Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
MPAA Welcomes Netflix as New Member (mpaa.org)
110 points by nonbel 43 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 129 comments

Remember when MPAA released a closed-source Linux distro with the intention of gathering incriminating data on university students? That was pretty weird.

I don't remember this! Do you have a source so I can get the whole story?

Not only that, the distro infringed the Xubuntu copyright too: https://xubuntu.wordpress.com/tag/mpaa/

That's hilarious. In trying to catch people stealing, they stole a trademarked logo.

Should have fined them damages in excess of 1 trillion dollars to the open source community.

Wait, so they released software with copyright-infringing code?!

Tht wouldn't be the first time. They also illegally released a film and claimed they had a right to do so.

I wish I could use that as a legal excuse "well nuh uh they were mean to me"

I find the tribalism over copyright to be quite odd. It makes sense for many tech companies to lobby to devalue copyright, because they are in the business of profiting by distributing other peoples’ content. (I forget who said it, but the principle is commoditizing your inputs.) And it makes sense for organizations like the MPAA to push back on those efforts. It’s an economic, not moral battle. Netflix used to be on one side, now it’s a content creator and on the other.

The moral calculus, I think, cuts the other way. People complain that Wall Street middle men don’t create value, just move it around, but in the same breath assign moral superiority to companies that just move around content created by other people. Odd.

It seems to me that since economics is exactly about value, there cannot be an economic battle that isn't also a moral battle.

Beautifully said!

Copyright is historically and pragmatically connected to several power struggles in society. The ones that come to mind are surveillance, free speech, personal control and freedoms (e.g. DRM), sharing and spread of information.

(For example, you can see the article about U. California vs Elsevier currently on the front page, or I can expand on why I say copyright has been connected to the above issues.)

I completely agree with one angle on your post, which is that people's personal ethics and desires are only pawns or incidental to the economic players in this game, but that's my explanation for why people follow the game closely and cheer for one side or the other.

> Copyright is historically and pragmatically connected to several power struggles in society. The ones that come to mind are surveillance, free speech, personal control and freedoms (e.g. DRM), sharing and spread of information.

Isn't that just about gaining more power over people, not really a power straggle.

Copyright has always been limited in various ways. Defining what those limits are has always been a back and forth with various interests.

Personally, protection that’s rapidly approaching 200+ years just seems ridiculous. I think a limit to 40 years would have basically zero impact on the creation of new works which seems like the entire point it was created in the first place. The only reason the current situation exists is people making money from other people’s works wanting to continue to do so. That’s got nothing to do with artists.

As to the low end, I would be fine simply abolishing the idea. Shakespeare did not need copyright and I suspect it promotes pandering in a way that’s socially harmful.

Copyright is an wholly artificial concept and only exists so long as we allow it to, and we should only allow it to as long as it is moral.

Isn't that the premise of our society? Ownership, money, ... All of it highly artificial and it only exists as long as we allow it to.

Copyright is more than just a stick that many people see. Copyright is first and foremost an attribution. It's the only formal recognition of someone's unique work. Considering that we are trying to automate all manual labor in the not so distant future, copyright is more and not less important to our society.

I agree, that the tools and practices used today are crude and in many cases unfair, but once we remove the stigma associated with it, we will get more innovation in it.

I can't name many creators that would not like to be recognized for their work and even less that don't want to be paid for it.

>> Considering that we are trying to automate all manual labor in the not so distant future, copyright is more and not less important to our society.

The number of people who derive meaningful income from their copyrighted work is and has been very small, and only a small fraction of that (e.g. Disney) derives a fortune by enforcing draconian copyright laws, so it's not clear if this will change in the future.

Also jobs like janitors and nannies won't be automated for a very long time, and it's not clear if the society benefits more from having yet another person writing a novel or making a movie rather than having the same person clean or take care of children.

>> The number of people who derive meaningful income from their copyrighted work is and has been very small

Depends on how you define it. For instance more than 500k people make on average around $8k/month. I'm not saying it's a mind blowing number, but it's also not little.

>> only a small fraction of that (e.g. Disney) derives a fortune by enforcing draconian copyright laws, so it's not clear if this will change in the future.

It's true that only handful of creators, mostly large companies, earn outsized returns. That however doesn't mean that small creators don't matter nor it means that copyright can't be used for their benefits.

>> Also jobs like janitors and nannies won't be automated for a very long time, and it's not clear if the society benefits more from having yet another person writing a novel or making a movie rather than having the same person clean or take care of children.

The challenge with applying automation on today's world is that we are having hard times to see the "ripple" effect of the change. For instance, if most people don't have to "work" in the traditional sense, then they don't need nannies. Janitors' jobs is becoming fairly automated even today (autonomous vacuums, ...) and the progress will only continue.

> Copyright is first and foremost an attribution

are you sure about this?

It seems to me copyright as it is in common law countries is first and foremost about _controlling distribution_. It's literally the right to make copies.

AFAIU, there is a difference from common law countries, for example.

E.g. in Italy an author cannot ever lose the status of author of a work, even if the the distribution rights are owned by someone else.

Copyright as a legal concept is fairly old and the perception on it changed a lot within the history. For instance SACEM [0] was established 170 years ago in France. The general idea was to allow creators and rights holders to control their distribution but recent changes, in US MMA [1] and in EU the Copyright Directive [2] are now moving from focusing on distribution to getting creators paid.

If we look far enough in the future, copyright will mean something very different that what it means today. But I'm biased, considering that I built company in this space.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Société_des_auteurs,_composite...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_...

> I agree, that the tools and practices used today are crude and in many cases unfair,

Was this ever not like that? I'm pretty sure copyright was never even meant for people to have useful enforceable rights to protect their creations, it was always meant for corporations, i.e. the usual business of them pushing legislation to have more power and protection against competition for rich to get richer and all that.

That's actually not true. The original laws were enacted exactly to protect individual composers. Copyright law is old, more than 300 years old [0]. Corporations exploited it the most, as they do with any opportunity, but that doesn't mean the law and our perception of the concept doesn't evolve or can't evolve.

GPS was never meant to be useful for general population. ARPANET was never meant for it either. The market finds its way. I believe, that we are entering an age of attribution and copyright is just the very first step.

[0] https://societe.sacem.fr/en/history

Laws of Tech: Commoditize Your Complement https://www.gwern.net/Complement

> It’s an economic, not moral battle.

Except when the content conglomerates corrupt our democracy by buying legislation and take away our freedoms that are incidental to protecting their profits.

In a world with 7 billion people, we have to find ways to make it make sense for some people to create content and some people to distribute it, etc. If people who are creative have no inherent right to control and benefit from their creations, they have inherent disincentive to actively refuse to add value to the system for others.

The system doesn't work if we can't solve such issues.

If you can come up with a better answer, awesome. (No, I don't accept "UBI" as a better answer.)

Their freedom ends where mine begins. Copyright legislation is a legislative solution to a legislative problem, wheras DRM is a technical non-solution to a non-technical problem, and infringes upon my own rights. The latter is the real problem here.

My basic point is that you don't get access to the thing at all to begin with if:

A. No one bothers to create it because "Fuck you, pay me! I'm not your bitch."

B. No one bothers to distribute it because "Fuck you, pay me! I'm not your bitch."

We quibble a whole lot about where to draw the line, but if you outright make it impossible for the creators and the distributors to make a comfortable living themselves, then you don't have the thing at all to argue about "DRM or no DRM. That is the question."

If we want good things, we need to design a system that facilitates and rewards actions that add value to the system so people have reason to do so.

DRM does not work. Not really anyway.

The games industry struggled with high piracy rates for decades and Steam changed that - not because of Steam's relatively lax DRM, but because Steam itself was more convenient & easier than piracy.

Ever since Origin, Epic Games store, etc.. have started to compete with Steam, piracy rates have started increasing again for the first time in decades. People want to buy things on the platforms they choose, if you don't let them do that they'll pirate content.

This increased fragmentation is starting to hurt the streaming industry too. Just look at how angry people are at Netflix's library being so lackluster nowadays.

I believe the true solution for everybody getting paid is to relax the copyright laws, so content can't be crippled and tied to one service. Not invasive solutions like DRM - those only drive people to more piracy.

I don't particularly disagree with you. But the article doesn't mention DRM, the thing I initially replied to doesn't either and I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why you are suddenly going on about DRM as if I made some kind of pro DRM statement that desperately needs to be shot down.

So what? Netflix included with all the other tv bloat channels? More tv content on Netflix? Better licensing deals for Netflix?

Maybe Netflix and other cooperating services will jack their prices to $20 so I can finally unsubscribe.

95% of these Made by Netflix titles suck and haven't justified the price hikes.

I actually think the Netflix originals are close to the only good content left in their library. Whether or not that justifies the price is another matter.

Netflix originals are hit or miss. They make (or take over) some good stuff, like Stranger Things season 1 or Bonus Family, but they also make some embarrassing, awfully bad things, like Bright or Bird Box. Even within the same show they are hit or miss, like when they took over The Killing or Black Mirror. I find there's no correlation between "made by Netflix" and quality.

I thought bird box was actually quite good, apart from the atrocious, inoffensive “made for America” ending.

They’re trying to reach a wider demographic than just your taste, and I must say I put them on par with any other studio (eg HBO, Showtime) for entertainment value because netflix has more variety and content I’m interested in despite HBO arguably having higher cinematic quality.

And honestly the idea of studio quality is kind of stupid—my favorite show of all time in terms of cinematic quality, The Knick, was done by Cinemax (skinemax?) and virtually nobody has heard of it. The best shows can come from anywhere, and everyone puts out shit content.

True about the wider demographic, but that has an unarguable correlation with lower quality. A show, book or movie which has something to say (artistically, socially or whatever) will upset someone; by definition the only way to reach a wider demographic is to make something blander or with less to say, so that you minimize the risk of upsetting/disappointing your audience.

This doesn't even apply to arguably good shows like The Killing, whose later Netflix-produced season is so awful it's embarrassing, not because it appealed to a wider demographic -- it was pretty niche -- but simply because it was terrible, badly acted and worse plotted. I've no explanation in this case.

I'm surprised by what people are saying about Bright. I disliked it because it was a bland knockoff of Shadowrun and similar scifi-with-orks-and-elves settings, with weak SFX and an even weaker plot. The commentary about racism -- whether well or badly done -- didn't even factor in my dislike. Bright is indeed a by-the-numbers urban fantasy made to appeal to a wide demographic, with nothing interesting to say about scifi, fantasy or even action. It was quite accurately described by the press as "a movie done with an algorithm". So of course it will likely have a sequel!

I really hope bland shows aren't the future of Netflix, but I fear they will be because they make business sense.

Bright was decent as an action movie, but terrible as the social commentary it tried to be.

I can't remember where I heard it originally, but it suffers from the "This racism is a metaphor for racism" problem that a lot of sci-fi tends to get close to. The issue ends up becoming that by making the discriminated party/group a literal different species, or a robot, or an alien, you dilute the core moral argument about treating all humans the same in the real world. What should be about racism becomes closer to an animal rights argument in-universe about how to treat things that aren't human, but aren't completely inert, which is a much more nuanced argument.

In short, metaphor is hard, especially when you're applying it to complex issues.

I had to stop like 10 minutes in a never got to the action. It was so heavy-handed in it's political commentary that it just came off as cringy.

This is the problem I have with a lot of Netflix content. It plays as social commentary written by a college freshman. Painfully cliche and heavy handed.

Most of it is awful quality and would've died on the vine on a network channel, and their bar is pretty low. The rest of the library is getting pretty thin as well. I don't think Netflix has a very bright future and will probably be remembered like Myspace, one of the first big players in a space they will cease to be relevant in.

...you know you can already unsubscribe, right?

If $20/month is the pain point which causes you to leave Netflix, you're not the kind of customer it wants anyway.

To stay current with television entertainment one would need to subscribe to at least Netflix, HBO, Amazon and, soon, Disney. If you live in the non-anglophone part of the planet you might want to add a few on-demand providers in your local language as well.

If each charge $20 / mon that's close to $2,000 / year just for content to your television - a full payslip for many low-income people. Such prices might be justifiable to enthusiasts but not really for the general public.

> To stay current with television entertainment

You lost me here.

That's like tasking yourself with staying current with your Warhammer 40k or Magic The Gathering card collection and complaining that it's expensive. Yet you suggested TV as if it's some self-evident thing everyone wants to maximize.

I'm a cord cutter and have been for over a decade.

When I initially made the switch, I didnt use an antenna (my complaint is about commercials, not (just) the cable company). I discovered that I lost the ability to participate in a lot of water cooler talk. Even now, I didnt wat bird box, or game of thrones (at least not yet) and I was missing references to them all over the place.

Socially, groups use such references to indicate belonging. This is true in communities of varying sizes. Ergo, not participating DOES have repercussions.

I'm not saying it makes sense to break the bank, but I am saying there are social and therefore economic and other consequences.

That makes sense if you seriously can't handle the tiny adversity of not being able to engage in every single topic at the water cooler because of some social phobia.

But I don't find that very convincing otherwise.

I reinvoke my comparison to deciding you need to own every Magic The Gathering card for whatever reason you want to use. This is more obviously silly because how normalized and socially-acceptable TV obsession is in our culture, but I still don't buy that it's something remotely necessary in your life. And it seems like a popular but toxic self-limiting belief.

Just like if you were to tell me you think the reason you can't make friends is because you can't talk football at the water cooler, so you study the sport every night so that you can spout trivia at work. I would suspect some sort of social disability if you did that.

I haven't owned a TV for years. It does fairly effectively cut you out of a lot of conversations.

Historically, people lived in little villages, knew all the same people, etc. These days, TV shows and movies get used to establish a common frame of social reference between people who really don't know each other well.

A hundred years ago, you would have commented on a mutual acquaintance or an event you both attended to bond and to facilitate communication. Now, we routinely use popular media references for the same purpose.

I mostly don't care that I'm "missing out." But, yeah, there is a real social cost involved.

Sure. But you'd have to argue that the social cost is more than a few peanuts and a nickel at this hypothetical water cooler. Or worth buying multiple subscriptions + hours invested in "keeping up" with television.

That would depend on a lot of factors. We have sayings like "Its not what you know, it's who you know" for a reason and social bonding requires common ground, effective communication, etc.

This is part of why it's de facto exclusionary for "the old boys network" to engage in specific social activities that cannot readily be done by, for example, women as well in a "co-ed" fashion.

Which may not matter at all to your life, but could be the make or break for someone else's career.

I've explained how I and others felt like we became more "outsiders" because we couldn't follow references made my friends, coworker, and general media (how many GoT references came out in the week after the finale?)

You choose to find this incredulous and ridiculous. You can certainly do so. I hope you take a few minutes to actually consider why this might matter to many people - those references are made to build camaraderie and a sense of inclusion. Ergo, not following creates a sense of alienation and separation.

You can mock that or not, but that doesn't change how people feel.

Right? I don't get that argument at all. It's like the people that used to whine that apple released a new iPhone every 6 months.

$20 per month times 12 months = $240, not ~$2,000

> If each charge $20

What kind of customer does Netflix want? Someone who will pay them whatever amount each month? Serious question.

I think they just want everyone.

* high-end accounts that allow multiple streams and 4k

* mid-tier with limited streams and max 1080p

* free-tier for password sharers, they don't go after account sharing afaik

They'd rather you watch netflix for free than anything else for free. It helps build a long-term market for their content.

Aaaaaannd I just canceled my Netflix subscription. For months I’ve been on the fence (and wasting money) attempting to figure out if it’s actually worth it to me.

Thanks Netflix for making the choice easier.

So like just about every movie you've seen has their logo on it - do you get to the end credits see the MPAA logo and scratch your eyes out and say I just wasted my money!!!!

I pay Netflix to distribute content. The content created has paid into the MPAA and uses technology to ensure no one infringes. If Netflix is a distributor of content or essentially a dumb pipe why do they care what I do with the content after I receive it?

Netflix hasn't been a "dumb pipe" for years. They have been content co-producers since 2012 ("Lilyhammer") and producers since 2013 ("House of Cards").

So where do you think most of their mainstream movie library came from if not MPAA members? Netflix has been giving MPAA money from the beginning of its existence.

This is the way I look at it (it may not be correct)

Before the MPAA made money off the creator, so for 95% of the content on netflix the companies producing the film paid into the MPAA. Sure Netflix probably had to pay the MPAA fee on their content too.

Now the MPAA will make even more money to lobby against customers because now the content distributors are paying in.

So now it give the MPAA more teeth and lobbying power.

Creators, Distributors, and the MPAA versus customers.

According to one poster - 10 million dollars. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to all of the money that Netflix has been giving the MPAA indirectly by first buying DVDs to rent and then paying millions for the right to stream movies made by MPAA members.

I do understand your point but wouldn’t you agree that the money indirectly paid by Netflix is less money than if those customers of Netflix actually purchased said DVDs instead of renting them?

The way I see it ( and again I could be wrong ) Netflix was able to leverage their massive buying power to get the DVDs at less than MSRP. Netflix buys 100,000 dvds of a pupil at title and the MPAA get their cut. Netflix then rents those DVDs 1 million times. Did the MPAA lose out on a cut of those 900,000 would be sales?

Before Netflix people were renting from BlockBuster who also had deals with studios.

Now Netflix is paying the same studios for streaming rights.

Netflix paid Disney $300 million for the streaming rights to Disney IP (https://www.vox.com/2019/4/12/18307539/disney-streaming-laun...) that doesn’t count all of the money it pays NBC/Universal, CBS/Viacom, and Warner.

I don’t understand why they would do this, or what the benefits are. Personally it gives me a strong reason to ditch Netflix now, which is a bummer.

If that's a strong reason to cancel Netflix, I take it you don't watch any movies?

What’s a good alternative? Their Netflix Originals are owned by them; non-original library sucks to begin with.

Plex streaming feels like the next step. Netflix is great but so much is missing and being able to get older series or one place for all content seems like where I want to endup.

I recently set up a Plex server. It's serviceable and I like it a lot, but I'd only give it three stars at this point.

There are things that don't work right: I have constant buffering on a couple of my devices, even at (say) 720p just serving up files with no transcoding, when Netflix et al have no problem serving me 4K to the same device without buffering. (My guess is its a problem with the client app, but I haven't really looked into it.)

There are things that are weird: If you have more than one version of the same movie or show, it lets you select between them not by (say) file name or runtime, but by video quality. So, for instance, I recently ripped a TV series and several of the episodes have extended editions. There's no way to tell which version is which until I start playing one of them.

There are things missing: Hardware acceleration on my i9 is the big one right now for me.

There seem to be regular updates, but they're often things that don't affect me as well. So it feels like updates are slow. (Like a fix for DVR service, which I don't use; or say an update to an XBox client.)

All that said... I'm not saying this to discourage anyone. Like I said, it's serviceable.

I think about the library I could have in ten years spending the money on Blu-Ray discs (on sale of course) instead of shelling out money to Comcast/Netflix/Amazon/HBO/Hulu/etc every month. And the best part is, I know it'll still be there when I'm ready to watch it or rewatch it.

Netflix et al have no problem serving me 4K to the same device without buffering

Apples and geo-redundant and highly-available by design oranges, isn't it? Netflix has invested millions in their infrastructure, seems only logical they'd have the edge in content delivery especially to remote devices. Plex on the other hand, if it's just you on your residential copper line connection, well...there you have it.

What do I have?

Netflix can get me 4K content from the internet, through my ethernet, to my device. Plex can get me 4K content from my internal server, through my ethernet, to several of my devices.

Certain Plex client apps choke on any quality coming from the same Plex server over the same ethernet.

What do I have?

I can only assume a residential internet connection, which typically packet filters and shapes for uploading content? It's only a guess though, you might have much better options for residential ISP than I do.

Plex can get me 4K content from my internal server, through my ethernet, to several of my devices.

Across the internet as well or when you're on your local network? My experience has been (and like with all things YMMV) infinitely better watching at home than connecting to my VPN and trying to tunnel back, but I fully expected that because the local ISP places a pretty well enforced limit on uploads from residential lines.

Comparatively though, I don't think either of our connections for streaming content from our respective home media servers holds a candle to the infrastructure of Netflix, which is why my expectations are rather measured regarding the capabilities of Plex.

That said, I love it for what it is.

I don't expect 4K content to my phone over my VPN. (I've been able to get 1080p content across my VPN without problems.)

I'm measuring Plex on my LAN against Plex on my LAN. Some of my clients accept 4K streams with no problems. Other clients buffer an unwatchable amount even on 480p from the same server.

My purpose of bringing up Netflix was only to show that the client devices that are choking on 480p from Plex are capable of handling 4K streams.

Some of my clients accept 4K streams with no problems. Other clients buffer an unwatchable amount even on 480p from the same server.

Sampling all the way down to 480p is definitely odd behavior on a LAN--can't say I've run into that. Have you had much help from the usual spots? I'd be curious to help troubleshoot this sometime, sounds like an interesting nut to try cracking, or is it something inherent to the clients with the way they're decoding?

> There are things missing: Hardware acceleration on my i9 is the big one right now for me.

Since encoding is one of the things the PLEX team gets from open-source, hardware encoding is a frustrating feature to pay-walled in their premium subscription.

It does seem like we're due for a new open-source media server.

Do Blu-Ray players allow to go straight to movie? Is Blu-Ray playback supported by Linux? I don't really know, but for a few months now I long for simplicity of owning a disc.

I would point out that their DVD and Blu-ray selection is still excellent.

If I had any devices that still accepted discs, ... but I don’t. I can’t honestly remember the last time I had a DVD player. Maybe a decade ago?

> What’s a good alternative?

Go outside. Read a book. Spend quality time with your family.

I do those things. Also, I watch movies, which is obviously what the question addressed. I don’t think your answer added anything substantive or meaningful to the conversation at all, and was at best a condescending distractor.

I don't know, I think it's a good contrast to the sort of shrill voices that crop up on this topic. Like when people complain how expensive it is once they task themselves to subscribe to every streaming TV service, as if it wasn't self-inflicted or as if the point of life is to maximize TV consumption.

We take our culture of hyper-consumption for granted so much that people scoff when you suggest "well, why not consume less? What's the big deal?"

It's not like we need more posts of people vocalizing how begrudgingly they subscribe to Netflix in every Netflix thread. As if unsubscribing is never an option. It's a bit exhausting to scroll through.

Or watch YouTube and play videogames :D

(preferably indie ones, the "AAA" game industry is about as bad as hollywood)

my family loves watching movies.


The book publishing industry goes about their goals rather differently. Comparing the book industry and the movie industry makes as much sense as not buying wine because you're upset about the tobacco lobby (or saying that you can't criticize the tobacco industry if you're willing to buy wine).

They really don't, especially not anymore. For-profit book publishing has turned decidedly Hollywood. I've worked in both book publishing and in Hollywood, and people often forget that they are really one in the same now. CBS owns Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins is owned by News Corp, and Penguin Random House is owned by Bertelsmann, one of the world's largest media conglomerates.

How are they different? They both support long copywriters, support DRM of digital media, etc.

Two important ways: first, they're happy to publish physical, analog books, which the movie industry no longer does. That allows institutions like libraries and used-book stores to exist. Second, they've never put a rootkit in their DRM.

Realistically analog books are harder to copy and distribute than digital books. Some authors won’t publish to kindle for that reason. (https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-Cracking-the-Coding-Interview...)

The movie industry also creates physical disks that you can trade but they have had copy protection since the analog era.

You could go to the library for a book.

You can go to the library for a DVD....

There are tons of good books that are in the public domain. Lots of self published good content. You could also listen to music which has tons of free sources like Jamendo. You could also create your own amusement by learning a skill or crafting.

Yo-ho, yo-ho....

(JANUARY 22, 2019)

Can someone explain me why this is good or bad?

On the bad side: the MPAA lobbies heavily for continually enlarging copyright protection (e.g. the DMCA) and aggressively pursues legal action against individuals. Netflix has deep pockets, so its membership provides the MPAA with increased funds for lobbying and legal muscle.

> and aggressively pursues legal action against individuals

Do they still do this? I thought they finally realized it wasn’t worth the trouble.

Netflix has deep pockets? Have you seen their balance sheet and debt obligations?

MPAA membership dues are on the order of USD 10 million per year.

Which is chomp change for any major company.

One reason is the org offers some kind of moralistic authority over art through its ratings system.

This has influenced what we get to see in theaters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated

And that's bad.

I wonder if it was worse? I think there are more distribution mediums for art available now than when that film was made that are less beholden to content rating.

Perhaps the new specter is YouTube and its recent banning of security videos?

I agree there are more mediums available, but if someone finances their work they'll probably have little choice in distribution mechanisms which props up tradition.

The MPAA has a chilling effect which I think is harmful to creativity. I think the human mind is a lot tougher than the vocal few lead us to believe.

They destroy peoples lives, like DVD Jon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen#The_DeCSS_pr....

It doesn't have to be good or bad. Generally speaking most things are some form of gray.

Do you think Netflix will falter when Disney arrives to the steaming scene?

Do you think Netflix could be disrupted if content became cheap to produce (through new technology)?

Do you think we could lobby to get copyright terms greatly reduced? How would we go about doing so?

I'm really interested in your thoughts.

(I'm pursuing a startup to answer the second question, but I'm worried the incumbents will simply copy us if the technology works out as well as we hope.)

1) No, Netflix is fully on track to become as good or better than its competitors at producing content at a faster pace, than competitors are becoming as good as Netflix at delivering content online.

2) No. Netflix is doing quite good against youtube. Netflix are also doing quite good in animation, which is a genre that has become much cheaper to produce in the last 20-30 years thanks to technology.

3) I don't know. Maybe. Disney has apparently given up extending copyright, so at least things are moving in the right direction.

Aren't the other members the ones that Netflix is disrupting in the first place? What can it hope to gain from this?

(Honest question)

Netflix disrupted blockbuster, which is long gone. They aren't different from other producers, except that they also have a proprietary distribution channel.

It gets to be the favored disruptor, and now the MPAA will help kill any other competition in exchange for sweet deals

Yeah - the disruption is over.

You only get to win so many times until you aren't the underdog anymore.

My guess is they are doing it to 1) to avoid getting their works pulled from award ceremonies and to reap the publicity that comes with them, and 2) to get more access to film libraries since the MPAA will implicitly or explicitly lobby other members to play nice with them.

So Disney's jaw dropped when Netflix refused to renew the contracts for the Marvel properties, but they have enough disposable income to prop up this living dead corpse of a organization and overall money pit whose accomplishments include incompetency, copyright infringement, and piracy.

The MPAA? Of "Fuck the MPAA" fame?

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

- Harvey Dent

That was enough reason for me to cancel. So long netflix!

Netflix is such a sell-out. First the ISPs, now the MPAA.

How does Netflix joining MPAA make them a sell out? Do you mean as a tech company? I'm honestly curious. I think this buys them (literally) legitimacy in Hollywood and enables them to get MPAA to lobby on their behalf. Whether I think it's good or bad is a different case

Isn't selling out literally what every company in the world strives to do?

Most companies that intend to go public maybe. Private ownership and pride in what you sell does still exist in America, just takes more looking. Patagonia for example just made a decision not to support the VC vest culture any more than it already was. I've got a chain of local hardware stores that are still family owned nearby. There's tons of real Amish furniture companies that aren't looking to sell out. Just because it's the common way didn't mean it's the only or best way.

Although, to hear my friend tell it, Patagonia is still a massive military supplier. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it does seem to run a bit counter to their uber eco friendly branding.

This seems to back that claim: http://soldiersystems.net/tag/patagonia/

They make good products and the military needs good products. I'd much rather they support the military that's generally trying to do the right thing than people trying just to make money.

First the investors?

I’m not so sure I feel comfortable giving them money now.

But you felt comfortable giving them money before when that money went to MPAA members...

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. There a is difference between being an independent content distributor and being a member of the gang.

Netflix has not been an independent content distributor for years. Here are their productions and co-productions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist....

This is true. What I meant was "independent content distributor for not their own content".

In an ideal world Netflix would not produce content and Sony would not own a movie studio.

What makes that "ideal"?

Because we would have more honest competition (and from that possibly better outcome for the consumer).

I find that a great example is Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD where the later did not have region restrictions but the first belonged to Sony who also owned a movie studio allowing large portion of the content to be never released on HD-DVD.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact