This new technology standard, which provides a continuous stream of data is impressive for many reasons. From a consumer point of view, is to save time because you do not need to download a file and consume. In addition, members of the public should not handle large amounts of data and the space on the hard disk of your computer or external drives more, as there is no data to download and save themselves. From the perspective of content producers, transmission also offers great opportunities: with Internet videos and broadcasts of live events, there is no file to download, therefore it is difficult for the Most users and save content distributed illegally.
Streaming is a relatively recent development, the broadband connection had to run fast enough to display the data in real time. If there is an interruption due to congestion on the Internet, for example, audio or video is abandoned or the screen goes blank. To minimize the problem, the computer stores "buffer" data that has already been received. If there is a stall, the buffer falls for a while, but the video is not interrupted. Streaming has become very common to the popularity of Internet radio stations and other audio services and video on demand, including Spotify, Soundcloud, Last.fm, YouTube and BBC iPlayer through. Although transmission first made his mark in the music industry, with music streaming revenue generation of $ 3.3 billion at the end of 2014 [1], the transmission is a phenomenal progress in the video distribution and space consumption.
The video streaming market today: beyond distribution and content creation
Video Streaming: the bit technical
Streaming video technology has come a long way: the most influential group, of course, are the providers themselves of streaming technology, which decide which technologies and services to integrate their platforms. These include Apple, QuickTime and offers technology based on HTML5 to reach iOS devices; Adobe Flash; and Microsoft Windows Media and Silverlight. In the early days of streaming, playback platforms were the most relevant Windows and Macintosh computers.
While Apple and Microsoft still have enormous influence, computing platforms tend to be more open mobile devices, while the second includes the most dynamic media viewers the broadcast segment. Because Apple has both a very popular platform (the iDevices) and (IOS) operating system, it retains the power to control all the rules adopted by Apple devices. Other mobile influencers tend to be split between hardware vendors - such as LG, Samsung, Motorola, Nokia and HTC - and mobile operating systems providers like Google (Android) and Microsoft (Windows Phone).
Delivery media transmission providers such as platforms online video ("OVP") (which are productized-services that enable users to download, convert, store and play video content on the Internet, often through a structured and scalable solution that can be monetized) and content sites generated by users (UGC "sites"), also influence the adoption of streaming technology. For example, although Microsoft Silverlight introduced in 2007, it was not supported by any OVP until 2010, stunting its adoption. Rather, as OVP Kaltura and Brightcove and UGC sites like YouTube and Vimeo were among the first to support the HTML5 iPad and accelerate its adoption.
Although there are dozens of suppliers in both markets, the key OVP include Brightcove, Kaltura, Ooyala, Sorenson Media, and Powerstream ClickstreamTV, while the most notable UGC sites are YouTube, Vimeo, DailyMotion, Metacafe and Viddler. In front of live streaming video, so the technology has made significant progress. Specialized OVP such as Ustream and Livestream offer instant broadcasting live video generated by the user with a live chat window that borders the VCR, giving users the ability to see not only the events as they occur but comments about them, too. [2]
YouTube made a live video streaming service available to users as well. And now the icing on the cake: the streaming video distributors and suppliers. The description of the entire ecosystem of video streaming would, in fact, can not be complete without mentioning the flow of Internet service providers have also called on demand ("SVOD services") streaming services video on demand. From 2011, the press started blogging about the most popular commercial media streaming services bring high quality streaming content for TVs, smart phones and computers of the masses [3].
Netflix, Amazon Video on Demand (renamed Amazon Instant Video and Amazon Prime), Hulu Plus and Vudu came out on top ("SVOD providers").
Replicate the successful business model of the music streaming in the field of transmission of the video: it is all about scale, baby
SVOD providers so good: you can not only enjoy the great progress in flow technology since the mid-noughties, but can also educate faster with, and avoid the pitfalls that threaten their predecessors, namely, Streaming suppliers music application like Spotify, Deezer, Pandora, Rdio, Grooveshark and Beats ("suppliers" of SMOD).
Although SMOD providers usually charge USD4.99 per month for a map to its services, and USDD9.99 per month for a premium plan, SVOD providers begin their monthly subscriptions with USD7.99 Maximum price of 11 $ 0.99 per month for SVOD services on up to 4 screens per household. Fear Netflix even had many critics, in April 2014, to increase the rate of new subscribers worldwide by USD1 to USD2 one month [4]. If we do the math quickly, we can predict that there is more money to be in service in the SMOD SVOD services as long as these services are extended.
And expanded are: April 23, 2014, Amazon announced a licensing agreement that gives Amazon Prime members exclusive access to the coveted HBO original content library, so definitely increase the attractiveness of becoming an Amazon Prime subscriber. On 24 April 2014, Netflix competitor announced it had hired three small cable operators to provide subscribers with access to their content through the TiVo DVR, while 28 April 2014 has announced a deal with Verizon to provide subscribers access Netflix Online high speed for streaming content, the second such agreement has Netflix Internet service provider ("ISP").
As the technology industry - and to some extent the entertainment industry - largely built on a "winner takes all" economic model, the distribution of the content is a battlefield full of opportunities and risks evolving in which the companies claim their field and develop their market share. There are some clear winners in the field of services SVOD "as Netflix, which in the first quarter of 2014, added 2.25 million US streaming subscribers and a total of 4 billion worldwide. He now has 35.7 million subscribers in the US and over 48 million worldwide, in line with its long-term target of 60 to 90 million household subscribers. It all makes sense from a consumer point of view, too: the streaming is the conversion of more value releases (music and video content) the number of subscribers and in so doing is to reduce your monthly expenses 20 US $ or US $ 30 on average to USD9.99.
In late 2014, the streaming music revenue represented $ 3.3 billion, up 37% from 2013. In comparison, online video and streaming services based on television they combined for derive income from USD 7.34 billion in 2013, a figure that PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PwC") said increase to USD 11.47 billion in 2016, before reaching USD 17.03 billion in 2018. This increase will be driven mainly by services subscription video like Netflix and Hulu, PwC says, not by television subscriptions.
The jump in the creation and production of content
What is interesting is that SVOD providers go beyond what SMOD suppliers have always done: they enter the field of content production, to enrich their catalogs and offerings; expand their networks and achieve high power executives, producers and movie stars and assert his newly acquired status and influence. Video services like Netflix streaming online Hulu and make more money per year than the film at the box office in the US in 2017, according to a new PwC report release.
Streaming services of the draft reports will be the largest contributor to the US filmed entertainment industry in four years, since the revenue generated by television and subscription video on demand providers has reached nearly $ 14 billion, $ 1.6 billion more than the amount of cash earned from traditional cinema. Therefore, SVOD providers have, and continue to have, a large amount of cash available for investment.
How better to invest that income available in the production of quality video content to enrich the catalog itself and products offered? The main area of streaming services have an impact on the traditional box office, PwC report said it is on release dates. At present, most films are shown in cinemas months before gradually work their way streaming services. PwC said would force companies like Netflix to pressure the industry to make the transition faster, filmed entertainment offers consumers before.
More importantly, SVOD providers continue to expand their inventory of content. Netflix already has $ 7.1 billion in existing obligations original content and licensed, and recently hired for an original series in Spanish; a new series of Mitch Hurwitz (creator of the beloved Arrested Development); a third season of House of Cards and AMC slaughter last season. Indeed, the profitability of House of Cards, the test case were as successful as critical comments. The new strategy of Netflix fortified their existing revenue model to acquire and retain subscribers, and even opened new sources of revenue, such as content licenses or even a brand with traditional channel distributors. Netflix has spent about $ 100 million to produce the first season of House of Cards, plus additional marketing investments including advertising buying ads on billboards and television primetime high-profile. If House of Cards made half a million new subscribers to Netflix, with the same average life that subscribers (about 25 months) existing, the show would almost break even in two years. The litmus test was the value of the lives of these new customers.
What if many or most opportunistic spectators turned out to be canceling their subscriptions ended a few months after seeing House of Cards? Then you balance the opportunity to look very different. For example, if the average life of the guests were closer than four months after Netflix would have needed more than three million new subscribers for the project balance essentially, an increase of 43 percent compared to average rate of the current acquisition. Needless to say that this debate is now closed and in addition to its series of the series, a great success of Netflix has negotiated many recent theatrical offerings - it plans to launch after Crouching Tiger, Ang Lee, Hidden Dragon Online Update and Date InMax and in cinemas, and struck an exclusive deal with four images Adam Sandler - which would have angered many in the business.
Speaking during a speech at MIPCOM in Cannes in November 2014, Netflix CEO Ted content Sarandos insisted that the company has only sought to modernize a model of film distribution "is quite dated at the request of the public, we seek to serve. "Netflix said, not trying to kill the windows, but rather to" restore the choices and options "for mobile viewers day and date release. Not only that, but Sarandos said Netflix would expansion in niche genres, including financing of documentaries and arthouse films. Therefore, the marketing stunt team with the film mega star Leonardo DiCaprio in the release of the documentary focuses on the Virunga fight against poaching of endangered gorillas in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The film was released simultaneously in theaters and Netflix in New York and Los Angeles on November 7, 2014. Amazon Prime account in the creation and production of content is also impressive, especially because of its decision to hire Woody Allen to write and direct a series of SVOD services in January 2015 and its competitive strength in television by landing two Golden Globe awards for best comedy actor for his transparent and Star Series Jeffrey Tambor also critically acclaimed in January 2015.
So the future is bright for suppliers SVOD, but what are the threats to their dominance and market share growing?
A sad state of the case for suppliers SVOD and traditional video distributors: counterfeiting on the video streaming market
An attempt to extend international territories? A false alarm
Initially, the main threat to the growth and expansion of services worldwide SVOD wine reluctance by some European countries to host and "psychologically fit" the business model proposed by the likes of Netflix.
The French, in particular, was a puzzle: In the words of former French Culture Minister Aurelie Filipetti, "(French) absolutely will not close the door (Netflix), but must get used to the differences with the French market and how they can participate constructively. " France has some of the highest standards worldwide to protect their film industries and music from home, and none of them will make it easy for an outside service like Netflix to make a serious dent in the market. The company, which eventually began offering SVOD services in France around November 2014, faces more than ever before, including 20 percent VAT tax and compulsory fees for investment profits. In fact, SVOD services based in France are required, with annual revenues of over € 10 million to provide 15 percent of their income to the European film industry and 12 percent to French filmmakers.
Meanwhile, France insists that 40 percent of the leading distributors of content should be in French, while the suppliers of existing SVOD - including Canal Plus "Infinity" and "Filmo TV" Wild Bunch - are now obliged wait 36 months after the theatrical release of a film can before transmitting this content online. These rules - the so-called "cultural exception" - means that France retains a music film industry healthy and despite the fierce competition in the Anglo world. And while some commentators have said that this model is outdated and the growing number of people get their entertainment online audiovisual rather than the radio and television more traditional media, France is, however, continues to do its utmost to protect their domestic industries.
As mentioned, despite these obstacles, Netflix finally began offering SVOD services in France, the most difficult to penetrate foreign markets so far in the fourth quarter of 2014. At MIPCOM 2014, Netflix spent Director Sarandos content of history to say that the behavior of spectators in Germany and France was "on a par with our successful launches in other parts of the world" and that Netflix drama Prison Orange is the new black "was here . the most watched program in the SVOD service on six new European territories Sarandos added that the mixture of vision in Europe - television series about 70 percent and 30 percent of the films - was also similar to that of services around Netflix the world. Therefore, the greatest threat to SVOD providers and more traditional video distributors, is elsewhere.
The culprits: the programs and illegally streaming video providers
While illegal downloading of music has decreased compared to previous measurements (about a quarter of people who use streaming music services still download music illegally, compared to 32 percent in September 2014), 35 percent people who use the services of SVOD even download movies and TV shows illegally. That's according to study trends in digital entertainment, from January 2015, he realized by GfK and appears quarterly. Some illegal vendors SVOD are alive than Time4popcorn. SVOD offer services to the public, on the internet, without paying appropriate licensing and royalty agreement the rights of content owners, video broadcast its channels.
One of them was illegal Aereo.com SVOD providers, who called for the implementation of the Chapter 11 reorganization in November 2014. In June 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled on ABC v Federal Aereo. Aereo, TV-on-the-internet service, had presented a disruptive business model, with thousands of small antennas stored in a warehouse, living current transmission signals were encoded packets directly from the home users. It was claimed by broadcasters (including the original 21 Century Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC) for infringement of its copyright in the public performance. Aereo has defended his actions by saying that everything he did was to create a device to watch a program that was already available. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of broadcasters, holding that the cloud technology Aereo and was too similar to a traditional cable company to say that the service has not violated. The clock failed to start TV-on-the-internet Aereo.com may recur however, since TiVo bought its trademarks, domain names and customer lists in the auction for a whopping $ 1 million US $ in March 2015. TiVo could be seeking to offer a similar service but Aereo authorized by the television networks. [5]
At the AIPPI Congress in September 2014, Valentina Elizabeth, vice president of content protection for Fox Entertainment Group, (spoke in his own name as Fox was pleading the case), noted that the business model Aereo involved the transmission of broadcast content obtained without permission, authorization or license, and for which the air service has been in charge of their subscribers. This business model has been damaging to broadcasters and content owners, by devaluing its content, which interferes with exclusive offers content to deliver on the Internet and mobile devices as well as eye balls diversion of advertising revenues the television. It was clearly acknowledged the damage by Nathan judge in the first case, the movement of broadcasters for a preliminary injunction. At the same congress, Sanna Wolk (Associate Professor, University of Uppsala, Sweden and co-chairman of the author of the AIPPI) compared to the US position adopted in the EU, where the ECJ in March 2013 It found that online streaming almost directly by the company in the UK, Catchup TV, was a "communication to the public" unauthorized within the meaning of Article 3 (1) of Directive 2001/29 ( Infosoc Directive) and both a violation of copyright to an action. The ECJ concluded that as the Catchup TV was the works of the original broadcast television "of the earth" available on the Internet, and therefore using different technical means to relay the broadcast, the show was a "communication" in the sense Article 3 (1). Moreover, in the circumstances that the court did not consider whether the communication was a "new audiences", as required by the new transmission of individual and distinct authorization of copyright holders. While the entire litigation appears to be the obvious answer, and is mainly used for copyright infringement and counterfeiting in streaming video services, it is permissible to ask whether a fiery battle against piracy of video streaming barely sentence. In fact, based on the experience of the unfinished struggle led by the music industry against illegal downloading of music tracks offered by peer-to-peer sites in the early noughties, it may be useful bite the bullet and not explore the legal channels to this endemic and debilitating offense.
For example, Popcorn Time, dubbed the "Netflix for pirates" has recently been in the race. Time4Popcorn.eu, one of the most popular illegal iterations movie sites, had its URL suspended by European regulators in October 2014, effectively turning off lights for a site that had attracted millions of users in just a few months.
The identification register called Time4Popcorn.eu European disconnected because of the suspicion that the page is registered inaccurate details contact administrator. The developers of the site, rather than providing accurate contact information, simply relocated Time4Popcorn.com. With more and more court decisions forcing ISPs to block access to certain sites in the territories they cover, the best legal approach seems to seek an injunction in key territories for ISPs to block access end users SVOD providers illegal websites.
What's in the stars for traditional film and video players and producers of sitcom streaming?
In the short term, I think the traditional players in the film and television industries, including major Hollywood studios will start to feel pain, revenues were derailed by economic and creative SVOD and large illegal legal suppliers successfully. Consequently, producers of films and television series will have its traditional game, concentrating its financial and creative efforts exclusively materials "block-buster" projects. It will be even harder for filmmakers and independent producers and youth to finance their content creation process in the future.
In the long run, there will be a leap forward towards more high quality content produced (with stronger plots stars bankable and talented writers, directors and actors included in the mix of content creation) by two suppliers of traditional content and SVOD: Darwinism is in the works, with the survival of only the fittest. Film Studies major and distributors will have to adapt or die because streaming video is here to stay and possibly expand more because of the accessibility and affordability of territories "heavy users, better wifi connections (especially due to the the spread of fiber optic), a wide range of devices on which to view and stream video (smartphones, tablets, computers, TV screens, etc.) and changing consumer habits towards culture (such as the reluctance movies, inability to stay in front of a movie screen for about two hours for the younger generation of consumers and growth of cocooning).
However, the arrival of the SVOD services and the choice of several providers SVOD is a boon for consumers, because they have plenty to choose to consume only high quality content; You will be able to avoid seeing exhausting and mandatory advertisements, which paralyze television programs, particularly in the US television channels; and will be more in control of the devices they consume TV series and feature film content.
The law and its actors (ie, lawyers, judges, legislators) must accompany this change consumption habits and offer video market, to be flexible and pragmatic, while protecting the application and the defense rights of owners and content creators to stimulate the creation and production of content of the highest quality in a competitive environment.
[1] "What the numbers tell us about streaming in 2014" by Mark Mulligan, music industry blog, October 16, 2014.
[2] "Occupy live video performances" by Jennifer Preston, New York Times, December 11, 2011.
[3] "5 Best Streaming Media Services Compared", Christina Warren, Mashable, February 14, 2011.
[4] "Which means that higher Netflix prices on the market for the content DC" Tom Caporaso, lunch money, April 30, 2014.
[5] "TiVo Aereo buy assets at auction. It is a legal Aereo next? ", Forbes, March 1, 2015.
Gauberti Gauberti Annabelle Annabelle is a lawyer in England and Wales. She has over ten years of experience in advising customers complete legal issues businesses and individuals related to their creative activity (in the arts, music, media, entertainment and design) ventures and / or articles fashion and luxury. He speaks fluent English, French and Italian.
No comments:
Post a Comment