The primary problem with this move is that it sets a dangerous precedent. What is to stop the other studios from requiring similar contractual delays in releasing their titles? And why is it JUST Netflix that is being pulled into this agreement, why not Blockbuster and Redbox? Are those guys next? And if not, why the singling out of Netflix?
You make a lot of good points, but there are many differences between Netflix, Redbox, and Blockbuster.
Blockbuster has arrangements in place with some studios to offer rentals that are "Blockbuster Exclusives". Which, (or so I was told by one of their store managers), another rental firm would actually have to buy at retail, if they wanted to offer them on the date of release.
While there is much contention about the price that Redbox charges for rentals, taken as a whole, it's actually MORE expensive than either Blockbuster or Netflix under certain conditions. Point being, at the 5 day point, a Netflix and a Blockbuster rental are the same price, after that, charges still accrue with the Redbox rental, but all you'll get is a scolding on the phone from BB's computer. So obviously, if you scurry right back with the Redbox offering, you've saved some money, if you don't, then you didn't .
Blockbuster still offers the "Movie Pass". Which is all you can rent, 30 bucks, 30 days, 2 out at a time, which does present an ethical dilemma to the proud owner, since if you go even once a day and exchange both movies, ((rent by a single day) as the average person does with Redbox)), then that would be sixty movies a month, which would be 50 cents a rental. If you see where I'm going with this. Someone with no moral compass could return a movie in perhaps an hour or so, and claim that it stunk, and replace it, no questions asked, but perhaps some eyebrows raised by the store personnel. I've seen this done on a number occasions. If I miss a new release, I'll ask if anybody did a "burn and return" on the title yet, and from time to time the answer was "yes". I distinctly remember connecting with a returned copy of "Serenity",. @ about 1:00 PM on the day it was released.
I have to disagree with your point that the studio wants direct download. They are so afraid of it that they have had whole meetings on how to get it outlawed.
I'm quoting our guest for a second time, since I feel he (or she) has over simplified the issue. The studios would be glad to sell you the movie by direct download, which would put a lot of people in the DVD authoring sector of the trade out of work, but granted the other types of downloads do freak them out quite a bit.
NONE OF THIS IS NEW BUSINESS.....!!
Once upon a time, when VCRs weighted about 30 pounds, cost more than a thousand dollars, and were almost completely illegal, there was no such thing as a "rental movie"! Way back when the studios were running their mouths saying such thing as, "it should be illegal to tape a TV show, since people will skip over the advertising". And today boys and girls, we have a name for this process, TIVO-ing
Prerecorded video cassettes cost upward of at least $20.00, ( which was probably double the value of today's money).So, then somebody got the brilliant to rent them! At that time, there was a rental delay of, I think, about 90 days. The rental houses got the movie 90 days before it was offered for sale at retail, and had to pay title dependent prices of up to 90 dollars per cassette...!
The quality of VHS is lousy, so if you wanted to see the movie the way it was intended, the theater was your only option. Oh and BTW, a blank video cassette was about $10.00. Yeah right, as much as a blank Blu-ray disc.
Wow, wouldn't the studios like to go back there again?
