
Netflix Will Be the Exclusive US TV Home of Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar - mgr86
https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/get-ready-for-summer-on-netflix-us
======
Animats
Netflix is now behaving like a channel, rather than a library. Originally,
they had a huge library from which you could choose. Now, they announce "Here
are some of the great and varied selection of films coming to our U.S. service
in the next few months". Some of those films are decades old. Gradually, their
back catalog has shrunk.

~~~
ChuckMcM
To some extent this is inevitable and I think ultimately it will be to their
detriment. One of the things that struck me during my recent "cut the cable"
exercise was that while the offerings on Amazon Prime video were significantly
less to my liking than those on NetFlix, if it wasn't on prime I could "buy"
it or "rent" it from the same interface almost regardless of what it was. On
NetFlix things vanish and then you no longer have access, period. So its fine
"in the now" but want to watch an old episode of some show that used to be
there and now its off the list.

I suspect that one of the things that Netflix cannot afford using AWS is to
have content available that not enough people watch. They end up paying the
storage charges with no revenue.

~~~
morgante
> I suspect that one of the things that Netflix cannot afford using AWS is to
> have content available that not enough people watch. They end up paying the
> storage charges with no revenue.

That is incredibly wrong.

Conservatively speaking, the average film can be stored with 1gb. The Library
of Congress has 1.7 million videos (the largest film collection in the
world).[0]

1.7PB could be stored on S3 for $54k a month which is, while not
insignificant, is almost certainly insignificant compared to Netflix's
streaming costs.

[0] [https://www.loc.gov/about/fascinating-
facts/](https://www.loc.gov/about/fascinating-facts/)

~~~
hbosch
The average film, at 1080p, is in my personal experience closer to 10GB+. 1GB
maybe be enough, say, for a single TV episode.

~~~
morgante
The average film is not in 1080p though. Many of those 1.7 million films are
old independent films.

Also, I've never gotten close to 10GB for even 1080p films.

------
stevecalifornia
It's like a conspiracy to annoy the hell out of the average consumer. I'm not
sure why Netflix would be proud of this.

How about we also get Spotify, iTunes and Google Play to step up the
exclusives on their music services so I can never have a single place to go to
listen to music.

~~~
forrestthewoods
Cable is the worst. I shouldn't have to pay for channels I don't want. It
should be à la carte.

Streaming services are the worst. I shouldn't have to subscribe to a half
dozen different services. Someone should sell a bundle that gives me access to
all of them for a lower price.

~~~
partiallypro
Unpopular, but without cable subsidizing costs of various networks through
packages, we wouldn't have tons of cable channels that grew up to be great,
like AMC and FX. The one exception to this is the ESPN subsidy, which is
insane. If ESPN could actually be opted out of cable bills would be fairly
cheap.

~~~
rconti
Disagree. The big players are leeching money that COULD go to small players if
we got to choose where our money went. And then the cable companies throw you
a few 'small' channels so you feel like the little guy wins occasionally.

Instead we have all those channels in a perpetual race to the bottom to
attract just enough eyeballs to be worth "keeping on the payroll" of the
bundle.

The racing footage I _used_ to be able to get on Speedvision (on the rare
occasion where my local provider HAD Speedvision!) was worth far more to me
than the $0.20 they got from my subscription.

I for one, welcome our a-la-carte overlords, where my dollars go to the
content I want.

~~~
maxerickson
I don't think it is so clear that putting your dollars where you want gets you
more topical programming than putting up with opaque bundles.

(Say there's $30 on average of revenue in the cable bundle with only $15 of it
being desired spending on average. The channels get a lot more revenue with
the opaque bundles, and they are still competing to some extent for the
revenue.)

------
dmritard96
This is reminiscent of 'patented' in consumer literature.

In my mind, exclusive content is great for a business and bad for the consumer
but for some reason people think its a good idea to market it to consumers. If
you said Netflix has popular XYZ shows and they stopped being available
elsewhere, it would avoid people realizing that Netflix is now playing the
same games as the cable mafia did/does and instead people would just be happy
that they could watch things fully on demand with all the conveniences of
netflix.

~~~
wutbrodo
> for some reason people think its a good idea to market it to consumers.

I'm skeptical of the assertion that most people care, at all. Outside of
specific circles (overrepresented on HN), I know vanishingly few people who
are willing (able?) to tie company's actions to their market-level
consequences.

Marketing this seems like a no brainer: allowing consumers to think this
feature isn't exclusive to you just means that they're more comfortable
switching to or picking your competitors. Being clear about exclusivity means
that you're shifted well up the "must-have" spectrum for many consumers.

~~~
dmritard96
totally agreed that US consumers != typical HN reader. and also agreed on it
being possible the good outweighs the bad from a user acquisition standpoint.

"I'm skeptical of the assertion that most people care, at all" \- agreed BUT -
do you think them advertising exclusiveness is something people care about?
because if only a few people remember its exclusive (and wouldn't otherwise
have picked up netflix) then it could be that the effect of the consumers
paying attention and being annoyed is greater than those converted by
exclusiveness

~~~
wutbrodo
> do you think them advertising exclusiveness is something people care about?

I absolutely do. Lucasfilm, Disney, Pixar, and Marvel are probably top of the
list for studios with actual (and powerful) brand recognition. (By contrast,
most movie goers probably couldn't tell you which specific movies Miramax or
Universal or whatever make).

People see this and it translates as "if I want to stream The Avengers or
Frozen or Star Wars or Iron Man or [etc], I better get Netflix". It's hard to
think of a set of movies with better brand recognition.

------
zach
This is the culmination of some very old news, when Netflix outbid Starz in
2012 for Disney's "pay TV" rights:

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/12/04/netflix-
outbid...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/12/04/netflix-outbids-pay-
tv-for-rights-to-disney-movies/1746037/)

Why September if the deal started in 2016? It covers movies that premiere in
2016 or later, and September is nine months after the January 29 release of
The Finest Hours[1], the first Disney movie expected to be exclusive to
Netflix.

[1] — I earlier opined that Zootopia would kick it off, but The Finest Hours
was Disney's first 2016 release and since 7-9 months is the typical wait for a
pay-TV window, it seems Disney movies will be on Netflix 9 months after
release.

------
sdca
In other words they made a deal with just Disney, which happens to own those
other three studios.

~~~
elliotec
And they'll probably own Netflix soon too.

~~~
zjaffee
What? netflix's market cap is ~25% of what disney is worth, I would be shocked
to see disney or really any company make such a large acquisition without it
really just being a merger.

~~~
potatosareok
What? I get Netflix is valuable but to say they would merge with Disney really
seems delusional to me. Disney which owns ABC, ESPN, other tv channels, movie
studios, merchandise.

You can look at stock price sure but Disney revenue has been going up by
billions year over year and I don't see that changing much, even if ESPN
starts to shrink, because of the valuable movie IP they have.

Some of the recent chip maker mergers come to mind but that's a different
market - when does a company merge with a company that by revenue is ~10x
smaller and by net income 2 orders of magnitude smaller?

------
marricks
> From September onwards, Netflix will become the exclusive US pay TV home of
> the latest films from Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar.

Does that mean we will have to pay to watch them? Makes sense from a market
standpoint since they are likely to be highly sought after but this _pay per
movie_ looks like new turf for netflix.

Perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising given the ongoing spat between Amazon
and Disney. Sad to see we are at a place where competition is high but rarely
makes the best decisions for users.

~~~
toast0
I would think "Pay TV" refers to monthly subscription TV, as opposed to free
over the air TV, and a generic term for cable/satellite. Pay per movie is
usually called pay per view.

I would have assumed the US pay TV Home of the latest films from Disney and
its subsidiaries would be the Disney Channel?

~~~
bearcobra
You'd think but even historically that's been pretty rare. It's so family
focused that a large amount of content isn't appropriate for their audience. I
thought Freeform (formerly ABC Family) was going to get some of it, but I
guess guaranteed revenue from Netflix is worth it in a world of declining
cable subscriptions.

------
NicoJuicy
I reïnstalled Plex after 5 months of Netflix... I think the "not coöperation"
of content creators is killing it all.

I'm not paying for 3-4 streaming services with all exclusive rights, nor i'm
willing to constantly change apps for finding the right movie.

------
benologist
This is probably why they started blocking proxies all over the world in the
last couple of months, after years of not caring.

------
r00fus
> Netflix will become the exclusive US pay TV home of the latest films from
> Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar

What does that even mean? Can someone who understands the lingo clarify this
for me? Does that mean I'll have to pay per-view to see Disney content on
Netflix?

~~~
jachee
"Netflix will become the only place in the US that you can give money ($8/mo
for streaming-only, for example) to see Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar
films. Not Comcast, Not Starz, Not HBO. ONLY Netflix. Woo! Go us! (They may
still appear for free on Disney-owned-ABC over-the-air stations, but don't
count on it.)"

~~~
Steko
You will still be able to buy and rent these films of iTunes or Google Play,
just not on subscription packages from HBO, Amazon, Hulu, etc.

~~~
jachee
Right. Because "Digital Downloads" and "Digital Rental" are different from
"Streaming TV".

...somehow.

------
ctdonath
Demonstrates the error of the "long tail" fad some years back. Dazzled by the
prospect of everything being available online, pundits failed to grasp the
value of content and the ensuing turf wars. Netflix was the prime example,
hoping to carry every movie for a trivial flat fee; didn't work out that way.
Closest we've got is the likes of iTunes, with a broad spectrum available $1-7
rental (vs the unfulfilled promise of Netflix, $8/month).

~~~
mrep
That's cause the movie/television television industry is valued at 150 billion
dollars a year where as the music industry is 15 [1]. Multiply the music
industry price standard by their relative sizes and you'd get a $100 dollars a
month which is about the cost of your top cable prescription for having access
to just about everything [2].

Did you think they were going to get the same value for 1/10 the cost?

[1]: first google search result :/

[2]: more googling

------
gdulli
There are two words OP omitted in the title from the quote in the article that
make the scope of the statement seem bigger than it is: "Netflix will become
the exclusive US pay TV home of the latest films from Disney, Marvel,
Lucasfilm and Pixar."

------
makecheck
I know that companies want to set up exclusives and other things so consumers
will feel “forced” to buy entire services just to obtain the killer apps (or
movies, or games, or whatever). In reality, I am sick and tired of being
expected to pay for stuff I don’t want just to get what I do want. I have been
buying far less over time, and I have been discovering how little I care about
movies and TV shows after all. Oh hey, it’s sunny outside! Oh look, there’s so
much more to do in life!

Media companies have refused to learn from the $0.99 iTunes store years ago:
people don’t want _albums_ anymore, they want _songs_. They _do_ want your TV
show, they just want to download it from anywhere they damn well please. They
_do_ want your game, they just don’t want to have to buy an entire new console
to get it. And so on. If you’re supposed to be in the business of selling X
then _sell it_ ; don’t conjure up scheme after scheme to try to force
consumers to get other crap. And definitely don’t complain when they see
through it all and refuse to give you a dime.

~~~
saryant
iTunes and Amazon sells shows a la carte. What's the problem?

------
isaiahg
I find it funny that when exclusivity is ever brought up it's talked about
like some kind of conspiracy to take money from customers. It isn't a
conspiracy and there aren't men in boardrooms laughing menacingly while
smoking cigars. The truth is this is just the result of how the system works.
That is capitalism and normal competition.

If all the streaming services offer the same content then none of them are
special. And if one service ends up offering something you can only get from
them then they have a leg up on the competition. Soon other services start
trying to compete by getting exclusive content and eventually anyone who
doesn't play the game is pushed out.

If we're serious about hating exclusive and if we want to move away from them
then you need to talk about the system that causes it to happen.

------
shmerl
Exclusive releases are sickening. I wonder when creators will start releasing
their films through all distributors evenly?

~~~
Keyframe
It's easy to see why it's like that. For example, there's a market (a country)
with 5 players. Each offers you 500 Euros for a run of your long-forgotten
movie. That's 2500 Euros if you got them all to buy it. One of them says they
will buy it, as an exclusive, for 5000 Euros. It's as simple as that. I work
in this sector (not the business side though) and that's what I see each day.
To add onto that, sometimes it's even that one (from our example here) offers
you 2000 for exclusive, and that's what you take because others won't buy it,
or one or two will. You get the idea.

~~~
shmerl
I see, if it works that way, it's not good for both end users and creators.

Why doesn't it work like this for example?

Distributor gradually sells the film, and gets percentage of each sale (and
the rest goes to creators). Then creators benefit from using as many
distributors as possible, because it will maximize profit in the long run. If
they are just paid once by the distributor, then sure, they can't rely on
potentially growing amount of sales over time.

In case of games it works like I said above. And in case of music it can work
that way too. So why not for films?

~~~
Keyframe
There are various distribution methods and even new ones being explored. It's
a layered issue with a lot of caveats. I'll try to explain the problematics of
it.

What you have described essentially exists now with video-on-demand (tied with
IPTVs usually) that have, essentially, displaced brick and mortar video
rentals. It's more of a case of you getting percentage out of them then they
out of you. That's due in part because of large user bases and monopolies. If
you want viewers to rent or buy your stuff you have to go to the larger
players, and they are aware of that.

There's another issue at play here, in contrast with games. Films and
television programmes have a life cycle that is usually tied to initial
theatrical or television run and that is decoupled from its life in rental and
buying later on. Both business lives of a movies don't even have to be tackled
by the same business entity/owner. In order for a film or series to live
through direct sales it needs marketing or very strong brand recognition (and
even then marketing). Most films do not have that. Most rights holders hold
more than one film too. For a successful rental/vod/buying there needs to be
marketing effort and in order to mitigate that industry has devised film
channels and specialised channels that run stuff you might be a part of. That
way, all of marketing is concentrated on channel's programming and stuff is
pushed onto that. Trouble is, those channels do not like if stuff is also
available on vod that isn't theirs. Another trouble is that rights holders do
not like to sell one movie at a time, it's not viable. Usually, what happens,
is that rights holders know they have a strong movie and package several weak
ones with it in order to push sales for those as well. It's also common for a
channel to seek for a particular title and they get pushed other content in a
package to them, or they want a package, etc. Various permutations of that
exists.

What happens with vod is that sales are, for the most content, dead. Dumping
your catalogue onto a vod renders your sales with channels dead as well. So,
it's a bit of a conundrum from which side to tackle the issue at all.

Those are just my initial thoughts on what I see each day in that space. It
has a lot of intricate details layered below and above that, but it all boils
down to the fact that channels render money for your entire catalogue and vod
only for a select few titles. If you want to sell your entire catalogue, you
go through channels since they buy those great titles of yours as well as
packaged crap ones. VOD is a harsh mistress that loves only the pretty ones
and you still have to tackle marketing for that by yourself and accept
whatever the gods of the vod platform will give you.

tl;dr; conundrum

~~~
shmerl
Thanks for the detailed explanation. But what is inherently different in films
as in art form that dictates such convoluted distribution methods? Higher cost
of production? Games also can have big budgets (admittedly usually not as big
though), and there is some similarity with life cycle too. I.e. there is the
initial rapid sales period, when some new game comes out. That's usually when
developers get the huge chunk of their sales, and try to recover the cost of
production. And also, during this period the biggest effort goes into
marketing.

Then there is the period of gradual sales, i.e. people who don't buy the game
because it's new / hyped, but because they like the genre, discovered it years
later and so on (assuming it's a good game, and not some junk that gets
forgotten for good as soon as it comes out). Over time such sales can be even
significant, but they don't directly contribute to critical expenses recovery.

So for games both use cases are commonly addressed through similar
distributors, yet for films this somehow poses a problem.

~~~
Keyframe
That front business scenario is pretty much the same. You have an initial run
(with marketing and different venues) and that's it. Difference is in the life
after it. It's not uncommon for different companies to buy rights to older
films and then do business on top of that.

You're forgetting a key factor here. Unlike games sales channels, films and tv
shows also have programme channels which are willing to pay for running your
old shows. And, unlike vod/direct sales, they tend to generate money for all
of your catalogue. You kind of have that with games through those bundles
every now and then. Issue is that, with game analogy, those bundle sellers
(who upfront the marketing for your old stuff) aren't willing to have your
stuff if it's on steam as well. Also, they don't pay from what they sell, but
a fixed fee for each run.

So, it kind of is like games and isn't at the same time. Namely due to tv
channels which generate the most money for that after life. Also, take into
account that most rights holders have a catalogue of items which has dead
weight in them which they try to capitalise on. Hence package deals and
channels wanting or being forced into getting them in order to get hot items.
That's, I presume, reason why you see, in games, distributor bundles as well.
Business ideas have converged already, apart from tv channels where there's no
analogy in games. I'm still waiting to see what will become of widespread and
free platforms like youtube where, I am sure, there will be sponsored
screenings of certain parts, if not whole, catalogues as well.

~~~
shmerl
Interesting. Bundles do appear even if games are sold through competitors. For
instance, while Humble Bundle were probably the pioneer of it, you can now
often see bundles of discounted games sold on GOG, usually either from some
single publisher, or themed in certain way (those games already should exist
in their catalog, but that bundle offering is usually a special sale event).
Most of the time those same games are also available through Steam, so there
is no exclusivity involved.

Regarding TV channels - I think they are slowly declining and eventually will
die out completely, because they aren't really a flexible method, that's why
you don't see anything similar in games which is a newer industry and has less
legacy baggage to deal with.

~~~
Keyframe
I'm not sure where it will lead, but exclusivity is not good for consumers.
This all boils down to trademarks and regionalities. Not something we've seen
much of in games since consoles. TV has been around for some time now and TV
Stations needed (still need) licenses from local governments and it's not a
global play, until as of recent. Rights and global market are still feeling
each other out. Music kind of went through the same process via Apple's
iTunes, but it's also kind of a different business. With music you have other
streams of revenue as well - live performance, different rights to it (song,
performance, etc.), etc.

With TV channels going away, my instinct was the same - being oriented more
towards "I'll watch what I want and when I want" and different outlets that
enabled that have been booming (youtube, torrents, netflix-like platforms,
etc). However, TV is bringing in more business than ever. It seems that it's
not a zero-sum game between those two. In fact, it seems those two aren't even
competing.

------
jimjimjim
oh well. back to buying old dvds whenever they go on sale. As long as you
don't buy anything recent some of the prices are dirt cheap.

It's still more expensive than monthly netflix but at least I own it rather
than having anxiety over losing access to it.

~~~
wj
Disney movies never get cheap. They have done really well for themselves in
their ability to maintain prices even for movies that are decades old.

------
IgorPartola
This is I think the point where I am starting to get a little afraid of
Netflix instead of rooting for them. They are becoming a monopoly that is
going to be tough to displace. While they were producing their own original
content, it was awesome. Now it seems like you'll basically be either
subscribing to Netflix or torrenting content, but you won't have a third
option. Having said that, this is a brilliant move on their part.

------
putzdown
Yes. The article is as notable for the dreariness of the movies available
before September as it is for the exclusive content available in September.
The message seems to be, "If you can tolerate three months of Adam Sandler,
obscure indie documentaries, a couple of oldies from 2001, and unheard-of
Netflix originals, you get to watch Disney! And that's your only option!"
Thanks Netflix.

------
chaostheory
This is big news but I'm not sure how big it will impact consumers because of
Disney Anywhere i.e. When you buy any Disney movie from any platform and link
it to DisneyAnywhere, it's available to watch on any major service e.g. Apple,
Amazon, Vudu, Google

One thing people aren't mentioning is that this is 'pay TV'. So Netflix is
starting to sell short term rentals?

~~~
maxerickson
I think the 'pay TV' just refers to the specific monthly payment for Netflix.
It's setting it up as a competitor with HBO but not bundled channels with
hidden payments like the Disney Channel.

------
pbreit
That seems like a pretty low-key announcement for what sounds like a
blockbuster (no pun) deal?

If I were Disney, I'd create my own service. HBO claims such a thing is hard
but I don't buy it. Charge $50-100 for some ever-changing sub-set of the
library. Profit. Still provides plenty of room to cut deals with all the movie
services and maintain some artificial scarcity.

~~~
Osiris
I hate the idea of having to subscribe to a dozen different services for
different content I may or may not want, but I guess it's more along the line
of paying for only what you want.

~~~
pbreit
Me, too. But Disney is pretty unique, especially for kids.

------
MBCook
Somewhat OT question:

I'd like to watch Avengers: Age of Ultron, but as far as I can tell there is
no way to rent it digitally. You can only purchase. If you want to rent it you
have to rent a physical disc from RedBox.

Yet I can rent Deadpool and many other Marvel properties.

Does anyone know why Ultron seems to be singled out?

~~~
zrail
This SciFi StackExchange answer has a good explanation:

[http://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/90394](http://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/90394)

Essentially, Fox owns the rights for X-Men and Deadpool is an X-Men universe
character. Fox and Disney have different views on rental and sale windows.

------
sutiam
It's a brilliant deal from business standpoint; from consumer's standpoint,
not so much.

~~~
serge2k
more accessible than having to get Starz.

------
jalami
Like others have said, Netflix is acting like a channel. Unfortunately,
Americans love exclusives. When people talk about Playstation v. XBOX, they're
not talking about the UI or controllers anymore, but the exclusives.
Exclusives are bad for the content and for the consumers. Content tied to a
platform that loses, moonlights or just fades away also fades away. I know a
friend that really wanted to play an oldschool Buffy XBOX 1 game and would pay
for it, but it was only released on the XBOX. Other titles from the period
released on PC still exist in markets, but Microsoft obsoleted not only the
console, but the content. Maybe Microsoft will make it so you can _buy it
again in HD_ on the XBOX TWO, but it really wasn't that popular so most old
content is now dead until someone illegally emulates it. Bad for content, bad
for consumers, but unfortunately good for business.

What I want from a content delivery service is for them to deliver content,
not produce it and not cultivate exclusives. Their business-model changes when
they wear three or four hats and who they're serving also tends to change. I
like to keep it simple. If you make your service convenient and the content
you sell convincing enough, I'll shop there. Just like any store. You don't
have to be the only store in town that can sell pickles as long as your store
is in a convenient location, you take cash and have a value-priced variety of
products. You can bypass all that if you convince all pickle-manufacturers to
only sell to your store though. People shouldn't applaud this.

The subscription model makes this more difficult because you become dependent
on the store and not the product-producer. Ownership is more ambiguous and who
gets paid and how much becomes the storefront's decision as they gain adoption
(see Amazon). I wrote more about what I think would be great at an airplane
level on another post[0]. I think it's going to get worse before it gets
better. It might take a MtGox level Steam shuttering for people to start
valuing ownership again.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11623806](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11623806)

------
mrgreenfur
At least until these brands have the tech stack to vertically integrate and do
it on their own, or until they get preferential treatment on another digital
supplier, or better terms (like vevo).

------
LukeB_UK
Seems unaccessible, archived copy:
[http://archive.is/Zqo56](http://archive.is/Zqo56)

~~~
ams6110
This summer: [A bunch of films you've already seen]

From September onwards, Netflix will become the exclusive US pay TV home of
the latest films from Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar.

~~~
mgr86
This was the title I wanted, but alas I was limited to 80 characters.

------
Fiahil
Hi Netflix, can you be the exclusive US TV Home of Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm,
and Pixar in France too? It would be nice, thank you.

------
dfar1
Exclusive rights is only good for the two people that made the deal.

------
p_eter_p
I'd be thrilled if this meant I could rent any of the recent Marvel movies.
Prime and Google video seem to be pushing the buy option exclusively for new
movies these days.

------
xufi
Interesting to see how all these film industries will compete on the home
living room space.

------
eggoa
If you're upset about exclusivity in this deal I don't understand. These
movies won't be on Hulu or Prime after this deal, but _they aren 't there
currently_. A whole bunch of movies are going to become more available for
more people.

~~~
wutbrodo
> If you're upset about exclusivity in this deal I don't understand.

I don't personally care a whole lot but it's not difficult at all to
understand why. The fact that they weren't on any services earlier left the
possibility open for them to come to an arbitrary amount of services. Given
how ubiquitous streaming services are becoming, one could reasonably consider
this somewhat inevitable. The announcement of the exclusivity deal has
collapsed the possibility space so now it's certain that they won't be coming
to the other services (for the lifetime of the deal).

------
a_thro_away
translated as... "they are asking more money for their content than we can
give them from monthly subscription fees alone... we'll have to force
advertisements".

------
shogun21
We'll bring the Netflix, you bring the chill (AC).

------
peterwwillis
Hey look, more reasons to pirate media due to a lack of options for receiving
it.

~~~
hellogoodbyeeee
Netflix is easier to use and safer than pirating. Seriously, for the price of
a chipotle (steak) burrito a month you have access to their entire online
library. You'd pay more than that to go see one movie a month at the theater.

Pirating content is morally wrong. If you actually disagreed with the media
industry, you would not consume their products instead of stealing access to
them.

Disregard me if you live in a place where you don't have legal channels of
media consumption available...

~~~
sampo
> _Pirating content is morally wrong._

I don't know. Through piracy, especially poor people in developing countries
have had access to a lot of software, books, education, even medicine, that
they simply could not have been able to afford otherwise.

~~~
hellogoodbyeeee
Piracy of expensive software by individuals in developing countries could
prevent local software companies from starting up and supplying that need or
could stunt the growth of open source alternatives.

I think arguing against education and books is harder, but generally I will
stand by my statement that stealing is wrong.

~~~
icebraining
If you're interested in debate, you should make an argument defending your
position. Otherwise, it makes for very boring conversation.

If you do make an argument, I'd advise you to leave the whole "stealing" part
aside. It's really only a weak shortcut to proving the immorality of content
piracy, and it's better to avoid such tricks and show the full argument.

------
rottyguy
Amazon is taking my money for newer films. Bizarre that nflx hasn't followed
suit. Price points are 4.99-6.99 for (ha) HD and a dollar less for SD.

And if I can rant for a bit, why is there no amazon channel on Apple TV?!

------
aaronbrethorst

        family favorite franchises such as Back
        to The Future & Lethal Weapon.
    

When did a movie that depicts a PTSD-afflicted Vietnam vet being tortured by
electric shock become a "family favorite," and what does that say about us as
a culture?

~~~
dsl
It says that we live in a society where some kids watched Lethal Weapon and
Die Hard, and worked hard to grow up and protect others from the bad things in
this world. Bad things that you don't have to worry about because others stand
to keep you safe.

------
DavideNL
...meanwhile 90% of the world keeps torrenting because Netflix (or most of the
content ON Netflix) is not available in their country - or the content becomes
available 3 years after release.

And trying to Pay for Netflix by using a VPN (which costs extra $) to stream
from the US is obviously cheating and has to be banned as well.

/flabbergasted

~~~
rhino369
>..meanwhile 90% of the world keeps torrenting because Netflix

I bet the real number is closer to 0% than 90%.

