Netflix doesn’t pay per use, what it does is pay a flat fee for a certain period of time, which varies depending on the film. Big studio films that have been released relatively recently obviously attract more money than an indie documentary, for instance.

I’ve heard different figures quoted. A more notable film would probably get between $10k – $20k for a 6-month window (which is the average licensing time), though I haven’t heard amounts for big budget ones that were recently in theaters (Wall-E comes to mind).

What the Solicitor General was suggesting was that this was an unsuitable case to resolve the issues not because of the facts of the case, but because of the stipulations of the parties limiting the legal theories to be considered. The appellants had previously stipulated that they would allege direct infringement only, not contributory infringement. In turn, the appellees had stipulated that they would not assert a fair use defense.

Interestingly, if you read the SG’s brief carefully, you’ll find that it appears the SG believes that the most important aspect of this was the exclusion of fair use from consideration. The SG brief explicitly suggested that there might exist a fair use defense even for direct infringement. Together with the SG’s expressed comfort with allowing the lower court decision to stand, the brief would seem to clearly suggest that the SG felt the system did not, in fact, infringe copyright.

If you want to talk about slippery slopes, then the slippery slopes to discuss involve things like what happens as storage becomes cheaper and cheaper, so that mass archival by individuals becomes commonly feasible. And what happens as technology advances so that more and more programs can be recorded simultaneously?

These are legitimate questions to raise — and in fact, they are extensions of the slippery slope issues that arise from the original Betamax case. i.e., time-shifting with VCRs started out as something fairly laborious to achieve, and with sharp limitations on how many programs could effectively be recorded and how long they could be saved, in terms of mass consumer behavior. The later advent of the DVR changed that mix considerably, so that significant time-shifting became a mass behavior, impacting content providers very differently.

So there are certainly slippery slope issues worth considering — caused by the natural advancement of technology. And for the record, those slippery slope issues apply equally well to in-home devices as they do to network implementations.

On the other hand, the suggestion that there’s a legal slippery slope, whereby there could be changes to the key facts on which the decision in this case were based, and yet this decision would still apply as a precedent, is simply fallacy.

But I have a feeling that the content providers will beat them to the punch. Within a couple years I wouldn’t be surprised if we have a fee-based Hulu (that’s faster and higher-quality) that you can watch from the couch.

The internet is a blessing and a curse.

HULU has show that people will put up with a minimal amount of focused ads to watch content on demand. As a bonus, the ad rates are more for HULU ads than broadcast.

http://gizmodo.com/5302448/advertising-during-the-simpsons-more-expensive-on-hulu-than-tv

If I were an advertiser selling a new/unique product (like a new video game) I would most certainly use HULU over broadcast.

Cable TV is deathly afraid of becoming irrelevant, which technically they already are. Even though I have two T.V.s in my house, I hardly ever watch “T.V.” on them, I watch mainly movies on them, and I watch “T.V.” on my computer via HULU and other internet services.

I support the shows I like by purchasing the dvd/blu-ray sets, since unless my views are on HULU, I doubt that they get counted, and even then who knows how that factors anymore.

Personally, I don’t really understand how Neilsen can accurately gauge the true metrics of television viewership anymore. The viewing world is fragmented, and will only continue to get more fragmented. Broadcast t.v., although not dead, will certainly be on it’s last leg by 2020.

Furthermore, there is the mobile platform that I’m certain terrifies the old guard of broadcasters. There are currently 30 million+ iPhone/Iphone touch devices in the world. I’m using the iPhone platform as just ONE example of a very popular device that can download and play t.v. and movies (both legally and illegally). The Sony PSP is used primarily as PMP first, and as a game platform second.

There is an app called ORB for the iPhone that lets me stream my entire digital collection from my home computer to my iPhone, giving me unlimited storage. Pretty much that is the future. My best friend’s brand new t.v. has an iPhone/iPod dock for pete’s sake!

In the (very near future) all content will HAVE to be hosted on a server and streamed to multiple devices, with the MOBILE platform taking PRIORITY over all other forms of delivery.

The handwriting is on the wall.

The iPhone has practically CRUSHED AT&T’s 3G network, and that’s with Flash disabled and limited downloads. When the iPhone can operate on a 4G or WiMAX network it will finally be the paradigm shift for the broadcast industry.

I’m just curious as to how much longer physical media will remain relevant? Some new t.v.s now have an SD CARD reader and limited codec playback of divx files. Sony just dropped the UMD player on it’s PSP, and how much longer will the public buy dvds, when their portable devices can hold 35 “dvd quality” movies, and storage will only get cheaper and bigger?

With DVD sales falling precipitously, and theaters filling up with only a few big budget blockbusters, the field of filmmaking will narrow quite substantially if VOD (whether it’s sold to you by a cable, telephone, or Internet company) doesn’t actually pay content creators for their work. Everyone I know in the industry eats food and lives in a house just like everyone else, so this continuing devaluation of what we do will simply drive talent out of the industry and reduce both the quantity and quality of American Cinema overall. As not only a member of the industry, but a Cinema lover as well, I’d find that quite unfortunate.

I recently bought a Roku which attaches to my TV and then also pipes into my internet and lets me play all the “Watch it now” movies on Netflix. I’m only paying $14.95 / month and I seem to be able to watch an unlimited number of films. They don’t have most new films available but the thing works like a charm and the quality is good. Sometimes my wireless isn’t fast enough and I have to attach an actual cable. But I have an HDMI cable into the TV and the quality always looks great.

I actually just watched The Nines through Netflix on demand so maybe you can actually explain a little bit about how the money flows down to the filmmakers. I suspect at this stage consumers are getting a great deal more than their paying for as Netflix tries to get people to adapt the technology.

The problem is that cable providers are fully aware how useless they are as television providers. That eventually, an internet device could emerge that would completely negate their existence. Instead of combating it with a superior service (or embracing their “dumb pipes”), they are just setting up restrictions around the content they control (which is, like, all of it). They’ve settled around not having to take risks.

Hey, Cable Guys, it’s time to sack up.