Earlier this month, Warner Brothers negotiated a new agreement with Netflix, Redbox, and Blockbuster that prevents customers from renting new titles until 56 days after physical copies hit retail. Now it has been revealed that Netflix subscribers are facing a unique restriction: a waiting period for queue additions. Previously, upcoming WB films could be added to your Netflix list so that they'd be sent out once available. Unfortunately, now you'll have to wait 28 days after release even for that privilege. Presumably WB's thinking is that consumers will grow so impatient seeing their favorite films on store shelves (and not in their trusted Netflix queue) that they'll eventually crack and make a purchase. While it may be shortsighted logic, there's little doubt that the studio sees greater returns through DVD and Blu-ray sales than from the residuals it collects from basement-priced rental services and streaming apps. For its part, Netflix seems to be doing just fine at the moment, though it remains to be seen what sort of impact these lengthy delays may have.
Netflix bows to Warner Brothers, creates four week delay before allowing new releases in your queue

There are 127 Comments. Add yours.
And now I go back to downloading. Good job WB!
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 10:56 PM EST reply Recommend (43) Flag actions
Agreed they have people who are willing to pay for the content and the studios want to screw them. Have they thought maybe there is a reason people pirate…
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:05 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
I blame netflix for being such a pushover.
If another mail-order blu-ray company started up like netflix, except that they buy all their blu-rays retail and so have everything available on release day, I would switch away from netflix in a second. Even if the new company charged 50% higher rates.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:55 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It doesn’t really matter. Netflix can say no and WB will pull all their movies and that would piss people off a lot, or they can say yes and keep all the movies and customers have to deal with an annoying, but not dealbreaking, delay. Netflix wins by agreeing.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 3:30 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
WB cannot stop netflix from buying movies retail, but they could stop streaming. That is why netflix was going to spin off a disc-only company a while back. I was actually in favor of that, but it seems most of their customers were against it so it did not happen.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:59 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It doesn’t work that way. Netflix has to have special agreements with the WB’s of the world to distribute their content. You purchasing a DVD is for your own use only. You can’t invite a bunch of people over to your house and charge them to view the DVD. That is illegal.
In fact a company did exactly what you suggested. They purchased retail DVD’s, placed them in dvd players and streamed them to customers. They were promptly shut down after cease and desist letters from WB, Universal, Paramount, etc. they are called Zediva http://zediva.com/
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 4:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You are simply wrong. It is not illegal to lend a blu-ray or DVD that you purchased. Streaming is another story.
But there is no law against buying a bunch of blu-rays for a business of lending them out. What would the law be? No lending of stuff? Yeah, right.
The problem is netflix is pinching pennies. They get a lower price if they buy discs directly than if they buy them retail.
Posted on Jan 28, 2012 | 12:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They’re pinching pennies so that customer prices don’t go up.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 11:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It is not illegal to lend for free, but it is illegal to rent out without a commercial license. Read the legalize on a DVD.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 7:40 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apparently you didn’t bother to read my post. I didn’t say anything about lending.
Posted on Feb 15, 2012 | 11:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s like they’re just flat out asking people to pirate their products. Unbelievable.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:18 PM EST reply Recommend (18) Flag actions
So that they can sue them and make even more money!
Makes sense!
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 10:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ultra violet?
Ultra Pirate.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 4:44 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That is probably the worst mentality to have and hold against the company. The idea that you deserve to have the product available right when it is released to the consumer justifies your illegal downloading? I completely agree that Warner Bros. is wrong to show bias towards a purchaser over a renter, but it doesn’t make sense to say that their actions justify the illegal distribution of their content.
Yes, it is frustrating and completely stupid given their audience and the ease of access in todays world, but continuing piracy is not going to stop the corporate greed. It will just make it worse.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:45 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
True, but its not our job to stop corporate greed. They need to do that on their own. In the meantime, I’ll do what I need to do in order to see the movies I want, while not paying $20 for a Bluray that I really only want to watch once. I’m not opposed to paying for content, but I am opposed to getting screwed.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:57 PM EST reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
It is our job to stop piracy.
We don’t have to pay the $20 for a BluRay or theatre tickets. We simply wait. We don’t always get what we want, when we want it. That’s not living in the real world.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:00 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Pirates do get what they want when they want it. That’s living in the real world.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:02 AM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
Tell that to Kim Dotcom.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why would I do that? His case has very little to do with the question of digital piracy in general.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:16 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
The question of digital piracy in terms of illegally sharing content over the Internet?
Oh. Okay. They didn’t have any control or knowledge of the user content being uploaded. Let alone any clue as to an explanation of their profit revenue.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
My point is that megaupload was superfluous. Digital piracy is now impossible to stop while leaving the internet in any recognizable form, and the individuals the collective system depends on are, as far as current experience has taught us, an inexaustible resource.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:43 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Which goes back to why I said it is up to us to stop piracy. Content has a price, despite what pirates think. I’m not naive enough to think it will ever go away. It won’t. I also don’t think regulation will stop it.
The deterrence is proven through recent moves like the iTunes store, Netflix, and even Redbox. If it is easy access for the consumer at a competitive price, the need for piracy should drastically decrease. Never gone completely because of the individuals, but deterred nonetheless.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Who is the “us” in your comments? The current market and science demonstrates more and more clearly that piracy is a market competitor to legitimate distribution, but notably not a perfect competitor which is why convenient digital delivery has drastically cut piracy rates. The large content companies are simply loath to admit this to themselves or the world and prefer to seek protection in order to maintain their current level of control over the content they produce. They could obviate the market’s need/desire for the vast majority of piracy (it is unclear if they could do that while maintaining current profit margins) but that is in their control, not mine or that of people who pirate content.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:08 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
The “us” refers to the legitimate consumers of media, like Netflix. You know, the topic of the article.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
In that case, I find your proposition ridiculous sir. Piracy so far has been a net positive on my world as a legitimate consumer of media by balancing the societal bargain with content producers.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:28 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Not only that, but piracy has also pushed the boundaries of technology. Without piracy, there would be no MP3 players. Without piracy, there would be no eBook readers. Without piracy, there would be no streaming video services. Without piracy, it’s very possible that the smartphone would still look like a Palm Pilot. All of these technologies came about because of the files that pirates had been trading for years. In fact, if you look at the profits of companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. you could dare say that piracy has been one of the most important drivers of economic growth that this country has ever seen.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 7:39 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I would argue that innovation has pushed the boundaries of technology. Piracy has been a a developing and constantly adapting action that mostly follows in the footsteps of innovation. Yes, piracy, to a certain extent, has pushed the boundaries of technology; but, I would hardly say it is what pushed Steve Jobs to conceive the idea of the iPhone, or Microsoft the Kinect, etc.
Apple innovated a means of delivering a product to the consumer in an easy, cheap way. Google developed an ad network based upon the browsing and viewing interests of consumers. Both of these companies deserve their fair share of the profits because they developed the technology and infrastructure to deploy this content to the consumer. For that, yes, the media companies have to bend in some sense.
However, piracy is distibuting content to the public in a clearly effective method. BitTorrent wasn’t simply developed for sharing of illegal content. IRC channels weren’t developed for only swapping files. It can even be argued, to a certain point, that file sharing websites were to initially for swapping personal files that individuals owned the rights to be sharing.
Piracy takes technology and adapts to the innovation and infrastructure. Rarely does piracy solely propel the development of technology.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 8:13 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Then we will disagree based on different view points of a world with illegal activity and the definition of a legitimate consumer of media.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 7:58 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
non-commercial filesharing is not illegal everywhere.
I pay for netflix streaming, get amazon video with my prime subscription, and I use Hulu as well as the websites of television networks thatstream content shortly after airing. I also pay for a cable television subscription. All of those except the cable would be unlikely to exist in their current forms if not for piracy.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 8:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This change has nothing to do wtih when you access the product. It has to do with using leverage to add arbitrary friction into a consumer interaction in hopes that it will somehow help a separate area of their business. Regardless of the moral question, these companies should be aware by now that their actions do have an effect on people’s desire to pirate their products.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:00 AM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
I’m in complete agreement with you. The companies obviously put us last. It’s the mindset that piracy will have an effect on the company with which I disagree. Piracy only hurts the consumer in the end.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The comment you originally replied to said nothing about punishing the company. It was a simple statement of the effect this change will have on the behaviour of the original commenter.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How does Piracy hurt the consumer in the end? Am asking for specific examples…
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Is this not a clear example with Warner Bros. feeling the need on their end to compensate for lost profit?
Again, I’m not saying they have proof of lost profit. But, from their perspective I’m assuming piracy is a factor.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sorry let me ask again, CLEAR specific examples leave speculations or maybe, it must have been kinda arguments/examples aside.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:49 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I just provided a clear, specific example.
Here’s another: DRM (FairPlay, UltraViolet)
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s not Piracy that’s greed, google “the witcher 2” and check what those guys did. short version they dropped the DRM because it was making people like me go mad, and sued everyone who stole their game. That’s the answer right there.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Greed developed as a fight against piracy. once again, you as a consumer harmed.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No greed has never been an effect, greed has always been there. Point is my example for CDProjekt is an exception to the rule guess why? They are not am American company. They know that DRM never solves anything they dropped it for the sake of their customers, and sued those who stole their work.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 2:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They’ve been trying to get absolute control for > 100 years. This is simply the latest iteration. It has nothing to do with lost profit (If there is such a thing at all; they have no right or expectation to any money until it is in their pocket), it has to do with maximising their profit.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 8:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
actually studies show that compinies like Warner Bros. dont loss a profit from pirating since most of there money comes from the first few weeks of a movies release, take avatar for example it was one of the highest grossing movies ever and it was also the most pirated movie on the internet but even the profits from DVD sales were through the roof since most people who would have pirated the movie would have also bought a hard copy to see in 3-D or blu ray, so you see pirating dosent actually cause the movie companies to loss profit if anything i can acutally cause them to get more money.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 9:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Piracy only hurts the consumer in the end.”
This view is naive, at best, and idiotic at worst, when you take pirating games into consideration. Pirating literally only helps the consumer in that market; DRM schemes don’t deter pirates at all but hinder the experience of paying customers. If a game I want comes out with something like SecuROM, or requires a constant internet connection just to play the game, I’ll pirate instead. If I’m feeling extremely generous, I’ll pay for the game, throw the disc away/delete the download, and then pirate.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 11:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Let me change that. Piracy only hurts the real consumer in the end.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
God knows how many Games for the PC I bought and had to download a crack for them to be able to play them…dude please
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:44 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Play them without the disc or what? Be more specific. You clearly spent the money on them from the beginning.
I’d equate that to the legal right to jailbreak.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:49 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Some games require me to be online the whole time while playing, others have 3 times installs and have to be online to be able to install, others JUST don’t work if I upgrade a part in my PC, that’s not exclusive to games Microsoft Office/ Windows same shit. Every single time I do a clean format for my PC I had to call Microsoft to activate it….
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:53 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sounds more like a Microsoft rights management issue, PUT IN PLACE TO STOP PIRACY. No?
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
lol…dude did you read what I said…. It didn’t stop shit, I had to pirate the copies I purchased to be able to use them.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I didn’t say it effectively stops piracy. I am proving, and you are assisting me, in proving that piracy is hurting the consumer through the overly controlling protection companies are feeling the need to place on their content.
In your previous example, I agree that is the best way to fight piracy! Remove the DRM (which has mostly been done) and use the current legistlation available to take down the individuals who steal the work.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 8:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wK0o61RG9cw
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m assuming you wanted me to watch the piracy-related question of the interview, so I will respond to that section of the video (roughly 3:30):
I think it’s great the developer on the right mentions that a lot of the people who have pirated the game, also bought it.
However, if you notice the last little spill about all the “extras” they are including as incentives for people to buy the game. I would love it if you had some proof that this didn’t impact the cost of the development of the game. Someone has to have been paid for the time it took to create the content, come up with the method of deployment, or whatever the other aspects are involved in the game creation. Also, this affects the re-sale aspect for the original owner (which is a legal right). If I knew more information about games in particular, I would hopefully add more to this discussion.
Moving on to the topic of the article, the focus is clearly on the lack of sales revenue. The is the issue here revolves around the studios not making as much off the films. They are blatantly assuming everyone wants to own a copy forever. This is not the right attitude. Netflix, Redbox, Amazon VOD, and others allow for the consumer to make the choice between owning or simply renting (licensing) while still paying for the content they are consuming. Piracy removes the opportunity for both (a full purchase or a single rental) without the supplier receiving any revenue.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The supplier can’t prove that if people didn’t have piracy they would buy their products. That’s speculation that I didn’t want to get into. Specific example please…
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think it is proof enough that a viewing of any particular piece of content takes away a sale. It’s logical.
A valid argument is that just because it is pirated doesn’t mean someone was willing to pay for it. But, that can’t hold up every time someone watches something illegally. It doesn’t make sense.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How if the person who did the viewing can’t afford that piece of content..? Is that still logical to you?
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 8:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“I think it is proof enough that a viewing of any particular piece of content takes away a sale. It’s logical.”
This is wrong. You’re saying that 100% of piracy is lost sales, when the real figure isn’t anywhere CLOSE to that.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 11:11 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
OK. MPAA rep.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:02 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I take that as an insult.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Take it however you want. All I know you seem to be the only one MAINLY accepting this BS and at the same time addressing almost all the other commenters who are advocating piracy.
I’ve never pirated a movie in my life, but people have the right to protest or make a statement in whatever way they please.
I myself will be putting my Netflix account on hold indefinitely or until they have movies on DVD I can rental; their streaming service suck big time. No fees for them during this period.
Like one here said, We are paying Netflix more for less.
I think protesting with your wallet is a better way than piracy, but that just me. GREEDY businesses only listen when profit are low and consumers outrage is high.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:19 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
If you read carefully, I oppose the “BS” and applaud you for not assuming piracy is the only alternative.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
and if you read my post, I said “…you seem to be the only one
MAINLY accepting this BS…”Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m not even mainly accepting it. There is no other option if they are the ones with the content control.
Yes, the consumer can revolt, but my issue is with piracy being the only alternative for some.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Piracy is not the productive alternative.
I agree (for what it’s worth) that you are spot on with discontinuing service as a proactive response to the company decisions on both ends.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Netflix streaming is awesome, I dunno what you’re talking about.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 11:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is basic economics of supply and demand. You have a product in demand, if you make it available at the right price people will purchase it. However, if not available, gray markets will take over when available. In this case, simple piracy is the gray market. Illegal or not, it’s easily argued that they are driving people to piracy and then blaming them for pirating. They finally have a distribution model that limits piracy and the proceed to try to destroy it to sell plastic discs.
What WB is hoping is that by making you wait, you will be more influenced to purchase the Bluray at full price instead of streaming it at a discount from Netflix.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s not about piracy being justified. It’s about unintended, but nonetheless very real, repercussions.
The studios better get their ish together and realize traditional distribution methods must change because the demand, and how people expect to receive content, has changed. It behooves the studios to work out avenues that are in-line with current technology and people’s desires, rather than trying to eclipse the sun with one hand.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 5:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why?
Just fucking why?
There’s two things I wish that could seriously burn int his world: Hollywood draconian movie policies, and The BCS.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:02 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Oh cool, I hope WB likes their piracy extra-heavy.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:02 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Do these hollywood bigwigs attend their meetings drunk or something? Sites like Netflix are HELPING them, not hurting them. I guess everyone will return to downloading the movies and WB will make zero profit. Great descision guys!
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:07 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
They don’t have a choice, if they said no. They will have no content from WBs…
Next time they say they have less content, then you leave them.
What would have done differently ?
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:48 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sadly, Netflix should just have grown a pair and acted like Apple!
“Here are our terms WB, if you dont like it, then your content is no longer on one of the largest digital distribution platforms, you will have access to less consumers, and you will end up being pirated more. When you change your mind you can come back and join all your competitors with us.”
Apart from anything WB are poo! They make hardly any decent movies and their entire business model for the last decade has pretty much been to ride the coattails of an annual Harry Potter – which has now run dry!
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 7:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
cause Netflix wasn’t slow enough?
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:08 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I guess if the only 2 choices in the world were Netflix or DVDs this plan could work.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:09 PM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
Well stated.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:31 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Higher Price and Less service. That’s a winning combination
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:10 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
ridiculously stupid
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:12 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but… I miss Blockbuster. :/
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I agree, the studios are stupid to not embrace distribution channels like Netflix. To the folks above just directly advocating piracy, however, please realize you’re also the studio’s justification.
You can’t kill piracy completely, but backing up their assertions that the internet is just full of thieves doesn’t help matters.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:14 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You see, there’s a point in the supply and demand curve that has appeared since the advent of the internet where if the supply is reduced, artificially or otherwise, people will just steal to try to bring the curve back into place. Not only is WB hurting consumers with this move, but they’re hurting themselves.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:22 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Hardly. The phenomenon known as the “Black Market” arises whenever a product begins to reach diminishing returns with respect to the supply-demand curve. It just so happens that the movie industry has recently seen the largest Black Market due to poor content, which is therefore immediately worth less in the mind of the customer.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I see the logic in your economics Someguyperson, but it’s still stealing, and saying that WB’s policy justifies piracy is crazy.
It makes piracy much more convenient. WB’s move doesn’t make you steal, that’s an independent decision to steal someone else’s creative work.
Just own it, is all.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Re: the end there, not meant directly at you, SGP.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I would argue that piracy is not more convienent. Convienent to me is going to Redbox or Netflix and having instant access to a movie. Not waiting for the download. Not worrying about getting caught. Not worrying about the quality.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Another large aspect of the process for me is knowing that I am paying for the content and the owners are getting compensated. Not saying I specifically want Warner Bros. or some other studio getting the money. I want the talent and creative minds the continue having the funds needed to create content. How much of that actually goes to them, I don’t know. But, I end a movie knowing I havent hurt anyone.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s part of what I found so interesting about Louis C.K. skipping an unnamed major internet company (Netflix) and decide to produce and distribute his latest special himself.
Didn’t he end up raking in a couple million? Etsy does it with art/antiques/dustballs etc. on a mass scale, why can’t a media company make this happen with TV shows or music? I’ll pay content creators all the way to the bank.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Exactly! Most authors are self-publishing now and making more money. Other great media examples: TWiT and Revision3.
Even with Spotify, I don’t mind paying a monthly fee. I think Netflix and Hulu prove that for part of the movie and TV industry.
The key is to not restrict and make it harder on the consumer who is willing to pay already.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:49 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Copyright infringement is NOT stealing. It’s piracy, which is different.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 11:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That doesn’t mean it’s justifiable to illegally download. I think it’s a little extreme to say since the beginning of the Internet, as well. Yes, there will always be a black market (both physical and digital). However, I think it is more beneficial to both the consumer and supplier to transact in a meaningful way. I would say meaningful in this situation is for Warner Bros. to not devalue the renter over the buyer. It is illogical to think that every release is worthy of a purchase by every consumer. I think most would agree it is fewer and far between in terms of what is actually worth keeping in terms of new content being released.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:31 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Thanks for enabling piracy, Warner Bros.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:17 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So let’s get this straight. WB wants people to buy their movies instead of renting them because they make more money this way. Instead, they force the customer who rents to wait longer in hopes that they will want to see the movie so bad they will plop down the $20 for DVD or $30 for the Blu-Ray instead.
WB seems to be stuck in the dark ages. Maybe the VHS copies of the movie will be available much sooner than the 56 days. I’ll run down to Circuit City in the morning and see what they have in stock.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:32 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I haven’t purchased a movie in years, and this is not going to change that. These media companies need to change they’re business models to reflect the times. Physical media is slowly going to end and things like this are speeding up the process.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:32 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Seems like WB may be sliding towards the “event horizon” the way Blockbuster did. Heave Ho everybody!
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:44 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
If you are a subscriber and pay for the movies, why would you want to shell out extra bucks for DVD when all the advantages are gone in a month? Get in line Warner, we are already overwhelmed with tons of entertainment.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 11:49 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
People like me want to see the movie first before buying it. Making me wait longer means the movie will already be on cable and by then I will not want to buy the damn thing.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Totally agreed. I like to rent a movie first before I buy it. I see a DVD in the store, think about seeing if it’s any good, and will check the redbox on the way out of the store. It’s rarely there, so I forget about it and watch whatever is on Netflix.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:37 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
There is not one legit study that shows that piracy has a financial impact the size that justifies the MPAA and RIAA’s actions. So stop defending them. Stop hating pirates. It’s human nature to take instead of buying. HUMAN NATURE. And for the few that like to say “Not me”. Well, society’s are defined by the majority, not the exceptions.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The problem is not human nature. The problem is human morals. Don’t confuse the two.
Please provide one legit study where it is proven where stealing is human nature.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You classify piracy as stealing. Others (notably pirates, whose morals are what matter when considering that question) do not.
As far as human nature, see Piaget and Kohlberg
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 12:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What would “pirates” classify piracy as? Your statement sounds like classic Robin Hood syndrome.
I’m not going to spend the time on Google to further my philosophical ideas. I admit I shouldn’t have commented on the human nature aspect. I don’t know enough.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
In most cases digital piracy is differentiated from the stealing of physical goods by the fact that digital piracy does not deprive anyone of possession of the goods. As such most of the legal principles traditionally used in dealing with the physical world do not apply. This is one of the fundamental questions the world has to come to terms with to function in the internet age, whichever way society decides to go on the question.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:16 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
quick reply #2, piaget and kohlberg are the basis for some of the psych 101 discussions on human development and morals, generally applicable and well worth a wikipedia read (and to be fair, it is much more nuanced than “theft is human nature” but that also gets into what stage of society you consider human nature).
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I opted for Sociology 101, haha. Not kidding.
It’s not logical to think there isn’t a physical, real world consequence to piracy. I completely agree there aren’t studies showing an economic loss on paper, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Soc 101, also very valuable in internet debates.
In the absence of any reliable (or perhaps conclusive would be a more appropriate term) evidence one way or the other, why should we assume that piracy is harmful rather than beneficial?
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Piracy is inhibiting the content owners from making the full potential return on their product.
Am I saying there will ever be a time they do? No. The problem comes in recognizing and understanding or developing a solution that meets the needs of where we are technologically today.
There is a huge increase in content, therefore there is less money to be made.
Unfortunately, this discussion is quickly going beyond the scope of where I care to take it.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Piracy is inhibiting the content owners from making the full potential return on their product.”
In the absence of any evidence I do not grant your premise. And there is no societal imperative to maximize their profits. Only to provide enough incentive for more content to be produced; after that goal is accomplished, to wring every bit of value out of their production without any further need to enrich them.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:54 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What would you call what these American companies – film, banking, service — are doing to people in these hard economic times?
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:21 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No one classifies piracy as stealing, except dudes white knighting for Big Content on the internet. Copyright infringement IS NOT STEALING.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 11:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
All the people griping about this please get a grip … it’s not like netflix gets any worth while new releases any ways … you have to wait four more weeks for 2 crap movies … so what.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 1:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Here’s what I don’t get about most people: you are interested in a movie, and interested enough that you are waiting to watch it, but not enough to pay sbything more than the $7.99/month for Netflix. And because if this small change that doesn’t affect when you get to watch the movie, or even previous changes like the 28 or 56 day window, that makes it ok to pirate?
I just want to understand people’s apparent feelings of entitlement that states because companies didn’t give you the product you wanted at the time you wanted in the format you wanted, you should get it for free. Move into the next movie if that’s the case.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 2:51 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They are purposefully making my Netflix subscription a less valuable product in the hopes that I will breakdown and either a) pay $6 to watch it on cable VOD over 2 days without any special features or b) pay $20+ to buy it. They want to have their cake and eat it too: hope I rent it on VOD first, then get my money again from buying it or getting rental fees from Netflix.
It’s not that I want it for free, it’s that I want to be able to consume in a way that is convenient for me. Why shouldn’t I be able to get it on Netflix, then, if I like it, be able to buy it without essentially paying for the same content twice?
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 4:50 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Stuff like this proves yet again just how badly the movie (and TV) guys don’t get it. The music guys got it in the end, and so now we have Spotify etc. Until there is a movie and TV equivalent, where people can get whatever they want for a low monthly fee, then piracy will rise and rise.
From my perspective at least I watch so few Hollywood movies I’ll manage just fine. I pretty much live on a diet of French, Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Swedish, and British cinema. Tonight though it’s time for some Norwegian B movie fun with Troll Hunter .
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 3:48 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Recommend for mentioning Troll Hunter!!
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 7:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What the studios never seem to understand is that they can effectively kill piracy by providing widespread easy access. If there were a Netflix that had EVERYTHING for $30/month it would be a waste of time to pirate anything. Sure some people would still hoard drives full of movie files, but the number that would go to the trouble would be statistically insignificant. It would make about as much sense as saving old newspapers. Also those people would really account for zero lost revenue because, they’ll never buy anything anyway.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 5:13 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
My Queue is 100 strong. You have done nothing Warner Bros.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 5:52 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I JUST saw Slumdog Millionaire. on DVD…… I have no problem waiting to rent. Sorry WB, silly tactic won’t work on me….
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 7:21 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If you already waited the 6 months or so to not see it in the theater, what makes them think another two month wait is going to make a difference?
No one is entitled to see these movies, but I don’t get this logic.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 7:58 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Weak sauce. Physical media is dead, they just need to give up.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 8:09 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If it is on the shelves and not on Netflix it will be in my “other” download queue, I only purchase my favorite films as most are not worth a second viewing.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 9:17 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Got to love when people justify stealing to themselves.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 9:34 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Boo. What a ridiculous restriction. Netflix used to be the company that beat the studios at their own game. What happened?
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 10:09 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow, Warner Brothers won’t let me have what’s essentially a wish list for the first 28 days? What’s next, they are going to ask Twitter to block tweets about the movies, unless it involves tweeting that you are heading to a store to purchase a physical copy?
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 10:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is a dumb move that won’t sell any more DVDs or Blurays. At least not to me. I love going to the movies. There are great theaters in my area and I enjoy the theater experience. There are movies that do not inspire me to spend $14.00 for a movie ticket. If I won’t spend $14.00 on the ticket why would I spend $20.00 for a physical copy? I do rent movies on my Xbox and PS3. Making me wait will only result in me loosing interest and spending no money on WB movies at all.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 10:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Whew, for a while there it was getting hard to justify my rampant piracy.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 10:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is just insane. Hollywood has simply LOST THEIR FRIGGIN’ MINDS.
. I don’t know if Hollywood is just pissed over SOPA being killed or what, but they simply cannot wrap their mind around 1 simple fact:
For the most part, people do not want to buy discs anymore ..
More and more people are renting or streaming movies, and this ridiculous bullying of content distributors like Netflix does NOTHING to encourage me to buy a disc. Instead of innovating and developing new, better, or cheaper ways to deliver digital content, they continue to resort to tactics like SOPA and this.
This pisses me off …
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Waiting periods are discriminatory. Basically, Warner Bros is providing early access to their new releases to those with a higher income. Who cares about piracy, the movies will be pirated regardless of the waiting period. This is a much bigger issue than just money, this is about Warner Bros and every other movie studio showing a complete lack of respect for their consumer.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 11:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The less convenient it is to legitimately rent a movie, the more convenient grabbing a torrent seems to be by comparison.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 2:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Presumably WB’s thinking is that consumers will grow so impatient seeing their favorite films on store shelves (and not in their trusted Netflix queue) that they’ll eventually crack and make a purchase”
The amount of retardo juice these studio execs excrete is astounding.
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 | 5:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow, talk about your poor business decisions! So their idea is that in order to increase retail sales, they will prevent customers from renting their products. As we all know, if there is any way to get customers to purchase your product it is to refuse to give them what they want!
Warner Bros, if you want people to buy your movies… make movies that are worth buying. Make movies that people will watch over and over again. Otherwise, make your money selling hundreds of thousands of copies to rental companies.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 9:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.