Beta
×

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!

Online Streaming As Profitable As TV, Disc Sales By Charging Just a $15 Flat Fee

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

Businesses 160

Lucas123 writes "A new report shows that if movie production houses charged a $15 monthly fee to just 45% of the world's online subscribers, they could rake in just as much cash as they currently do through TV downloads and disc sales. That equates to $29.4 billion. 'Movie producers have little to fear from online distribution in the long term,' the report states. 'It is the distribution part of the movie business that should be worried because online distribution will replace a sizable portion of their current industry.' According to the report's hypothetical model, the $15 fee would offer open access to all movie content — meaning instant online access to all movies that have been ever produced, 'along with new releases as they come out.'"

cancel ×

160 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Piracy kills 55% of sales (4, Interesting)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 8 months ago | (#46057909)

That's the excuse MPAA will use now.

Re:Piracy kills 55% of sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46059427)

Indeed. If the aim of the game is profit, then of course any businessperson will do anything they can get away with in order to profit.

If you don't like what MPAA/RIAA are doing then you don't like capitalism.

But greed. (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#46057937)

With this, then they can't double dip. They wouldn't be sell the popular ones, while dumping the unpopular ones on netflix for the fees. And there might be incentives other than spectacle and marketing in the development of movies, and we can't have that either.

Re:But greed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058047)

Good news! My country's not on the list [generatorresearch.com] . Pay-up dick-holes! lol

Re:But greed. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058433)

How about how no one will both making high quality content if there's no monetary incentive for it? It's all just covered under the 15/mo income rate. Business will naturally maximize profit and all movies will just be SyFy-quality at best within five years.

Re:But greed. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058581)

easy, just make them compete for piece of that $15/month amongst themselves

Re:But greed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058623)

and while we're at it let's make comcast compete with at&t to provide faster internet

Re:But greed. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 months ago | (#46059243)

Seemed to work this way for the cable companies. Since there's only 1 cable provider in most places, it doesn't matter what quality of programming the offer as long as people see it as better than over the air service. But now there's new options available like NetFlix and Hulu, and the cable companies are actually starting to see quite a few customers leave.

SyFy - or Netflix?? (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#46059621)

Business will naturally maximize profit and all movies will just be SyFy-quality at best within five years.

The counter-argument to your point is that with just a flat fee, Netflix has managed to make a number of TV shows that are better than 95% of TV that exists today.

It's not like you would not still wish to make something with some quality, because there are still auxiliary sales from things like BluRay sets or merchandise that only come from enjoyable shows.

Re:But greed. (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 8 months ago | (#46059237)

Yes, they WOULD double-dip. This would just add another step at the end of the movie release process. movie, pay-per-view, dvd/bray sales, then netflex.

Retire from sailing the Bay in search of booty. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46057967)

They do this and I'll stop pirating!

Re:Retire from sailing the Bay in search of booty. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058169)

They do this and I'll stop pirating!
 
That's what you said when you complained about the price. The price dropped. You still pirated because you said it had DRM.
The DRM was removed. You still pirated because you said that the quality wasn't good enough.
The quality was raised. You still pirated because you didn't like the delivery method/you thought it was a moral battle against the RIAA/Copyright is teh EviLZZzz!!!/The software wasn't available for your Commodore 64.
 
Face facts, you're never going to stop pirating and the **IA is never going to stop pushing back. The crybabies on Slashdot move the goalposts every time the model improves itself. To top it off the asshats here act like they're entitled to what others produce with talk about how the producers are crybabies for not giving everything away for free.
 
Make your own content or go to jail, that's how I feel about it anymore. I hope they do lock you jerks up.

Re:Retire from sailing the Bay in search of booty. (3, Informative)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about 8 months ago | (#46058263)

Erm, bit of a problem there. First, DRM was never removed. Second, streaming is still only available at shit quality. Third, prices haven't dropped on any service that even looks like it might in the future become useful.

Re:Retire from sailing the Bay in search of booty. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058339)

No. I'm not talking about steaming music, I'm talking about you people who whined about the iTunes model and everything you asked for was given and you're still pirating. If this wasn't true the Beatles wouldn't be the most pirated band in the world.
 
So you're a liar.

Re:Retire from sailing the Bay in search of booty. (2)

Kremmy (793693) | about 8 months ago | (#46058597)

Hey now, if you're going to go WORLD on us here you have to make room for the fact that the rights organizations totally fuck off when it comes to reasonably handling international licensing. They have no choice out there but to pirate.

Re:Retire from sailing the Bay in search of booty. (4, Insightful)

bjwest (14070) | about 8 months ago | (#46058665)

I run Linux. Tell me again about that iTunes model giving me what I want.

Re:Retire from sailing the Bay in search of booty. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 months ago | (#46059341)

Exactly, and 99 cents (or 129 cents) a song, or $13 an album wasn't really what I was ever looking for. Digital distribution should not be the same price as buying a physical CD. I'm actually much more partial to the subscription services simply because you can get so much more for less money. For $10 or less a month I can get access to thousands of albums. Spending the same amount at iTunes, getting 10 songs a month, even if I bought music for 100 years, I'd still only end up with 12000 songs, which is less than what's available on subscription services, and only 600 songs from the last 5 years at any one point, so getting all the "new" music would never happen.

Go to another country (1)

nobuddy (952985) | about 8 months ago | (#46059975)

Go to China, Indonesia, a middle eastern country, eastern European country. Now try to get that iTunes DRM free download.

Whoops, your whole fucking position just imploded under the weight of 5 billion people who your scenario ignores.

Re:Retire from sailing the Bay in search of booty. (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 8 months ago | (#46058775)

You still pirated because you said it had DRM.
The DRM was removed.

WTF? When was DRM removed?

Music on iTunes (1, Insightful)

nobuddy (952985) | about 8 months ago | (#46059995)

this MPAA shill likes to harp on iTunes DRM free options, no matter how broken the argument is, or even irrelevant to the discussion.

Re:Retire from sailing the Bay in search of booty. (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#46059207)

Pirating is a pain in the ass.

I download the movie and its a DVD screener or cam...
I download the movie and its got hardcoded subtitles...
I download the movie and it has NO subtitles but have the people in the movie are speaking Russian...
I download the movie and get an annoying email that I now have to delete...
My ISP feels justified in throttling me because what I'm using my bandwidth for could potentially be piracy...

I'd pay $15/month to rid myself of those annoyences. But the industry has to give me what I get with piracy for free.
1. I can get any movie I want, from any point in time.
2. The video doesn't have 30min of previews before it starts.
3. The video will play anywhere. No silverlight BS
4. The movie is available soon after it leaves theaters... not years later... and no location locks.
5. I can save the movie to disc and do not have to stream it during peak times just because they're terrified that I might make a copy of it.

Of course, everything above they see as revenue generating so it'll never happen. They don't want to use the internet to make as much money as they are making now... they want to use the internet to make ALL the money. As illogical as it seems, declining profits are just as bad as bankruptcy to them. They just keep throwing the ball long hoping someone catches it. All this nonsense about working your way down the field and first downs isn't something they want to think about.

That's not going to happen (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#46057981)

the $15 fee would offer open access to all movie content — meaning instant online access to all movies that have been ever produced, 'along with new releases as they come out

That's not going to happen

Re:That's not going to happen (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46058211)

the $15 fee would offer open access to all movie content — meaning instant online access to all movies that have been ever produced, 'along with new releases as they come out

That's not going to happen

Which is too bad, because a guy like me, who doesn't care enough about movies to pay $30/visit to see them in the theater nor pay $30 to buy the BluRay, would happily pay $15/mo for instant access to, essentially, every movie ever made.

Oh, well, I guess the studios don't want my money.

Re:That's not going to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46059299)

It would be a $15 fee to each separate studio, not to all of them. FOX isn't going to profit share with Paramount or Warner Bros just as they won't with FOX. And you won't get "everything ever made," at least not for a long time. You will get what the studios have available and deem worthy to stream. The studios would have to build the infrastructure to support this, as well as digitizing their catalogs to fit this. And keep in mind you'd probably would be getting the film sans extras and commentary tracks, because the studios don't give a shit about adding that stuff if it's not going to entice you to spend $30 on a special edition hard copy.

It would be a fucking fiasco for quite some time.

Re:That's not going to happen (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 8 months ago | (#46059419)

Give it 20 years and there will be only ONE.

$15?

$1500 - Take it or Gitmo

Re:That's not going to happen (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 8 months ago | (#46058373)

How would it even work? Some kind of scam like the current pay-to-join rights groups that only deal with mainstream record labels?

Re:That's not going to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058745)

Compulsory licensing should be a part of US copyright laws. If you want the government to stand behind your exclusive right of distribution, you have to agree to that the work will be distributed. If you do not distribute it, others will be free to do so.

Re:That's not going to happen (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#46058869)

It's still useful data for responding to the movie industry's absurd statements.

Movie industry: "We can't make a profit with streaming! Titanic! Movie magic! Actors will starve!"
Response: "Yes you can. For a flat rate of $15, let alone whatever you WILL charge. And that's even if you DON'T charge premiums, which you fucking will."
Movie industry: "But PIRACY IS GOING TO DESTROY ENTERTAINMENT FOREVER"
Response: "NO."

Quality? (4, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 8 months ago | (#46057985)

If movie producers got a flat, monthly paycheque, there would be zero incentive to make *good* movies.

Re:Quality? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058045)

Your statement implies the current system produces anything of quality.

Re:Quality? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058401)

Your statement implies that you know something about what a quality movie is.

Re:Quality? (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#46058627)

Uh, what? In recent years, we have The Avengers, Harry Potter, Ender's Game, and Les Miserables; those might not meet your criteria of 'perfect movie,' but they have a lot of good qualities and were enjoyable.

Re:Quality? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 8 months ago | (#46059607)

Not even accounting for different tastes, 90% of what is produced is crap, and 90% of that remaining is generally transitory. This has been true since we were able to record music.

For the most part you can build a really good movie list simply by taking the BEST 1-2 movies produced each year. Same deal with songs.

Re:Quality? (1)

jddeluxe (965655) | about 8 months ago | (#46059787)

All your examples would be in my category of "crap" I wouldn't bother to stream for free from Netflix...

Re:Quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46059953)

You don't enjoy life, do you?

Re:Quality? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#46060107)

See? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's crap.
Most likely the movies you would stream from Netflix actually are crap......

Re:Quality? (1)

rjstanford (69735) | about 8 months ago | (#46060145)

Most of everything we consume is considered "crap" by someone. Do you cook gourmet meals? Watch only the best movies? Enjoy great music (opera! No, classical! No, whatever...). How about your car - is it a high-touch work of art or do you do just fine with a "transportation appliance" that you probably see for more hours per week than you watch movies? Are your clothes bespoke or off the rack?

Sure, in a very few areas of their lives most people have different (possibly better, but at least different) tastes. Deriding the mainstream in any one area only exposes the hypocrisy in all other areas.

Re:Quality? (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 8 months ago | (#46058079)

Presumably the movies that got requested more would receive a larger chunk of the pie.

Re:Quality? (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46058239)

If movie producers got a flat, monthly paycheque, there would be zero incentive to make *good* movies.

Right? I mean, what crazy person would think that the exact same model that pretty much every productive human in the nation lives by would work for the denizens of Hollyweird?

Re:Quality? (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 8 months ago | (#46058959)

What world do you live in that everyone lives by that model?

Re:Quality? (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46058325)

if its anything like spotify they get paid based on how many people saw the movie

but then you can game it like app store rankings of paying kids to watch the movie

Re:Quality? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46058553)

Why would producers get a flat paycheck? Production houses might, but they would still have incentive to keep their catalog improving so they could keep the subscription price up - people won't pay as much for a subscription that only gets your reruns and drivel.

Individual producers, actors, etc. could still be paid according to arbitrary and convoluted contracts having little bearing on the quality or profitability of their work, just as they are today.

Re:Quality? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 8 months ago | (#46058881)

people won't pay as much for a subscription that only gets your reruns and drivel.

the fact that cable TV is a major industry has determined that is a lie.

Re:Quality? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46060067)

Note the "as much". Would you be willing to pay *more* for cable if there was consistently something new and interesting worth watching? (Or alternately would you consider signing up for cable in the first place?)

Cable is also infected with bundling - if you paid for only those stations you actually want to watch then the individual station producers would have far more incentive to carry things things worth watching instead of carrying so much "filler". If you paid by the individual show or episode then the effect would be even stronger.

Speaking for myself I'm seriously considering signing up for netflix streaming for just that reason: I value TV/movies quite little and generally refuse to pay for them, even by watching commercials, unless I'm quite bored or the content is especially good. But knowing that any time I tune in there will be an ocean of quality commercial-free content just waiting to start... well that's some value there.

Re:Quality? (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 months ago | (#46059537)

That assumes there's no money to be made elsewhere. A good movie doesn't just bring in money from ticket sales, there's tons of other advantages, like T-shirts, toys, and other merchandise. You could still sell premium disc versions with directors comments and extra footage, while offering the basic movie on the subscription service. People would still pay to see the movie on the big screen, even with the movie available at home on their TV. They could basically have a bit of both, and probably come close to doubling their profits.

Never stops there (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058013)

So you're saying there's a way they can make even more money than they do now? $15 a month is laughably optimistic.

Re:Never stops there (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 8 months ago | (#46058445)

Especially if that's a fee to one movie studio. How many major studios are there? It's kind of a big business.

The Revenue Substitution Principle. (3, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | about 8 months ago | (#46058033)

Out of curiosity, I looked into how much revenue a top rated network sitcom earns for a single broadcast. That amount was equal to how much revenue would have been generated by 1/10th of their viewing audience paying for the SD version of the episode on Amazon or iTunes.

Re:The Revenue Substitution Principle. (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46058347)

sitcoms make money on syndication
the itunes and are like dvd sales revenue

the cost to make a sitcom is so high you take a loss on the original airing only to syndicate it to the crap channels on cable for people to watch it when they have nothing to do. this has been the strategy for decades

Re:The Revenue Substitution Principle. (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 months ago | (#46059635)

Yeah, but I doubt most people would pay $1 an episode. You have to get them on a subscription package, because at the end of the day, once you start asking them for money every time they want to watch a show, they'll opt to not watch it at all. They're only watching it because their cable bill is a sunk cost, and your show happens to be the best thing on. If they now have to choose paying you $1 to watch the show, and spending $0, and watching some other show, or just watching stuff on Youtube, the vast majority of people will just choose to not spend the $1.

Ridiculous (4, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 8 months ago | (#46058063)

Are people in China going to agree to this? 45% of the entire world's internet subscriber base strikes me as absurd.

Sure if Photoshop sold for $3 to every single person who owns a PC they would make way more money than if they sold their software for several hundred dollars. But it's not going to happen.

Re:Ridiculous (4, Funny)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about 8 months ago | (#46058163)

Are people in China going to agree to this? 45% of the entire world's internet subscriber base strikes me as absurd.

Sure if Photoshop sold for $3 to every single person who owns a PC they would make way more money than if they sold their software for several hundred dollars. But it's not going to happen.

for $3 I'd pay $5 a copy and pass out legal copies to everyone I meet. I would do it so hard. I might spend hundreds of dollars making sure everyone I've ever met has Photoshop. It wouldn't even make sense but I'd do it.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058353)

" $3 to every single person who owns a PC" Sorry, that business model was patented by Microsoft.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

stabiesoft (733417) | about 8 months ago | (#46058185)

Interesting point, particularly if that 45% includes countries like India/china where much of the population would find 15/mo to be alot of cash.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | about 8 months ago | (#46058767)

The report costs 395 pounds to access, but the article does get slightly more specific:

Forty-five percent of the world's broadband subscribers equates to 348 million people.

I do not know whether this is inserted from ComputerWorld or if it is copied from the report, but I hope that the report gets far more specific than that.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

reikae (80981) | about 8 months ago | (#46059089)

If they were certain to make more money by selling Photoshop for three bucks, why wouldn't they do it? It seems illogical, so I guess the case is that it's unlikely they'd make more money that way.

(I'm not an economist, and this isn't economical advice.)

Shut Up and Take My Money! (4, Informative)

pr0t0 (216378) | about 8 months ago | (#46058113)

I would gladly pay $15 per month to access all movie content. I don't think I know a single person that wouldn't pay that. It's considerably more than I pay to production houses right now. My only movie expense currently is Netflix. $8/mo and production companies have to split that with Netflix.

Re:Shut Up and Take My Money! (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 8 months ago | (#46058221)

If it includes all TV and runs on all platforms (including Linux), I would definitely subscribe. Heck, I already pay more than that when you combine Netflix, Hulu, and (to a much lesser degree) Amazon Prime. I rarely watch movies. The few I am interested in I tend to go to the threater for.

Re:Shut Up and Take My Money! (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 8 months ago | (#46058509)

No doubt! That's like buying a DVD / BD once a month. Most people don't do that. Now add in how expensive a Cable TV / Sat subscription costs, and $15 bucks a month is a drop in the bucket.

I can only speak for myself, but I find in my -limited- spare time watching TV going towards two genres. Movies, and documentaries. News I can get online, and I prefer to binge watch TV series. So if Netflix can offer all this for $15 a month, and I pay my cable provider $50 a month for decent bandwidth, that equals $65 of primeTV watching experience on my time and schedule.

But but, My GOD!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058119)

Something like that would crush piracy!

Those bastards!

Can't Truss It (5, Insightful)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about 8 months ago | (#46058147)

for $15/mo I would pay but I want EVERYTHING. ANYTIME. ANYWHERE. For Decades. they won't give me that. They'll drop some shows, they'll only last for a while. they'll block it in Canada offer different choices in Europe. It won't work in Trinidad. And without all that I'm not paying.

Re:Can't Truss It (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#46058653)

It won't work in Trinidad.

Do you often watch movies in Trinidad?

Re:Can't Truss It (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about 8 months ago | (#46058903)

for $15/mo I would pay but I want EVERYTHING. ANYTIME. ANYWHERE. For Decades.

they won't give me that. They'll drop some shows, they'll only last for a while. they'll block it in Canada offer different choices in Europe. It won't work in Trinidad. And without all that I'm not paying.

And that's why the best way to combat torrents is to join them.

If they offered their own competing torrents for clean, guaranteed-quality, DRM-free digital copies at a nominal charge, well, people would be all over that. I haven't checked lately, but last I heard Apple was doing pretty well with their TV show revenues, and that's for a DRM-riddled file that only works on their proprietary platforms...imagine how many more people would be interested in getting a copy that they could play on whatever they like? Could give to their friends if they wanted? Could re-size and re-format for any device, now and inthe future? Not *everyone* is on the Apple ecosystem, much as they would like them to be, and while we know they love their walled garden, letting the music escape to the outside world didn't seem to hurt them much...

No, the production companies should focus on making their content as accessible as possible, as easy as possible, for a minimal charge. If it's accessible, convenient and inexpensive enough, I predict that user buy-in would be epic.

Not going to happen (4, Informative)

Dan East (318230) | about 8 months ago | (#46058151)

"Online subscribers" is defined by the article as everyone in the world with Broadband, and 45% of them are the 348 million broadband customers who would have to pay $15 annually to watch movies. Here's the problem. Of those 773 million people, 174 million are Chinese, which are 22% of the broadband users. I was just reading an article how China has not even been releasing Box Office revenue from foreign films showing at theaters. I don't think there's much chance of milking any considerable amount of money through video streaming out of that country at this point in time.

I think any studies like this can only realistically look at US and similar western broadband markets as potential customers for video streaming service, as opposed to this study which includes every single broadband customer on the planet.

Mod parent up! (1)

MikeTheGreat (34142) | about 8 months ago | (#46058237)

"online subscribers" was exactly the weasel-word the needed defining, and parent did an awesome job of patching up the summary!

Re:Not going to happen (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46059371)

773 million minus 174 million is 599 million.

45% of 559 million is 269.55 million

At $15 a pop, that's $4,043,250,000.

Not $29 billion, but still a sizable amount.

Pirate Bay monthly subscription fee is now $19.99 (1, Interesting)

Peter Simpson (112887) | about 8 months ago | (#46058153)

$5 for the owners of Pirate Bay, $15 for the media companies to split.

My check for this month's in the mail. Now, go away, **AA, and leave me alone.

Re:Pirate Bay monthly subscription fee is now $19. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058615)

But I thought bittorrents were for the legal distribution of Linux binaries?

Re:Pirate Bay monthly subscription fee is now $19. (1)

Peter Simpson (112887) | about 8 months ago | (#46059219)

Yeah, sorry, I got carried away with what *could* be. Seriously, though, what's wrong with this? Share all you want for $20/month. No prosecutions, because all the studios/publishers/artists get their cut from the subscription fee.

Pirate Bay manages the site, keeps the books and distributes the shares to the various companies on the basis of the proportion their properties make up out of the total downloads. The companies give up the hassle of distributing DVDs and/or running a subscription service, but get fairly compensated. Pirate Bay operators collect a bit to support the operation.

Holy Useless Numbers, Batman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058187)

A new report shows that if movie production houses charged a $15 monthly fee to just 45% of the world's online subscribers, they could rake in just as much cash as they currently do through TV downloads and disc sales. That equates to $29.4 billion.

The only issue is that you would have to be a moron, as a consumer, to pay that kind of money!

$15 20th Century Fox
$15 Paramount Pictures
$15 Lionsgate
$15 Weinstein
$15 Sony Pictures Entertainment
$15 Universal Studios
$15 Walt Disney
$15 Warner Bros. Entertainment
$15 Bona Films Group (China)
$15 Shochiku (Japan)
$15 Reliance Entertainment (India)
$15 Dharma Productions (India)
=====
$180/month

That's more that cable, internet service, and Netflix combined! Why on Earth would I want to do that. This is the exact reason that I have zero interest in the a la carte fantasy that the freetards claim will make everything so great and cheap. It WILL cost you more than you already pay and everyone agrees that today's rates re extortion.

Re:Holy Useless Numbers, Batman! (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 8 months ago | (#46058293)

How can it be extortion? It's not like you will die if you don't watch movies and TV series.

Re:Holy Useless Numbers, Batman! (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 8 months ago | (#46058377)

But it's social death NOT to be up on the latest antics of Sherlock Zombie or Downtown Baby.

You Don't KNow Me. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058631)

How can it be extortion? It's not like you will die if you don't watch movies and TV series.

You don't know me! If I don't watch the new Hunger Games movie I will literally die! I had a friend literally die from not watching it.

OMFG! You are such an insensitive clod!!!!11!

Data charges (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 8 months ago | (#46058247)

Thats OK if you have a (truly) unlimited internet.
If something like this happened, every ISP would have data caps/overcharges, and the price would go up for those that already do

we already have this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058273)

it's called usenet. You can get an monthly unlimited account for around $15.

The /. post and the original post vary slightly (2)

LordMael (782478) | about 8 months ago | (#46058311)

the ./ post says "...if movie production houses charged a $15 monthly fee..." whereas the original post says "If movie producers charged a $15 monthly fee..." these are possibly two very different costs / month to the user. How would they regulate who gets what? I'm not saying this would actually happen as the production houses would probably never agree on who gets what percentage of your $15 (if it was a flat fee like netflix) and I don't believe they would let this fly as they make more than that from 2 people just going to one movie a month. If I had access to every movie ever made for $15/month I would never have to pay $50+ for me and the wife to go to the movies. Instead I could just take her out to dinner then bring her home to watch anything she wants :)

45% of all internet subscribers? (1)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | about 8 months ago | (#46058387)

Since it's unlikely to get 45% of all internet subscribers, consider a reasonable subset of them such as just America/Europe subscribers. However, if it were $50 and I had access to every movie/TV show ever made, I'd pay that every month, and they would probably only need the America/Europe market. Maybe an extra $20/mo for access to 'new releases' provided they were available on the standard plan after maybe 60 (90?) days. They could even do an extra 'HD' surcharge of $20-$30/mo I used to pay more than that for cable and only got access to whatever the channels were running at that time (maybe time-shifted with a DVR, but still required them to run it at some point while my DVR was recording and still had to deal with commercials). I would definitely pay that for access to everything that I could easily search and select from a list and instantly start watching something.

Netflix Instant is nice and all, but it doesn't have the best selection. I've found most of the streaming sites (Netflix Instant, Hulu Plus, and Amazon Prime), all have about the same stuff. I stream a lot from home, but we always run the risk that the streaming provider could drop a show I like at any point. I think paying a premium to ensure it's always available and that everything ever made is available, is worth it.

Obviously, this is an amazing idea that would revolutionize media content for this new internet age, which means it will never happen.

$15 per month... per service (3, Insightful)

MDMurphy (208495) | about 8 months ago | (#46058413)

If this was deemed viable and studios signed up there'd be no consensus on how to run it. So, there'd be 2 or 3 (or more) different services, all offering you "all" of their movies for $15 a month. But you'd find Disney films only one one service, Marvel superhero movies only on another and so on...

It might be that it were possible to get all the back catalogs of movies all available to stream, but I'd strongly suspect it would take several flat fees to do it.

Re:$15 per month... per service (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 8 months ago | (#46058873)

But Disney acquired Marvell.

In the future, all media is Disney.

Re:$15 per month... per service (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46059167)

they seem to have figured it out with ultraviolet
not perfect but i can buy stuff on target ticket and watch it on Vudu or Cinemanow

same with Hulu and Spotify for TV and music. Hulu is even owned by the content owners themselves

The 55% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058421)

Provided that I can remain part of the 55%, you can go ahead.

I'm in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058437)

My Netflix is $8 / month + CrunchyRoll $7/month + Funimation $50/year. I'd save money.

I'd pay $30 per month for high quality movie / animation content without commercials.

Won't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058479)

They'd be too scared that someone would be able to capture the stream, so they'd want to encumber it with all manner of digital restrictions; to the point no-one would want it.

Re:Won't happen (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46059183)

if they get enough people to pay up there won't be anyone sharing this stuff on p2p
sure someone might do it, but less than now

Please (1)

Kubla Kahhhn! (3042441) | about 8 months ago | (#46058515)

All those ultra-greedy, conflicting interests dividing up one multi-billion dollar pie? That'll be the day.

Free with ads? (4, Interesting)

CCarrot (1562079) | about 8 months ago | (#46058609)

What I can't figure out is why they're not offering two downloadable, DRM-free versions of their content: one that's free-as-in-beer but contains ads, much like peole get from their cable subscriptions now, and a second 'premium' version that is ad-free for a nominal charge. Make both versions easy to access via a hosted torrent site, with value-added tools such as offering the ability to track new episodes of favourite programs, or notify / auto download when available for upcoming titles. Not only would the end-user love it, the distributors could track the popularity of shows/movies even before they're released and negotiate ad revenues accordingly.

Sure, the premium version will get shared around somewhat, but at least the average Joe has a place where they can go to directly support shows/movies they like, and in the end they have a useful commodity that they can actually say they own: can back up as often as they like, play on any device, can alter it if needed / desired, or can lend to a friend or family member without hassle. I would pay for such an unencumbered file in a heartbeat, if it were reasonably priced (say a buck or two for an episode, up to $5 for a movie...approximately $2 per hour of entertainment sounds about right), and I'd use the free ad-supported versions to review new shows and see if I'd like them...I would easily spend over $15 a month just on the shows I like now :)

The proposed streaming model is great...if your customer has access to reliable, unlimited broadband wherever they might want to watch your content, and is willing to only watch the content on devices that work with your particular streaming protocol. Thing is, with people getting more and more tech savvy, even the theoretical average Joe is starting to realize that they don't have to put up with that crap if they don't want to...

Ewe Boll will like the income (2)

RichMan (8097) | about 8 months ago | (#46058617)

I don't think it is a good idea:
All content ever produced instantly licensed will provide income to a legion of Ewe Boll imitators to produce volumes of work.

I shudder as I glance at the size of $5 bin at Wallmart as it is.

No to streaming (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46058715)

And there's no way they'd allow downloads so this srtream-only scheme prevents most of the US from participating. I live in downtown Seattle and am paying $66.93 per month for less than 1 Mbps. I have a few friends that have 40 Mbps fiber from CenturyLink, but they're the exception. Also, Comcast doesn't cover all of the city and in a lot of places where you can get TV service, you still can't get cable Internet because of problems with the return signal. Since Netflix and HBO Go don't work in much of the Seattle area, they're certainly not going to work in podunk USA.

The WWE Network is about to switch to this model. (3, Interesting)

RadiCalMan (1288104) | about 8 months ago | (#46058717)

The World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) is about to switch to this model on February 24th. With their new WWE network, subscribers will have 24/7 HD access to all their past content and pay-per-views for $9.99/month. This includes not only cable but also internet streaming to android and iOS devices. Since most of their monthly pay-per-views have cost between $40 - $50 each, an annual subscription of $120 would easily pay for itself. They are betting that the subscription numbers will more than make up for the current pay-per-view income. It will be interesting to see if their model is successful and if it is, will the studios see the light?

Re:The WWE Network is about to switch to this mode (1)

RadiCalMan (1288104) | about 8 months ago | (#46058939)

Correction, they are going entirely to an internet streaming model, no cable TV access. They're going to have their own little Wrestling Netflix.

Re:The WWE Network is about to switch to this mode (1)

rgbscan (321794) | about 8 months ago | (#46059871)

In addition, you'll have access to the shows that play on cable, as well as terrestrial TV on the same day the networks get them, as opposed to just the back catalog and PPV's. Good deal if you're a fan.

Did you have to use a comma in the headline? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 8 months ago | (#46059127)

Online Streaming As Profitable As TV, Disc Sales By Charging Just a $15 Flat Fee

Could you really not stretch for the extra three characters to put a more readable "and" in there?

You don't even see this in print nowadays.

I've been saying this for a while now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46059241)

They need to completely get rid of their current infrastructure and start anew. They are losing lots of business by not. The whole system is bad. Movie theaters shouldn't cost $50 for 2 tickets to see a movie. Honestly my local theater has $5 Wednesdays with $1 Hotdogs. That's a PERFECT price model. They'd be sold out all the time at that price. Companies that price themselves out of business are just idiots and greedy board members.

I'd also pay for a $25mo pass that let me go see a movie when/where ever. Some may see 5 movies while others may go once or twice. Evens out.

I also think buying movies is a complete waste of time these days. Why spend $20 on a movie when I can just rent it a few times for $1. That is another issue. Buy buy a movie or pay good money to see it in theater only to be bombarded with Ads and Commercials. There should be 2 options: Buy Disc for $20 / Pay $5 at Theater for NO COMMERCIALS OR ADS (trailers are cool) OR pay a cheaper rate or rent for $1 and watch Ads and Commercials before the movie.

Honestly $1 for a movie is perfect. $3 is fine for newer releases. $5 would be perfect for Just out of Theater Movies (month after debut). $5 for actually going to the theater since you are also paying premiums for popcorn and everything else.

Re:I've been saying this for a while now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46059937)

Alternatively the customers could send a stronger signal they want a change by NOT going to the movies and paying $50 for two people to see a movie.

If i am doing something and making a killing doing it why would i change, especially when i have the law on my side as well?

Capitalism does not work that way... (1)

grumpyman (849537) | about 8 months ago | (#46059781)

"they could rake in just as much cash as they currently do through TV downloads and disc sales" - come on... capitalism asks for "getting as much money as possible", not "making the same money as before".

Easiest Solution (1)

RockClimbingFool (692426) | about 8 months ago | (#46059911)

Give me a monthly bill with:

$10 for Unlimited Music Streaming + $15 for Unlimited TV Show Streaming + $20 for Unlimited Movie Streaming = $45 Total

I would never feel the need to pirate and everyone would win. Throw in a $10 surcharge for multiple device / independent streaming.

Can someone please make this work?

HBO (3, Insightful)

XMark3 (2979399) | about 8 months ago | (#46060057)

Seriously, I am just waiting to give HBO all my money as soon as they offer HBO Go without having to sign up for the TV channel. Why doesn't HBO want my money?

They will keep being retards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46060075)

No hope of anything like this happening.

Heck, the current streaming model cannot even supply such seemingly trivial things like 10 year old series. I just finally decided I could give Netflix a go because I wanted to watch some old Stargate SG-1.

Nope. Not on Netflix. W. T. F.

Atlantis is there for our region, no SG-1. I can't be assed to play around with region swapping to access a legit service, so I just went with the easiest route once again... torrent.

All we'd need is one Steam-style service with GLOBAL availability of shows, both as streaming (x$ a month) or as per-season or per episode downloads at good quality and I'd give them my money. There isn't one, at least not for my region. Also regional licensing of content needs to DIE IN A FIRE already. There should be international treaties that would simply say "if you sell content X in some country, you have to offer it in every country where you do any business. Period". But it won't happen because politicians are bought and sold. Heck, I thought EU should have sorted this for Europe, creating a large "region". Nope, doesn't seem to apply to movie and TV show business.

hd film izle (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46060077)

720p Hd bir film sitesi olarak bugüne kadar hiç bir ekilde reklam sunmadk sitemizde ve bu dorultuda hd film izle [morrofilm.com] me sitesi olarak bu istikrarl, kullanc taraf tutumuzu sürdürmek için elimizden gelen tüm özverili çalmay yapyoruz.Sizdende istedimiz tek ey bu film sitemize yeterli destei göstermeniz.

dsada (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46060101)

hd film izle [morrofilm.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?