Although very limited in its content, at least in Canada. My understanding is that it's because of old exclusivity contracts with cable providers.

And indeed, our process is: "Can we rent it? No, fine let's fine a pirated copy". Not going to get cable for one night to watch this one movie. Everybody's losing by hanging on those old outdated systems.

Amazon and Apple also have stream rentals. That said, I have Netflix (free with my T-mobile phone service) and HBO (free with my AT&T fiber internet) and Apple+ (free with the recently purchased iPads for the kids) and Hoopla (free from the library) and Kanopy (free from the library) and Disney+ (we actually pay for this one) and I never feel the need to say, I must watch this movie which isn't available on one of the services right now. If anything, I have too many options of what to watch.

The tyranny of choice.

Have you ever heard of the indie mubi?

https://mubi.com/

Mubi really is excellent if you like the kind of art-house content they license. I think if I only kept one streaming service it'd be them.

Nooooooo! No more choices!

Seriously.

I've stumbled across various streaming services that look like they have stuff I might like, but I really have more than I need already. And I always forget that because my wife pays for Prime, we have Amazon Prime streaming too.

Blockbusters used to be really good for this. You could even get a movie for a whole week for less than YouTube will rent it to you for 24 hours.

Maybe they'll make a comeback?

This. I don't understand why streaming a movie is so much more expensive than renting a physical DVD or VHS from a brick-and-morter store. If I want to watch a new movie, it is generally much cheaper to rent a DVD from redbox than watching it from any of the streaming services that allow you to rent it online.

It's because of the first sale doctrine. Redbox and family video can buy DVDs and Blu-Rays (at a maximum) at the same price as consumer DVD/Blu-Ray--and rent them out without permission from the copyright holder. That means video rental stores can undercut the VOD prices.

Consumers are willing to pay more for VOD because its easier. Having to return the disc is a pain in the ass.

... There used to be this little startup company and service, where you could queue movie/TV shows, then you would receive the discs in the mail, with a paid envelope to return them as well...

AFAIK - only in the US though, there was much talk at launch of how they got special deals with the US postal service.

Whatever happened to those guys...? (https://dvd.netflix.com/)

Apparently they still do it - I thought it was phased-out for streaming years ago.

It seems like there should be a similar mechanism for VOD. Although, VidAngel tried to do that and was sued almost to death by big media.

It's not possible to lend digital media out without making a copy(remotely streaming it still copying), which isn't protected by the first sale doctrine. Redbox isn't making a copy. That's the big difference.

Is it possible to play a DVD without making a copy in the DVD player's RAM?

What if I extend an HDMI cable from my DVD player to your TV?

My library manages to lend ebooks; they even have wait lists for them.

> My library manages to lend ebooks; they even have wait lists for them.

Those are made available in that format by the publisher. No equivalent for movies is available (as far as I am aware).

Also my understanding is that it was never entirely clear if lending ebooks like that in the US was legal or not. The publishers and lenders both carefully avoided the issue going to court IIUC. (Prior to the Internet Archive's actions, that is.)

Assuming that is true that seems like yet another place where the law isn't well adapted to a digital world.

You can also still subscribe to the Netflix DVD service, although it's degraded compared to what it used to be. They're obviously not replacing a lot of disks when they wear out.

Depends on your cost priorities.

If you're basically just walking by the box anyway while doing something you'd be doing otherwise, sure it's cheaper to drop $2 for a disc.

If you have to make a deliberate trip, you've transportation & opportunity costs. 2 round trips to the box, just to get/return the disc, is 6 miles total (1.5 miles one-way by road & parking lot) for me; at >$3/gal gas (wear/maintenance not included) that's >$1.50 plus the $2 rental. Then there's the time spent getting the disc, as several people wait around for someone to fetch it; if we're already at cumulative $4 cost, I'll pay the extra $1 (<$0.25 each) just so the group can watch what we want right now with a mere wiggling my thumb and not wait around half an hour.

...which is why Redbox puts its boxes in places where people already have to go anyway. It's funny that you think this all needed to be explained in such excruciating detail. It's not rocket science.

Read the post I replied to. I was answering thayne's "I don't understand..." by drawing out hidden costs.

I'm an engineer. I explain things in excruciating detail. That's what I do.

Redbox automated movie rental machines, perhaps?

what will users insert physical media into, these days?

One use QR codes?

USB ports?

Well blockbuster itself no longer exists, so don't count on that one.

Of course I meant their business model, but...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(Bend,_Oregon)

I wish we had the data on this but I suspect a customer only selects a one or two video platforms and _MAYBE_ juggles a third when a hot show like GoT shows up, which is rare. There is a limited number of attention hours, it doesn't make sense to be on 10 platforms.

Regardless, the end game of these streaming services is probably going to be consolidation or partners, if it makes since because the market is too diluted. We're coming off, wha, $60-100 a month cable bills? The streaming providers are still siphoning this value before we start seeing consolidation of the losers with the winners.

It's probably more than one or two. Amazon Prime Video and Netflix are two right there. But, you're right, The reality is that most people don't feel like they have to see a particular show. In any case, for the time being, it's pretty easy to dip in and out. I guess I have four at the moment (though two of them are free for various reasons).

Depending upon how you allocate the cost of Amazon Prime though, I'm saving a lot compared to when I had cable--albeit at the cost of losing live TV.

I have Netflix, Prime Video is basically free (I have Prime for other reasons), HBO comes with my ATT internet, AppleTV is included with a new device, but will then come with Apple One (which is a good deal if you have a family of users), and Hulu.

I pay for Hulu because I'll pay just about anything to never see a commercial. When I do have time to watch something, I don't want to see commercials. If that means paying a bit extra to have another service, so be it.

Yep, Netflix and Amazon Prime are a given for us (Netflix a bit less so lately, actually considering taking a break from it for the first time in years), and then we'll add Disney+/Hulu or HBO Now for a month or two a couple times a year.

By the way, has anyone checked out the free movies on Youtube? There's some good 80s and 90s classics on there lately. Supposedly it's with ads, but I don't see too many when I watch, certainly less than Hulu.

I think you're very much on point on the number services a customer signs up for.

In that light it makes perfect sense for Amazon to enhance their offering, as they are third or fourth in streaming.

There never seems to be something to watch consistently on Prime at least here in Europe.

Prime is already enhanced by its delivery services, something the others can't offer. Like I had Prime already just for that and didn't really start watching shows on it much until recently.

But that being said they've definitely stepped up their Originals game lately. Last few shows we've watched on there are all excellent (Invincible, The Boys, Upload).

In the USA, they came down hard of torrents.

My neighbor got busted a few years back by Xfinity, and it was a big deal.

>... and it was a big deal.

It's my understanding that Xfinity sends a few warning notices, just a little slap on the wrist, before they end up terminating your account or something (though a quick cursory Google brings up a Reddit thread where someone claiming to have worked for Cumcrust said they never saw any accounts terminated for that). I know I received one letter like 7 years ago for downloading 'Christmas Vacation' and nothing else ever happened. Speaking from experience, if you use a VPN to torrent then they'll leave you alone.

I'd be curious how much - and what - your neighbor was doing to have made it a big deal, and what Xfinity's response/reaction was.

maybe times have changed, but before I got a VPN, I used to get copyright notices all the time. I didn't notice for a few years because they went to an @comcast.com email address that I never checked. when I finally looked, I saw pages and pages of sternly written emails. if freely torrenting movies for years isn't enough to get disconnected, I dunno what is.

That's odd. For a long time the standard response in the US was to severely throttle connection speed for some duration if there were too many notices within a given time period.

Really? Got busted a number of time in France and in the US and nothing ever happened and I just kept torrenting.

Best solution IMO is to rent a $10 a month seedbox and use it for torrenting.

And/or only use private trackers. Stay away from the public ones.

This is the obvious outcome from customers wanting to drop the all you can eat cable model and pick and choose.

If any one "stream everything" service popped up with every providers content, it would cost $200+ a month, and essentially a cable tv subscription all over again just without the cable box, and everyone would complain it's too expensive and go back to piracy.

Amazon does this as well, I can rent pretty much any movie or tv show through it.

Amazon allows this too.