Anyway, from the title it sounds like this authors solution for Netflix is to sell ad space. If that can increase their revenue without passing more costs to me, I'm totally fine with that. I can think of a much better fix, however: get a ton more online streaming. They had a good story on the radio a while back about how difficult it is for Netflix to acquire the licensing for movies, because they apparently often have to get lots of sub-licences for other copyrighted material, as well (e.g. for songs that are in the films). This is a big challenge, but they need to figure it out. I know I would personally pay probably ~$30/month if I had access to a better catalog. Right now it seems that they never have what I want to watch so I end up settling for something else.
"Get more online streaming" is exactly what they'd like to do, and is exactly the barrel they're being held over. Stupidly, Netflix signed most of their deals (most notably, with Starz/Disney) with a cap on the number of streams they could offer. Netflix then didn't say "hey, get your Pixar while it's fresh! It'll be gone soon!" so instead of creating a buzz and giving Netflix something to bargain with, Disney just yanked a bunch of shit one fine day. Whatever story on the radio you heard, you heard it wrong (or they were wrong). Hustling for content authorization is always the problem of the seller not the buyer. All Netflix needs to do is say "prove to us that you have the rights to sell the internet broadcast rights for all aspects of this film or show in this territory" and they're golden. We tried to license the publishing rights for a song from 1923 and the organization we were negotiating with told us: "Please note that our ownership of the copyright of this composition is 100%
throughout the World, excluding Canada, Spain and the Reversionary
Territories, including 9.375% in Germany, Austria and Switzerland and 50% in
the United States, and you will be required to obtain separate permission
from the publishers of the other shares of this copyright of this
composition as well for its potential use in this film." Trust me. Netflix doesn't deal with that shit. The filmmaker or sales agent does.
1923? WTF. That kind of copyright is just insane bullshit. 1923? Who the hell are they protecting? I remember recently reading that copyright was originally good for 14 years, and then possibly 14 more if the author was alive and wanted to extend the copyright. What a crock. That's why we can't have nice things.
http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/netflix-wrongs-dominate...