Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Disney Switching To Netflix For Exclusive Film Distribution

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the future-is-finally-getting-here dept.

Media 124

An anonymous reader writes "When Disney films leave the theater and head for TV, they currently go through the Starz channel first. That's going to change in 2016. Disney has signed a deal to give Netflix the first crack at its animated and live-action films. Even if you're not a fan of either company, this is a bit of a big deal; Disney is ditching a traditional pay-TV service in favor of online streaming. (It also includes properties from the recent Lucasfilm deal.) The article wisely points out that pay-TV in general isn't in danger until the live sports situation changes, but this is a big step away from the status quo."

cancel ×

124 comments

A Positive Move (3, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189169)

As more content providers embrace streaming, they are going to where customers want to buy their data. I hope more companies follow their lead, they allow for multiple distributors (sucks if you have amazon prime and not netflix and it is an exclusive deal), and distributors make sure they support the big three platforms. Hopes aside, this is a good step in the right direction.

Re:A Positive Move (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189321)

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. It's grab the big bucks for an exclusive deal with one content distributor and F*** the people who aren't with that one. Other studios will get their big bucks from another distributor, so the only way consumers can have it all, is to pay for Netflix, LoveFilm (do they have that in the US?) etc.

Then, of course, they wonder why the Pirate Bay was popular?
Maybe it's because they have content from everyone, not to mention, in a format that plays on anything.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189621)

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. It's grab the big bucks for an exclusive deal with one content distributor and F*** the people who aren't with that one. Other studios will get their big bucks from another distributor, so the only way consumers can have it all, is to pay for Netflix, LoveFilm (do they have that in the US?) etc.

Then, of course, they wonder why the Pirate Bay was popular?
Maybe it's because they have content from everyone, not to mention, in a format that plays on anything.

Not to completely invalidate your argument, however first off, Netflix streaming service is 8 bucks a month. Same as HuluPlus. Amazon is $79 per year. If you are posting on this forum you most likely have a device compatible with Netflix streaming. If not, a used Roku can be picked up for as cheap as $25 on ebay. If you were to get all three big streaming services (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu) it's still faaaaaar cheaper per month than cable television.

As for Pirate Bay - I can walk to my TV, and in less than 15 seconds start streaming a movie on my Roku. That's not possible with Pirate Bay. Now I might not have access to everything, but as more and more stuff becomes available the need for Pirate Bay will shrink to oblivion. Besides, at least in the US most people in an urban setting have a Redbox within walking distance.

Re:A Positive Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189663)

This reminds me of why I miss Demonoid. It had tons of extremely obscure stuff that was available nowhere else, relatively well-seeded.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189681)

Except if you live outside the US ofcourse. Because fuck those people.
Even when those services expand outside US they have the same problems as any local player trying to do it. Lack of deals due to agreements locking everything in to random restrictions.

The only way to get a good streaming service is to get a US proxy/VPN and go through that.

Piratebay will continue to be popular where the studios won't let the users pay.

Re:A Positive Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42191939)

Except if you live outside the US ofcourse. Because fuck those people.

>implying there are people outside of the US

Re:A Positive Move (1)

Thansal (999464) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191301)

His point isn't actually invalid, as it applies to Cable TV as well. If you want all of the new movies you have to pick up HBO, Stars, and what ever else there is, each at an additional charge per month. $271 a year (your math for netflix+hulu+amazon) is kind of expensive, and really a joke to do something like that because you would be buying the extras just for the sake of the couple exclusives they have.

Re:A Positive Move (2)

DragonTHC (208439) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190837)

cool rant bro.

Netflix is $9 a month. That's actually counter-piracy pricing. I happily pay that every month for what Netflix has to offer.

This deal is a bonus. The only thing left is just waiting for an online streaming provider to get current television shows from all networks.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191041)

Except that Netflix (just like the BBC service offering their shows) hasn't studied the usage patterns of its customers.
They often offer only 1 season, or sometimes a few seasons of a popular show but they never offer the whole thing unless the series is long dead it seems.
When my wife and I want to watch a series, we will go through it from beginning to end. If its on Netflix (or the far superior but very limited apple BBC app), then its a no brainer. I am quite happy with Netflix generally but I get very irritated when they offer say 6 out of 10 seasons, but fail to offer the other 4 seasons at all. If they want to offer something they had better be prepared to offer the whole thing.
Because the moment we run out of seasons on netflix its time to find the rest of the series. Usually we can get it at the library, but if not, then it might just be bittorrent time. In effect the 6 seasons offered with 4 missing provide an incentive to go download whats missing. If they provided it, no one would worry about downloading it when they would just watch the Netflix version.
The BBC tends to be worse about this than Netflix even. I watched the pilot of an excellent show called Red Cap. They offered the pilot only. The rest of the series was not to be found, nor the second season. Off to the torrent sites - only to find its not available there either.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191123)

that choice isn't Netflix's to make if the show is currently on TV.

Re:A Positive Move (3, Insightful)

Amouth (879122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191295)

Except that Netflix (just like the BBC service offering their shows) hasn't studied the usage patterns of its customers.

I highly doubt that is at all a correct statement for Netflix.

Your particular issue, is the same one i have, and if you actually look into why it is that way it is because the content owners don't want Netflix to have the full catalog. There is a trickle down pattern that the content creators/owners follow to maximize the revenue from a product, first it is broadcast fees for the live/first showing, then its DVD Sales/Physical rental income, then it's bargain bin distributions (which is what Netflix falls into for most of them).

Disney switching to Netflix is a big deal, and i hope that if they see the value init other content owners will see it too and switch over to them.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

sglewis100 (916818) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191983)

Except that Netflix (just like the BBC service offering their shows) hasn't studied the usage patterns of its customers.

You REALLY think Netflix doesn't pay attention to what people watch on Netflix? They have no studies? No analytics? No reporting? No analysis at all? Just because things are missing (hint: online content deals are hard to cut) doesn't mean they aren't paying attention. PS: Everyone was up in arms when Starz and Netflix failed to cut a deal and tons of Disney stuff disappeared. Now, they signed a deal with Disney direct, and cut out Starz. You don't think they did that because they knew how many kids wanted to stream Disney movies?

Re:A Positive Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42191777)

Why would people get that when thepiratebay is 0$ per month, is accessible from anywhere, and there is no digital restrictions management involved? Or even better to keep that money and purchase a new dvd every other month? At least a dvd can be ripped to the hard drive and copied as many times as someone wants. Paying 9$ per month for getting no value in return is ludicrous.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

sglewis100 (916818) | about a year and a half ago | (#42192011)

Why would people get that when thepiratebay is 0$ per month, is accessible from anywhere, and there is no digital restrictions management involved? Or even better to keep that money and purchase a new dvd every other month? At least a dvd can be ripped to the hard drive and copied as many times as someone wants. Paying 9$ per month for getting no value in return is ludicrous.

Yes, because once EVERYBODY starts pirating, and NOBODY has to pay for ANYTHING, I'm sure there won't be any ramifications. People will keep making movies and TV shows for fun. Maybe we can develop some technology to blur out product placements, so we see NO advertising, ever. This way, we don't see commercials, we don't see product placements, and we don't pay for access to the content.

I need to find a way to steal my neighbors Internet too, why do I pay for Internet, when I could get it for free?

Some people (such as myself) pay for cable and Netflix because we perceive value in what we get, and would rather not just "take" it for free.

Re:A Positive Move (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189407)

I wish that was the way it already worked.

If I want to buy laundry soap, I can buy almost every brand at almost every store.

If I want to buy, say, a video game -- I can only buy certain ones at certain places. Unlike buying groceries, I can't just take them home and use them however. So you end up requiring an account and a running installed client for Steam, Origin, GOG, D2D, Impulse, Green Man Gaming, Beamdog, Desura, etc. It's a fucking mess and it only is a problem because every mother fucker wants to be the god damn distribution king, at the expense of just making something and selling it everywhere people want to sell and buy it.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189755)

You do know that games bought on GoG come without DRM and you don't need to install the downloader do download and play the games, right?

(says that and updates his Steam and Origin clients *g*)

Re:A Positive Move (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189773)

Uhhh...since when did GOG have a client? They got a download manager, but you can use your browser just fine. As for the rest of those all of them put together don't make 10% of what Steam makes so i have a feeling in the next 2 to 3 years they'll all go by the wayside. Hell EA is up the auction block so obviously Origin didn't make the money they hoped, and I don't think I've ever met anybody that uses the others you've named, heck besides D2D I haven't even HEARD of any of them so I don't think they'll be long term.

Everybody seems to forget their history, it was the same way when music first started being offered on the net, you had nearly a dozen companies, some used REAL, some used WMA for DRM, you couldn't find but a percentage of the artists (and rarely their full catalogs) on any one service, etc. Then the weak ones die off and soon you are left with only one or two with huge selections. If I had to guess I'd say Steam and GOG, Steam because it has the most users by far, GOG because of it being DRM free which means you can just buy the games and run them beside Steam no problem. The rest i figure will be DOA in a couple of years, maybe less.

I mean Ubisoft even got rid of their always on DRM, if that don't show things are changing I don't know what does.

Re:A Positive Move (2)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189899)

True, GOG doesn't force it on you, but the others do. And GOG would obviously *like* you to use it, which is why I count it in the same list. They are the least annoying of every one, though.

The comparison to music is fair enough, I suppose. Except that almost ten years into mainstream digital distribution, we are way on the other stream of where we were ten years into digital music distribution. And I don't like the solution you pose as the ultimate evolution of it, either. I prefer Steam and GOG (even though I don't care for Steam-ish DRM), but I don't want everything else to fail and for there to "be only one". I want them to act like a laundry soap manufacturer would. To make games and sell those games at every possible point of distribution possible. I don't want one single digital store selling every possible game. I want *every* online digital game store selling *every* possible game. Just like almost every grocery store sells the same products.

They shouldn't be competing on "Ooh, only Origin has Dragon Age and Sim City!" or "only Beamdog has the Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition!". They should be competing on interface, speed, customer service, price, and community.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190051)

True, GOG doesn't force it on you, but the others do. And GOG would obviously *like* you to use it, which is why I count it in the same list.

You wrote about services that *require* a running client.
That is not true for GoG, so it's inclusion is outright wrong. No matter what they would like you to do.

Also, I thought they only have a download manager and not a full fledged client? (I might be wrong here.)

Re:A Positive Move (2)

DrXym (126579) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189515)

I expect they go where they can maximize their returns and screw the end viewers.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189561)

I like to think that end viewers are a variable in the maximized returns function. The variable may not be used how you expect it to be, but there is no way in hell that its not in there since they are the ones holding the money.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190229)

I'm sure it is typical that the more viewers a service has the more it is prepared to pay. But it might also be the case that a service *doesn't* have the viewers and is using the exclusive as a hook to attract more viewers, or steal them away from a rival. In that scenario, another service with more actual viewers is being deprived of the content. Or Disney might play off two services precisely for that reason, as appears to be the case right here. My understanding is that Starz used to licence stuff to Netflix and then it didn't, and now Netflix is doing a runaround to get the content itself and depriving Starz of it in the process. That's great for Netflix users, not so great for Starz users. It's too bad that content isn't licenced like patents, in a fair and non-discriminatory way so services could all licence it if they wished and could afford it.

Re:A Positive Move (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189655)

I agree this is great and i hope more jump on board. If you want the customers you have to give them what THEY want, which is easy, cheap, and convenient to use.

THIS is how you actually fight piracy, not the 6 strikes and John Doe bullshit, but making your product so affordable and easy to get it becomes more of a bother to pirate than it is to just get it legal. I know plenty of pirates that have stopped, not because of litigation or draconian laws, but because between netflix, Steam, GOG, and all the channels beginning to put their shows online they simply have more than they could ever possibly watch, listen to, or play, so there really is no need to pirate.

Let us hope that all of the media and game companies see that the net is the future and not something they should fight. Of course this will give the ISPs a heart attack, how will they throw off anybody that actually uses their bandwidth if they are all using legal services? Why they might even have to spend some of their profits to...gasp!...upgrade their capacity! The horror! Won't somebody think of the board?

Re:A Positive Move (2)

Liambp (1565081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189977)

Even though I am a Netflix subscriber I completely disagree that this is a good move. My problem is with the word "exclusive". As long an individual distributors get exclusive rights to content it means that large groups of consumers (those who choose for various reasons to go with another distributor) are blocked from getting the content they would like. In my country for example I can't watch most HBO shows because HBO has signed an exclusive deal with a different cable provider but if I switched to that provider I would lose other stuff instead.

This has a long term distorting effect on the market. Instead of distributors competing against each other by "being a better distribution service" they spend all their money trying to lock up exclusive rights to content and we customers are forced to put up with a crappy service just to see the content we want to watch.

Re:A Positive Move (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190409)

This has a long term distorting effect on the market.

That's an unavoidable consequence of IP law as it is currently implemented. We could go with much shorter copyrights (so you only have to wait 5 years or so for the content) or use a stronger compulsory system, but as long as the law grants exclusive rights you will get exclusive deals.

Huge Win for Everyone (1)

happy_place (632005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191817)

Disney has been eying this space for nearly two decades, trying to find a way to monetize digital content streaming. Starz has been an impediment to content distrubtion, forcing content to go through pay-channel services first... Netflix has made a huge win here. The legalities of these contracts are insane too. They have release windows for TV, streaming, DVD distribution--it's all factored into these contracts.

People don't want to lug around DVDs to watch movies, and now they don't have to with smart phones and tablets and other media rich devices. Personally I want to get rid of my DVD collection altogether--it'd free up a closet's worth of space in my house. I want to be able to log into my favorite website and watch stuff on my flatscreen tv, that's connected out there to some cloud activated device, or better yet put it in the display, more than just a cable service and get rid of the old model altogether.

Hopefully Netflix can profit from this deal. Of course if they go under, I wouldn't be surprised to find a company like Disney buying them outright.

2016? (4, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189173)

That's eons away in the context of consumer electronics. By that time, they might be the last one switching to online streaming.

Re:2016? (1)

WarJolt (990309) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189291)

Hopefully it will be in time for Finding Nemo 2.

Re:2016? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191015)

Snow Dogs 2. Netflix is reportedly paying $300 million/year for the deal. That means squeezing out other content or raising prices to accommodate the excrement flowing from Disney's orifice. That's their choice, when it happens it is my choice to drop them.

Re:2016? (3, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189365)

That's eons away in the context of consumer electronics. By that time, they might be the last one switching to online streaming.

It is.... but this might be good strategically. This is a sign Netflix may be able to ink a deal that applies in the nearer future. If Disney was willing to sign for 2016, perhaps another deal/option/provision is around the corner that will come to effect sooner?

Possibly Starz will be willing to reconsider, their current refusal to make any kind of deal with netflix, as they will become irrelevent.

Re:2016? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42190621)

That might be true for specific content, but tells a big story about Netflix' longevity. Long term big deals like this help to ensure Netflix won't be killed off by content providers with a grudge.

UK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189193)

So from 2025 or so we'll get Disney on Netflix in the UK.

Come on guys, it's supposed to be a global market these days.

Re:UK (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189209)

for 5-10$usd you can get a vpn or shell to ssh tunnel through from within the US.

not that you're wrong to be annoyed, but there are reasonably low cost solutions out there to get around region based internet services.

Re:UK (1)

WarJolt (990309) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189349)

If you have a buddy in the US you can both setup a VPN and trade BBC for Netflix.

Re:UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189503)

Use the MediaHint plugin for firefox (and chrome) and you no longer need a VPN.

I just felt a tremble in the force (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189215)

I think this will start working out well for Disney, and their execs will get the idea into their heads: "Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier if we just owned Netflix?"

Netflix vs. Starz ... (4, Insightful)

jabberwock (10206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189231)

Netflix: $1.5 billion in revenues in 2011 and growing.

Starz: $1.6 billion in revenues in 2011 and relatively stagnant.

Pretty much explains why.

Re:Netflix vs. Starz ... (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190519)

Ever since Netflix left Starz I think they have gotten better. When they had starz I still have DVD service cause there was nothing to watch on streaming now I ditched my DVD services cause there is just so much to watch on steaming.

Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (3, Insightful)

TopSpin (753) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189243)

Don't jack up rates to pay those Disney people. We'll just move elsewhere.

— Your customers

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189303)

True that homeboy!

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189327)

The money has to come from somewhere--it's not as if Disney will simply give the streaming rights away. So if you don't want to pay more, you have to hope that Netflix is able to attract more customers because of this deal.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189393)

They can take the money they are not paying Starz (and whatever content they have taken down), and give it to Disney.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (5, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189415)

No we won't. I pay $8 a month for unlimited viewing of a ridiculous amount of content. If they could add even more (and recent) content to that, it'd be worth a lot more. I currently pay $13/mo for most of my entertainment ($8 for Netflix and $5 for MOG, where I get my unlimited music). Netflix is a steal at $8. It'd be a deal at $16. It'd be fair (but starting to push it) at $24/mo.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (4, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189679)

Here I was thinking the opposite.

It is getting harder and harder to find things that I actually want to watch on Netflix. To add to this, I decided to try and watch some classic dystopian movies that I either havent seen in a long time or have not seen as of yet. So I went to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] to get a nice list of dystopian movies. Of the earliest made movies in that list, 16 of the first 20 (80%) are NOT available on netflix streaming:

La jetee (1962), The Trial (1962), Privilege (1967), Punishment Park (1971), THX 1138 (1971), Silent Running (1972), Z.P.G. (1972), Sleeper (1973), Soylent Green (1973), Welt am Draht (1973), Death Race 2000 (1975), Logan's Run (1976), Sleeping Dogs (1977), Escape from New York (1981), Blade Runner (1982), Turkey Shoot (1982)

I know that a few of these used to be available but now no longer are, such as Blade Runner and Escape from New York.

This is not the service that I wanted.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42190091)

This is not the service that I wanted.

Poor baby. They must all be on Starz or HBO then right? What service could you be watching them all on? Oh right you'll just go torrent them, carry on.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (3, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190581)

Poor baby. They must all be on Starz or HBO then right?

Most of them are available on Amazon Instant Video.

To be specific, the only ones not available are:

La jetee (1962), Privilege (1967), Sleeper (1973), Welt am Draht (1973), Death Race 2000 (1975), Sleeping Dogs (1977), Escape from New York (1981), Turkey Shoot (1982)

So while Netflix offers 20% of the first 20 movies on the dystopian list, Amazon Instant offers 60% of the first 20 movies on the dystopian list.

Not only that, just searching Amazon Instant for "Soylent Green" will include in the first page of search results (7 results) a total of 6 movies in the first 20 of the dystopian list that are available for streaming, and 3 of those are free with Prime (the movie not on the list, also free with prime.)

In other words, there are services that offer vastly more content than Netflix does in general (3x as much in this sample), and also more content even under the umbrella of a cheaper ($6.67/mo for Prime) subscription rate.

Netflix is dropping the ball. Its not the service people actually want.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (0)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190863)

FWIW, all but Turkey Shoot and Sleeping Dogs are available DRM-free for unlimited viewing on usenet without anyone tracking your viewing habits. Minimum quality DVD5, many in 1080p that is head-and-shoulds above the bit-starved "hd" streams from the likes of netflix and amazon instant.

Thanks for reminding me about Silent Running, I am going to watch that in a couple of minutes here.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

peter_gzowski (465076) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190991)

Most of them are available on Amazon Instant Video.

Most of them are available for rent (which you mention in passing later, I just wanted to highlight this). If we're comparing Netflix to Amazon's Prime Instant Video, they're largely identical movie lists (anecdotal experience only, no hard data). However, Amazon has an advantage in that it offers other films for rent. Netflix did away with its own advantage of "if you can't stream it, at least you can get it delivered on DVD" (Amazon's advantage is more instantaneous, but doesn't have the catalog of Netflix's DVDs, even for rent). I do wish Netflix had a "you can stream this other stuff for $2-3" but I think their customers would revolt (again).

So for now I'm using both. Check on Netflix (better interface on XBox), then check Amazon Prime (which I have anyway for the shipping), then look for films on Amazon Instant to rent if there's something specific I want to see. We'll see if Netflix can distinguish itself with added content.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42192505)

Most of them are available for rent (which you mention in passing later, I just wanted to highlight this).

How is this functionally different than netflix, which doesnt guarantee access to things that you have previously watched later?

The only meaningful distinction between "renting a stream" and "subscription streaming", aside from what content is available right this moment, is cost breakpoints... a totally different discussion.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191111)

AC is being kind of mean, but he has a point... piracy still offers the best service, even without getting into cost. Google + Torrent or Usenet is still the best offering for content variety, timeliness, and quality in the online arena.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

bkr1_2k (237627) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190843)

I watched Logan's Run recently. They do rotate through though, so maybe you missed the window of opportunity. I've also seen Escape from New York (I think) in the list though I don't believe I remember seeing any of the others. If you're looking for distopian, go older, say the 20s through the 50s and you'll find lots of options.

I find the selection is reasonable for now and they've been getting newer releases more consistently now. Especially the Disney owned Marvel comics stuff. I think anyone paying attention could have seen this deal coming based on that alone.

For all those complaining that there will be no other distribution, please read again. First run doesn't mean exclusive.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190989)

The point is that Netflix's current system of content rotating in and out makes the user's perception of the value wildly changeable --- it wouldn't be so bad if they'd track things which you added to your streaming queue and when they drop off notify you the next time you log on to the web interface that you might want to get said shows on disk.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

MrNiceguy_KS (800771) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191441)

For that matter, it would be nice if they would notify us of which movies in our queue are about to be removed from streaming. Give us, maybe, 2 weeks warning.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

nine-times (778537) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191217)

I agree. As much as I like Netflix and think it's worthwhile now, they really need to get some deals together so that their catalog is approaching something like "complete". I can understand not having new releases, but you should be able to count on them for movies that were released decades ago, and I'd be willing to pay a little extra to get that.

Honestly, right now I pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus. On top of that, there are some shows that aren't on either of those services (e.g. "The Walking Dead") that I buy on iTunes. Then beyond that, I'll rent some movies now and then, because there are loads of movies that aren't on Netflix or Hulu. All told, I'm sure I spend at least $25/month on video content, and I don't mind that. Before I cancelled cable, my bill was closer to $100/month, so it's still much cheaper. If Netflix (or someone else) could get enough of the licensing worked out that I could replace all of it with a single service, I'd be willing to pay a little extra just for the convenience of having it all together. So that puts me around $30/month.

So yeah, ultimately I'd be willing to pay something like $30/month for a service that I could count on to have every movie and TV shows, including new release movies and current seasons on TV shows. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry doesn't want anyone to provide such a service at any price.

Canada (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191281)

Yeah, well try using Netflix Canada, which has about 1/4 of the US content.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191649)

I know La Jetee was on it, as was THX and Blade Runner. Seems Netflix is either doing some rotating, or other contracts expired as well.

Don't blame Netflix, blame content providers. They hold all the reins here. Goes to show though how hard Netflix's position is: streaming services aren't black magic, and streaming abilities without content mean nothing. And since copyright provides a de facto monopoly position.... as said, I don't understand the hate towards netflix when it comes to availability of titles. That's all dependent on content providers.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42192321)

Soylent Green is available on Netflix. So is The Trial, Privilege is on Youtube, Punishment Park was on Netflix because I watched it there, as was THX 1138, Silient Running, Deathrace 2000. Escape from New York...im looking at it on Netflix right now. Blade Runner...really?? The Directors Cut, The Theatrical Version and the Final Cut are all on Netflix as of this second. Thats not to say that the version you actually watch when clicking on watch now, is the correct version.

Basically, you are arguing movies that you should OWN! and if you don't, there are distribution licenses for periods of time that put the movie up for viewing on Netflix but seriously, your taste in movies you argue that should be on Netflix...they are and you really need to own all of those anyway which is why you wont see them on Netflix all of the time. Kind of a weak argument IMHO.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (0)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42192443)

Soylent Green is available on Netflix. So is The Trial, Privilege is on Youtube, Punishment Park was on Netflix because I watched it there, as was THX 1138, Silient Running, Deathrace 2000. Escape from New York...im looking at it on Netflix right now.

You seem to not be able to tell the difference between netflix's DVD service and netflix's streaming service.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189731)

Shhh! Don't tell THEM that!

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (5, Informative)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190191)

Don't jack up rates to pay those Disney people. We'll just move elsewhere

The cellar-dweller lives.

The Disney brand name has been a marketing powerhouse since the 1920s.

Disney and Warner Brothers were the first of the major studios to make the move into television production --- jump-starting the infant ABC television network: Disneyland and Davy Crockett. The Mickey Mouse Club. Zorro.

Disney's move to NBC and full color production was headline news and an enormous driver of sales of color television sets.

Disney was reluctant to move into home video --- but when it did move it came in with all guns blazing. It remains a safe bet that the Disney feature will reach the top ten lists in video sales and rentals through any all distribution channels, no matter how well or how poorly it performed in the theatrical market.

Disney through acqusitions is Marvel Comics.

ESPN. Rocky and Bullwinkle. The Muppets. LucasFilms....

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190953)

I agree 100%. As much as I detest Disney for things like breaking the copyright social-compact by "vaulting" [wikipedia.org] movies to create artificial scarcity and their borg-like absorption of so much of my childhood memories, it is foolish to pretend that they are not a massive commercial success.

We can pray for the company's implosion, but it ain't going to happen any time soon.

Re:Dear Netflix: don't jack up rates (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | about a year and a half ago | (#42192237)

Your post poses an interesting question. Could Disney be positioning themselves for another acquisition? I think that would be great situation for both Netflix and Disney. Not so great for Dreamworks who inked a deal with Netflix last year. Disney has a great track record for acquiring companies and not destroying them.

and marvel (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189287)

disney also owns marvel property rights this is a pretty big move as right now disney houses a large tent of what i enjoy watching

Re:and marvel (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191375)

But Marvel stuff is already on netflix? Personally, I'm hoping this means Studio Ghibli stuff will become available for streaming.

Survival - and growth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189295)

This is huge for Netflix. Disney huge.

Considering how broad Disney's portfolio is now (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189301)

That's a HELL of a lot of content!

WELL THEN HOW MANY PENNIES ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189363)

If I was offered 1 penny on day 1, and double the preceding day's for each of the following days, how many pennies would I receive after 30 days ??

This is NOT a trick question !!

WRONG answers are punishable by someone's DEATH so do not take this lightly or you WILL kill someone !!

Re:WELL THEN HOW MANY PENNIES ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189953)

Uh, 1 + 30 x 2 = 42

42

Re:WELL THEN HOW MANY PENNIES ?? (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191173)

Actually, I think he intended it as an exponential growth function, rather than a linear growth function. Badly worded, though. where day 1 = 1, day 2 = 2, day 3 = 4, day 4 = 8, and so forth.

in other words, f(x) = 2^(x-1), solve for the area under the graph from x=1->30. I'm lazy, however, and will just use wolfram alpha to solve it [wolframalpha.com] .

go to play games (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189367)

I want to say ""Way to go."" on this article. I really enjoyed all the useful information you included in your content. It's engaging and solid data that is obviously researched and well-written. Thank you. http://www.GazoGazoGames.com |
  http://www.MochiGames2.com |
  http://www.kizi2.name | http://www.Mochigames.name

The Live Sports Situation..? (1)

KaLeVR1 (34637) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189385)

Dude the live sports situation is awesome! I am streaming live NBA and NFL games and watching their archives directly from the respective sources. You don't need Fox or ESPN for anything besides college football right now.

Finally! (1)

Liinux (1051016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189417)

Star Wars on Netflix!

What about iTunes (1)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189445)

Interesting they didn't go all in with Apple and put it up on iTunes.

Re:What about iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189801)

Not really.
ATV is not pre-installed on every HDTV and bray player made. Plus many people have a negative impression about apple's pricing.

Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189747)

Netflix = Windows and Mac OS X and i have none of them so i have to keep on pirating movies

Re:Netflix (1)

CoonAss56 (927862) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190391)

You don't have a Blu ray player? Well shit, I guess you lose. Wake up, there is more than one way to watch Netflix than Windows and OS X.

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42190595)

You don't have a Blu ray player?

Or an XBOX 360, PS3, Wii, or Wii U?

Re:Netflix (1)

aclarke (307017) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190883)

Or an American mailing address? Netflix is available in the US, Canada, Latin America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. However, it's streaming-only everywhere except the US. Granted, I imagine their US subscription base dwarfs all the other countries combined at the moment, but putting discs in the mail is an American offering, and is not the general growth area of their business.

Re:Netflix (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191249)

And Netflix will actually run under WINE... install Firefox (or Chrome) for Windows in WINE, and then install Silverlight in WINE, and it does work. :)

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42191447)

Friends do not let friends install wine and silverlight

Re:Netflix (1)

nonicknameavailable (1495435) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191511)

people buy blu fail players in usa ?

Re:Netflix (1)

Quila (201335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191181)

And Roku, and Apple TV, and iOS iDevices, and Android, and PS3, XBox 360, Wii, etc... Even many TVs have it built-in.

Re:Netflix (1)

sglewis100 (916818) | about a year and a half ago | (#42192097)

Netflix = Windows and Mac OS X and i have none of them so i have to keep on pirating movies

So get a Windows machine. Or a Mac machine. Or a TV with built in Internet apps. Or a BluRay player with built in Internet apps. Or an Apple TV. Or an Android tablet. Or an iPad. Or just about any smart phone. Or a $50 Roku box. Or a $99 Google TV box. Or a Wii. Or a PS3. Or an Xbox. Or a TiVo. There are other options, but I think the point is clear. It's stupid easy to have Netflix, but if you don't have just about any modern, mainstream connected device, then I guess you'll have to go without.

Sport soon to follow (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year and a half ago | (#42189869)

There were lots of good streams of the Olympic Games, and not very good TV coverage. Sure there were some geographical blocks to things like BBC coverage, but that's a small technicality that would be easily overcome if the need/want was great enough (once TV dies). Sure Netflix might not be able to manage ALL the sports, but each provider might manage their own part.

Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189985)

This is deal that Steve Jobs would love to have signed before his death !

I remember his talk from an AllThingsDigital conference where he stated that the problem with TV is the go-to-market conditions !

Having the Internet as a distribution medium for a behemoth content producer like Disney certainly is going to change some established rules in the market !

Finally there's way for an Apple tv set! Yay ...

Re:Apple (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190981)

Why the hell do people want an Apple TV set? What would that add to the equation? The Apple TV is already here and it's a small low-cost box that you can connect to ANY modern television or computer monitor.

Live sports on mah streams? (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190177)

I can't wait to be able to streammonstering the latest olympic events. #objectchucking #staged Kappa

This is pretty unusual (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190265)

This is pretty radical and suggests a significant management change of philosophy within Disney.

Historically - with VHS, DVD, rentals, DivX, etc - Disney has *always* been a follower of tech advances, not a leader. In fact, it's appeared that they've been DRAGGED to every new advance, in a seeming effort to prevent their IP from moving to media that would allow piracy.

For them to push out to a streaming company is both a huge win for Netflix and for, I daresay, the viewing public.

Old hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42190483)

Dixons group already have a similar deal for their Knowhow Movies service in the UK. Other than its already in effect.

2016? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42190503)

Why's it taking them FOUR years? With how fast tech moves Netflix could be out of business by then.

That makes corporate IT look fast by comparison.

Re:2016? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190643)

..because they have contracts with other providers extending to 2016.

Is streaming really all that rosy? (1)

theascension (2784697) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190845)

I'm always surprised at the positive comments on netflix here on slashdot. It's a drmd format and you're totally at the whim of netflix on whether content is removed/changed. Personally I'm quite happy we have physical discs so there's a backup of say.. star wars the unspecial edition on laserdisc somewhere out there still. What about the future archival of culture if everything becomes streaming/on demand and we're totally slave to our masters?

Re:Is streaming really all that rosy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42192181)

I don't get the positive attitude towards Netflix either. Fuck streaming. I want DRM-free files to download.

DRM-free downloads is the standard with music. I don't see why it can't happen with movies and ebooks as well.

for the record (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191035)

Just in case you didn't know, Netflix used to carry Starz in its entirety like a year ago. Then content providers threw a big fit, saying they aren't allowed to sub-lease their content or whatever and that clearly that was 2 things for the price of one and forced them to break off.

Nightmare Before Christmas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42191183)

On the Netflix blog, they promised The Nightmare Before Christmas would be available for streaming starting last night. Sure enough it was (I checked mid afternoon and it wasn't yet), with subtitles (in english), and if you ask me the quality of the streaming was some of the highest I've seen from Netflix.

This will be a boon for Netflix, and a real kick in the pants to Starz. I love the turnabout. Starz wanted to jack the rates so high that Netflix does an endrun around them and gets Disney exclusively. Its perfect! Stocks of Starz fell on the news, while Netflix went up like 14%.

Apple (or) Samsung to buy Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42191687)

How long until this actually happens.

Broadcast networks wouldn't go broadband, so Apple buys broadband company with contracts and original content production.

Even as a stunt it would shake things up a bit. Eddie Que could run Netflix and compromise more and more studio relationships until the studios either tried to set up their own direct to consumer market or the Broadcasters got nervous and setup their own download networks. They might even buy "peering" companies to set up local hotspots that wormhole traffic in and out of the Internet between major metropolitan markets and route around the rural areas of the Internet where QoS doesn't work.

I would think the Broadcasters would be pushing and lobbying Congress to ban net neutrality as "unfair" to the Studios and themselves.. or pushing for a Tax on network downloads as a national security interest kind of thing. They have to have regulatory control over the bit rates by Taxing the system otherwise the markets will run wild on the local country networks and could endanger the population during catastrophic events like Earthquakes or Hurricanes.

no clue on terms of deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42191767)

which calls for a window of exclusivity, nothing more.. could just mean that netflix has a 30 day head start before stuff goes on traditional tv networks.

reserving judgement til more is known but if its online-only for anything longer than 1-2 months we ain't gonna like it... and no, it wont get us to netflix either... we aint chewing up what precious few gb we get every month to watch movies

Not good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42192133)

I want DRM-free files to download.

but disney is already available on netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42192335)

A whole bunch of disney movies especially famous ones are in netflix now so I don't understand why they are stating 2016. Hopefully they will get all the star war movies onto netflix soon, I don't think they can squeeze anymore $$ out of the franchise.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...