves an extra trip to the store.

Generally speaking, I don't pay a la carte for streaming outside of my Netflix
and Amazon Prime subscriptions. I could probably rent movies streaming instead
of getting DVDs in a lot of cases but sometimes I like the extras and I have
more flexibility not to finish immediately.

------
w1ntermute
The best cinephile setup I've found is Roku + Plex + torrents. Just make sure
to have a wired connection to your Plex server and to set up the Plex app on
your Roku to 'Direct Stream' the video (so there's no reencoding).

~~~
csallen
What do you think about Chromecast instead of Roku?

~~~
w1ntermute
I prefer Roku over Chromecast because Roku has a remote with a headphone jack.
If Chromecast had an option to play the audio through the headphone jack of
the device you're casting from, I would say it's just as good. In fact, I
often cast from the YouTube app on my phone to my Roku, because it's easier
than searching for a video using the Roku interface.

------
anigbrowl
_Netflix didn’t want to talk to me about their movie catalogue, leaving me to
rely on the speculation of a couple of video store folks that the company’s
DVD selection is shrinking most likely because it is not replacing damaged
disks._

People often keep them, from a mix of greed and guilt (still haven't watched
that classic film...but I really must...I'l do it next week...). Meantime,
piracy has killed the market for new production runs of obscure films, so
niche titles go out of print and stay out of print because no distributor
wants to spend $10,000 on something that may only have a few hundred buyers.

I personally think the streaming service is great, notwithstanding the spotty
coverage. It also makes a great deal more sense as a long-term revenue model
than discs. I don't see a way of guaranteeing availability without compulsory
licensing, though.

~~~
morninj
> piracy has killed the market for new production runs of obscure films

Source?

~~~
anigbrowl
Distributors I know. BTW I'm not trying to make a big thing about piracy here,
hence my off-the-cuff remark. But it's just basic economics - there's a fairly
small but non-zero cost of doing a DVD issue even if its a rerun and some
films just aren't going to earn it back.

Bear in mind that many, _many_ films would not be profitable on their own, but
are cross-subsidized by more popular films in package distribution deals,
especially international ones.

------
sjf
I understand why Netflix can't license new material, but why don't they have a
comprehensive back catalogue? I'm sure they could easily license those b&w
movies that play all day on TCM without commercials.

Their movie selection is actually pretty dire, there's no new movies, very few
classic movies, so you are left mostly with regrettable B-movies from the 90s.

~~~
acdha
> I'm sure they could easily license those b&w movies that play all day on TCM
> without commercials.

Why are you sure that the movie studios aren't demanding excessive amounts or
strategically avoiding any one service getting all of the movies to ensure
nobody gets a dominant position? They're determined to avoid Netflix being
able to do what Apple did to the music cartel and I'm sure that's a factor in
every negotiation.

------
shurcooL
I've realized and accepted this for some time now.

Netflix and similar are really good for satisfying "I just want to watch some
movie and be entertained" needs, but really not great (and likely getting
worse), sadly, for "I have a very specific movie in mind and I want to see it"
needs.

It's a sacrifice I've learned to be okay with, but it is a little sad. I have
a few movies on physical media that I had to give up due to them taking up
space, and I knew that while they're currently available on Netflix, that may
no longer be the case in the future. :(

~~~
ctdonath
So much for the promise of "The Long Tail": that, vast storage being cheap as
air, _everything_ would be available on line.

~~~
ryanpardieck
Wow, it really is sad when you think of it that way.

I don't torrent stuff, but this kind of sentiment makes me wish I did ...

------
georgemcbay
I can't speak to the DVD side of the equation, I suspect that is merely due to
the fact that not enough people want to see relatively obscure old movies (on
classic DVDs) enough to waste inventory space on them, especially as more and
more people move over to Bluray (if only because their console supports it so
why not) and online VOD/streaming more and more. But on the streaming side, it
is the studios blocking Netflix out, not Netflix being oblivious to how bad
their movie selection is.

I temporarily worked for a company in the VOD/Streaming space that was run by
Hollywood-insider types when they sort-of-aquihired most of the employees of
Chumby. Based on my limited time of seeing it from the 'inside', my impression
is that Hollywood studio executives have a seething, furious hatred of Netflix
and their business model, which they see as devaluing their content. (And I'm
not saying they are wrong to think this -- at the very least the Netflix model
certainly upsets all the applecarts of the way Hollywood has done business for
nearly a century).

These people would basically instinctively scowl animated-villain-style when
Netflix was brought up, even if it was in other contexts.

eg. Software architect explaining to business guys why default sharing on
social media was not a good idea (at the time): "We shouldn't automatically
share what movies a customer has watched because Netflix (studio-business-guys
scowl, hiss, unhinge their jaws) recently got into legal trouble for that".

Originally the studios were OK with making some dough from Netflix on old
long-tailed-out movie catalogs that would otherwise not be earning anything
(because they sure do love money) but a few years ago they hit the brakes on
that because they would rather earn less on the old catalog stuff than do
anything to further validate the Netflix model, which they see as an
existential threat to their business.

------
IvyMike
In my experience, Facets specializes in "cinephile" movies and is the place to
go for the long tail.

And they do in fact have Sweet Sweetback's Baadass Song available for rental:
[http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=8...](http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=884578)

------
ghaff
This is bothersome although I'd note that at least some of the Woody Allen
movies listed are available streaming on Amazon (for a fee) and for purchase.
But it's reasonable to ask whether we hit a point where at least DVD reissues
(once initial inventory is used up) don't make financial sense any longer.

For the past decade or so, we've been living in a world where we could obtain
the vast majority of movies as DVDs through some channel pretty inexpensively
and painlessly. At the moment, it looks as if that process will become much
more fractured and less reliable.

------
pasbesoin
Netflix made the argument some years ago that the world and their user base
was switching to streaming. To the point of proposing to split disk and
streaming into separate businesses (not just separate subscriptions).

I was dubious given the comparatively poor quality and degree of choice on
their streaming service at that time.

Since then, instead of improving, I've seen that choice -- on balance -- get
worse. A few TV shows I'm interested in have shown up -- and a whole bunch I'm
not at all interested in; while many I might be interested in remain absent.
At the same time, the movie selection has grown notably worse, with many
titles I dug out of the mess and queued up disappearing before I got to them.

Now I read that the DVD service is indeed in decline, as well.

The most telling bit of the OP story for me seems to be this quote:

 _Check out this 2013 Netflix PR video communicating that the company should
no longer be looked upon as a massive movie library. What it really is, it
says, is the “Internet’s largest television network.”_

Well, I'm not interested in remaining a customer of what is increasingly some
sort of Netflix "television channel".

As with all the other "streaming", "rental" online services I've tried. I'm
coming to the conclusion that they are not worth the investment nor the fees,
for me. I'm being driving back to maintaining a personal library. And perhaps
to reinforcement my support for my public library, where the membership's
interests are still primary.

------
tragic
People have talked about the zero marginal cost issue with trivially copiable
goods, and I simply don't think this is a surmountable obstacle for the film
business _as a business_. Already, when people say "I prefer to pay for a film
to support filmmakers, actors etc" the implied subclause is that "I could
choose otherwise."

And that's where I see it going, really. Look at classical music, the visual
arts, theatre (outside of big Broadway/West End musicals) - these continue to
exist overwhelmingly on the basis of patronage from the state and
philanthropists.

This is not exactly an apples-for-apples comparison (a symphonic or theatrical
performance is not copiable in the same way as digital video; still less are
prints of paintings substitutable for the real thing); but the underlying
issue is similar: it costs more to put these things on than can be made back
in gate receipts.

And so, when people choose to pay for films in a situation where it is just as
easy to pirate (it often isn't actually), they are being philanthropic and
paying a non-market price for the film.

I don't see how a $10 monthly subscription model is going to sustain the
entire film industry, although maybe someone can do better maths than me on
the back of their napkin.

------
autokad
netflix has clearly said they are not an archival service / library (in so
many words) that they are a 'whats popular now'.

This is the real opportunity for a disrupt-er. sure its hard / expensive to
get the content, but that's also opportunity, and clearly netflix is out of
touch with what their customers actually want from their press releases.

And even though they say they buy only the content 'people want to see
currently', it seems like they do a poor job. netflix defenders will spout 'if
you cant find something to watch on netflix well ...' thats completely
misguided, you shouldnt have to search netflix for something to watch, you
should find what you are looking for.

as the running joke goes, people spend more time searching netflix for
something to watch than actually watching

~~~
lukifer
I wonder if there's a sufficient market for peer-to-peer lending of movies and
games, backed by a floating deposit. Uber for discs-by-mail, as it were.

~~~
arebop
I remember that this idea was tried for music in 2007 and it took a few years
for courts to wind up with a fairly nuanced legal landscape for doing this in
the U.S.
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._MP3Tun...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._MP3Tunes,_LLC)]

~~~
hyperbovine
(S)he's talking about people physically mailing DVDs, not the digital locker
thing. I can't imagine that would be illegal, but never underestimate the
entertainment industries ability to buy judges.

------
frozenport
If they won't sell the product can we just download it?

[http://thepiratebay.se/search/Sweet%20Sweetback%E2%80%99s%20...](http://thepiratebay.se/search/Sweet%20Sweetback%E2%80%99s%20Baadasssss%20Song/0/99/0)

~~~
kleinsch
It's for sale on DVD all over the place, just not available for rental.

[http://www.amazon.com/Sweetbacks-Baadasssss-Anniversary-
Spec...](http://www.amazon.com/Sweetbacks-Baadasssss-Anniversary-Special-
Edition/dp/B004LY8QCK)

------
contingencies
Architect on multiple Hollywood/digital projects for major device
manufacturers here, also have interviewed to head SmartTV department for the
world's largest TV manufacturer (TCL, in China).

I finished working in this area in 2010 (left it for the digital currency
space) but have seen no suggestion of change. In any case, you heard it here
last: _the problem is definitely the studios and their insistance on
completely outmoded, unfair, obstructive regional licensing_.

Digital licensing operates as follows. First, digital releases are not a
first-class citizen in the Hollywood world. The 'DVD street relase date' for
the consumer country in question is the date that everything is calculated
from for billing purposes. Multiple periods are then calculated using blocks
of days thereafter, during which the wholesale rate offered for a particular
item is progressively discounted. Finally, after some period (eg. 90 or 180
days subsequent to DVD street release in that market) the wholesale drops to a
base rate 'back catalog' price unique to that item. Netflix and other services
basically prefer these titles as they are cheaper to offer.

In my experience, significant ingestion overhead is present for digital
service agencies on every single title. This is because they are more often
than not supplied in weird formats, under strange licensing restrictions, with
restrictive rules on reformatting (eg. crop requirements) and re-encoding
though they're not able to be played on most devices up front, and certainly
not in the higher-resolution digital formats studio supplied. Very frequently,
audio tracks for non-original languages are supplied as non time-synched files
separate to the original, as are subtitles.

So to offer an item, not only do you need to front up to the studio,
effectively downpay some cash, figure out a revenue share deal, convince them
your DRM is adequate, go through this whole process on a per-market basis,
figure out the logistics of moving huge files, put up with delays and their
frequent insistence to use weird file transfer mechanisms, but you also need
to get any edits accredited, manage your own database of client device
capabilities (this is more complex than it sounds, resolution is only a minor
components versus various codec support (audio/video/subtitles), non-subtitle
support (ie. need to rewrite entire video stream with burnt in subtitles in
each language), etc. but also get the results approved, uploaded to an
adequately wide range of data centers in a DRM-capable distribution network
(what? build my own? yeah...), your studio-approved frequently expensive DRM
integration sorted, and manage the changing prices on an ongoing basis as
delimited in USD but against a revenue share model with constantly fluctuating
exchange rates.

Sound like fun? No, it isn't. And you are competing with higher quality
torrents people download for free, _on or before_ DVD street release date, in
the _very first_ market to ever have the title. That's why nobody does it.

The industry could reap immense additional profits if they'd only drop the
control-freak old-school management, normalize and prioritize their digital
output, and allow all media consumption to become a low price flat-rate
experience at some reasonable post-cinema release date, like +30-45 days. Oh,
and drop the DRM and the military police style back-channel raids on New
Zealand residents who choose to make a point of their untenable and laughably
outmoded outlook.

~~~
coliveira
The model is working for them, so why would they change?...

~~~
contingencies
Yes, that's exactly what they probably think. It's a very conservative way of
doing business, the classic approach of the established interest. As they
twiddle their collective thumbs, the world demonstrably changes around them.

~~~
coliveira
Yes, I agree with you. But here is the bigger point: unless your job is
working with technology (and sometimes even in this case), you don't disrupt a
business that is working for you. While this seems strange for people who are
trying to disrupt existing business models, this is exactly the right thing to
do if you are in a traditional company...

------
troymc
Zip.ca, a Canadian DVD-rentals-by-mail service, shut down in August 2014. I
think it was the biggest such service in Canada.

[http://ottawacitizen.com/business/local-business/zip-ca-
vide...](http://ottawacitizen.com/business/local-business/zip-ca-video-rental-
service-shuts-down)

~~~
mmastrac
Ah that's a shame. Canflix, the other big one a few years back, did a midnight
move when they went under.

------
DINKDINK
" would have run down to my local video store, but I don’t have a local video
store. I struck out at the San Francisco Public Library..."

So why didn't he go to Le Video? He even mentions it later in the article.
Sounds like the author was intentionally constraining himself to make a point.

~~~
jfb
Or Lost Weekend, which is still a going concern, and I can guarantee has a
copy of _Sweet Sweetback_.

------
wldcordeiro
Isn't a large part of this problem with the content producers and the
contracts Netflix has to sign with them? I would think that if Netflix could
have any movie or TV show in their streaming library they would but there are
other interested parties that prevent that.

------
hesselink
This problem is even worse when you're outside of the US, and the Netflix
selection is even smaller. On the upside, I don't think we ever had the
Netflix DVD service, so we don't miss it.

------
arthuredelstein
Maybe this is an opportunity for a startup -- steal Netflix's DVD rent by mail
business and offer a very extensive catalog. Seems like Netflix would be happy
to cede that market.

~~~
ghaff
Or more likely it isn't or Netflix wouldn't be backing away from it even
though they already have the infrastructure. I suspect that there's a real
squeeze between the current hits (which Red Box covers pretty well and others
purchase off Amazon/Walmart/etc.) and the default behavior of watching
whatever is on streaming that just doesn't leave a lot of business on the
table for the balance.

------
WalterBright
I was going to throw away my DVD collection. Guess I'll keep it, because when
Netflix kills the DVD service, I can sell my DVDs for actual money again.

------
jmckib
The author said he struck out with sfpl, but a quick search showed that there
are 10 copies, with 3 available. Am I missing something?

~~~
anigbrowl
Just making something up for clicks, target audience is happy to believe it's
an Evil Plot. Most film critics are horrible people.

~~~
olifante
that's a really cheap ad hominem. Your argumentation is horrible.

------
kin
Wanting to watch one particular film doesn't define or capture cinephiles. The
title is an exaggeration to say the least, especially if the movie isn't even
available for rent at the many paid movie streaming service options available.

That being said, someone should make an aggregate search engine of legally
available content through Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Go, Showtime
Anytime, Max Go, etc. Although I'm not sure the interface exists for all of
them.

~~~
dangrossman
> That being said, someone should make an aggregate search engine of legally
> available content through Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Go, Showtime
> Anytime, Max Go, etc

[http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/gravity](http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/gravity)

~~~
kin
nice! much needed.
[http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/sweetback](http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/sweetback)

0 results. So his problem still holds but it still doesn't demonstrate that
Netflix is less and less an option.

------
guelo
Pirate it! The more we pirate the sooner we'll get the Spotify of movies. So
for the grater good, pirate it!

------
mkhpalm
Sooner or later studios are going to realize if its not on something like
netflix... it doesn't exist.

------
lern_too_spel
The SF Public Library has two copies currently available via Link+. Was the
author using the card catalog?

------
fredguest
this site [http://www.fandor.com/](http://www.fandor.com/) is designed to
serve exactly the audience that Netflix ignores, cinephiles if you like. worth
checking out. full disclosure, i'm related to the CEO.

~~~
TD-Linux
Does it have a HTML5 player?

~~~
fredguest
absolutely, works well in the browser, HTML5 not flash, and they have Roku and
Chromecast integration and mobile apps as well.

------
shmerl
_> it seemed like a great idea with no downside_

Netflix has one huge downside - proliferation of DRM.

~~~
vonklaus
I am not pro DRM, but it is tolerable and warranted here. You are renting the
product so you are barred from making copies of it. That's not unreasonable. I
am largely against DRM when it is on a video game (or any digital asset) that
has been purchased outright. Would I prefer it not be present? Sure. Is it
reasonable for a rental company? Probably.

~~~
shmerl
My opinion is that no DRM is ever warranted or tolerable.

Renting aspect is irrelevant here. If you think it's renting that causes the
usage of DRM then you are wrong. Look at any services which sell video. They
all use DRM too except GOG which just started selling it and has a very small
selection of documentaries and Headweb which is available only in Scandinavia.

Anyway, I find the concept of renting for digital goods to be illogical
altogether, but it's a separate subject.

------
Apocryphon
This is terrible. One of the important benefits of the long tail is ensuring
works are always available, never lost. Maybe when Netflix finally shutters
their collection the Internet Archive should absorb it somehow.

~~~
jrochkind1
How would the internet archive possibly get rights that netflix couldn't
afford?

I'm not sure the 'benefits of the long tail' are working out as predicted in
the market, it is true.

~~~
arjie
Presumably he wants the Archive to archive it and not necessarily make it
available. I'm sure there's a country where you can backup DVDs to a hard
drive without violating the law.

