Entertenment

The New Eldorado: Video Streaming and Streaming Video Content material Production

This newish technologies, which offers a constant stream of information, is amazing for a lot of reasons. From the customer’s standpoint, it means conserving time because somebody doesn’t need to download a document , and then have it. Additionally, members of people don’t need to handle huge amounts of information and space in their computer’s hard disk or external discs , as there’s no information to save and download such. In the content manufacturers’ perspective, film in streaming 2019 also offers great opportunities: with internet videos and webcasts of live events, there is no file to download, therefore it is hard for most users to save content and distribute it illegally.

Streaming is a relatively recent development, because broadband connection had to run fast enough to show the data in real time. If there is an interruption due to congestion on the internet, for example, the audio or video will drop out or the screen will go blank. To minimise the problem, computers store a “buffer” of data that has already been received. If there is a drop-out, the buffer goes down for a while but the video is not interrupted. Streaming has become very common thanks to the popularity of internet radio stations and various audio and video on-demand services, including Spotify, Soundcloud, Last.fm, YouTube and the BBC’s iPlayer. While streaming initially made its mark in the music sector, with music streaming revenues generating $3.3 billion at the end of 2014[1], streaming is currently making phenomenal headway in the video distribution and consumption space.

The video streaming market today: beyond distribution and into content creation

film in streaming 2019

Video streaming: the technical bit

Video streaming technology has come a long way: the most influential group, of course, are the streaming technology providers themselves, who choose which technologies and services to integrate into their platforms. These include Apple, which provides QuickTime as well as the HTML5-based technology to reach iOS devices; Adobe with Flash; and Microsoft with Windows Media and Silverlight. In the early days of streaming, the most relevant playback platforms were Windows and Macintosh computers.

While Apple and Microsoft still hold tremendous leverage, computer platforms tend to be more open than mobile devices, while the latter comprise the fastest growing segment of streaming media viewers. Because Apple owns both a very popular platform (iDevices) and operating system (iOS), it retains absolute power to control standards adopted by Apple devices. Other mobile influencers tend to be split between hardware vendors – like LG, Samsung, Motorola, Nokia and HTC – and mobile operating system providers like Google (Android) and Microsoft (Windows Phone).

Streaming media delivery providers such as online video platforms (“OVPs”) (which are productized-services that enable users to upload, convert, store and play back video content on the internet, often via a structured, scalable solution that can be monetized) and such as user-generated-content sites (“UGC websites”), also influence streaming technology adoption. For example, though Microsoft introduced Silverlight in 2007, it wasn’t supported by any OVP until 2010, stunting its adoption. In contrast, OVPs like Brightcove and Kaltura, and UGC sites such as YouTube and Vimeo were among the first to support the iPad and HTML5, accelerating their adoption.

While there are dozens of providers in both markets, the key OVPs include Brightcove, Kaltura, Ooyala, Sorenson Media, Powerstream and ClickstreamTV, while the most notable UGC sites are YouTube, Vimeo, DailyMotion, Viddler and Metacafe. On the video live-streaming front as well, technology has made significant strides. Specialised OVPs such as Ustream and Livestream offer instant broadcasting of user-generated live videos with a live chat window running alongside the video player, giving users an opportunity to not only watch events as they unfold but comment on them, too[2].

YouTube made a video live streaming service available to its users too. And now, the icing on the cake: video streaming distributors and providers. The description of this whole ecosystem of video streaming would, indeed, not be complete without mentioning the providers of on-demand internet streaming media also called streaming video on-demand services (“SVoD providers”). From 2011, the press began blogging about the most popular streaming media services that would bring high-quality commercial content streamed to the TV sets, smartphones and computers of the masses[3].

film in streaming 2019

Netflix, Amazon Video on Demand (now rebranded Amazon Instant Video and Amazon Prime), Hulu Plus and Vudu came out on top (“SVoD suppliers”).

Replicating the successful business model of music streaming in the video streaming sphere: it’s all about scale, baby

SVoD providers have it so good: not only can they benefit from the great strides made by streaming media technology since the mid-noughties, but they can also educate themselves faster thanks to, and avoid the pitfalls which threatened, their predecessors, i.e. streaming music on demand providers such as Spotify, Deezer, Pandora, Rdio, Grooveshark and Beats (the”SMoD suppliers”).

While SMoD providers typically charge USD4.99 per month for an access plan to their services, and up to USDD9.99 per month for a premium plan, SVoD providers start their monthly subscription plans at USD7.99 with a maximum price of USD11.99 per month for SVoD services on up to 4 screens per household. Fearless Netflix even got a lot of flak, in April 2014, for hiking up its new subscriber fees globally by USD1 to USD2 a month[4]. If we quickly do the maths, we can forecast that there is more money to be made in SVoD services, than in SMoD services, provided that these services are scaled up.

And scaled up they are: on 23 April 2014, Amazon announced a licensing agreement that gives Amazon Prime members exclusive access to highly-sought after HBO’s library of original content, hence undoubtedly increasing the appeal of becoming an Amazon Prime’s subscriber. On 24 April 2014, competitor Netflix announced that it had contracted with three small cable companies to provide subscribers access to its content via TiVo DVRs, while on 28 April 2014 it announced a deal with Verizon to provide Netflix subscribers high-speed online access to streaming content, the second such deal Netflix has made with an Internet service provider (“ISP”).

As the technology industry – and to a degree the entertainment sector – function very much on a “winner take all” economic model, streaming content is an evolving battlefield teeming with opportunities and risks, in which companies assert their dominance and grow their market share. There are some clear winners, in the SVoD services’ industry, for example Netflix which, at the first quarter of 2014, additional 2.25 million streaming subscribers in the US plus a total of 4 million globally. It currently has 35.7 million US subscribers and over 48 million internationally, in accord with its long-term aim of 60 to 90 million domestic subscribers. All of it makes sense in the customer’s standpoint also: streaming is turning into the very precious downloaders (of video and music content) into readers and in doing this is decreasing their yearly spending from USD20 or USD30 into USD9.99 on average.

From the end of 2014, music streaming earnings accounted for USD 3.3 billion, up 37 percent from 2013. In contrast, online and TV-based video streaming solutions united to pull a sales of USD 7.34 billion in 2013, a guess that PriceWaterhouseCoopers (“PwC”) states will grow to USD 11.47 billion in 2016, before attaining USD 17.03 billion in 2018. That increase is going to be driven mostly by subscription video services like Netflix and Hulu, PwC states, as opposed to by through-TV subscriptions.

The jump into content production and generation

What’s intriguing is that SVoD suppliers are moving beyond what SMoD suppliers have done: they’re going into the content manufacturing world, so as to enhance their catalogues and offerings; to enlarge their networks of, and reach , high-profile executives, manufacturers and movie-stars and to maintain their newly-acquired standing and clout. Online streaming video services like Netflix and Hulu will create more money annually compared to US movie box office by 2017, according to another report launch by PwC.

The report projects that buffering solutions is going to be the largest contributor to the American filmed entertainment sector in four decades, since the earnings made by TV and subscription movie detailing suppliers reaches nearly $14 billion, $1.6 billion over the amount earned by the standard theater box office. Consequently, SVoD providers possess, and will continue having, a great deal of disposable money to make investments.

The way to invest this accessible income than in generating high quality video articles, to improve one’s catalog and products that offer? The principal area streaming solutions are going to have an influence on the conventional box office, the PwC report states, is in launch dates. Right now, most films are awarded months in theatres before they gradually make their method of streaming solutions. PwC says the potency of businesses like Netflix is expected to place pressure on the business to create this transition quicker, providing filmed entertainment to customers sooner.

More to the point, SVoD suppliers continue expanding their articles inventories. Netflix currently has USD 7.1 billion in present obligations for licensed and original material, and it lately contracted for a first Spanish-language series; a fresh series from Mitch Hurwitz (the founder of much-loved Arrested Development); a third period of House of Cards plus a last period of AMC’s The Killing. Indeed, the financial yields of House of Cards, the test instance, were as powerful as the essential reviews. Netflix’s new approach bolstered its current earnings model-acquiring and keeping subscribers-and opened up new revenue streams like content licensing or possibly a branded station with conventional vendors. Netflix spent approximately USD 100 million to create the very first season of House of Cards and additional advertising and marketing investments, such as advertisements purchases for primetime TV places and high profile billboards. If House of Cards earned half a million new Netflix subscribers, using exactly the exact same average lifetime as present readers (an estimated 25 weeks ), the series would have nearly broken even in a couple of decades. The actual test was the life value of the new clients.

Imagine if most proven to be opportunistic audiences who ended up canceling their subscriptions a couple of months after viewing House of Cards? Subsequently the breakeven chance looked vastly different. By way of instance, if the average consumer life span was nearer to four weeks, then Netflix could have had over three million new readers to the job to breakeven-essentially, a 43 percent increase over its present average acquisition speed. Obviously, this argument is now closed and, as well as its series of show, very powerful Netflix has brokered many recent teaser bargains – it intends to launch the sequel to Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon day-and-date on the internet and in Inmax theaters, also has hit a distinctive four-picture deal with Adam Sandler – that have allegedly enraged many in the business enterprise.

Talking at a keynote at Cannes’s MIPCOM at November 2014, Netflix main content officer Ted Sarandos insisted that the business was only seeking to update a theatrical distribution version that”is pretty antiquated for the on-demand audiences we are looking to serve”. Netflix, ” he stated, isn’t seeking to kill windowing but instead to”restore choice and options” for audiences by going into day-and-date releases. Additionally, but Sarandos stated Netflix will be expanding into more market genres, for example, funding of documentaries and art-house movies. Thus, the advertising stunt with teaming up with mega movie star Leonardo di Caprio about the launch of documentary Virunga focusing on the struggle against poaching endangered gorillas in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The documentary premiered concurrently on Netflix and in theatres in New York and Los Angeles on 7 November 2014. Amazon Prime’s tally in content production and creation is also striking, most especially as a result of its choice to participate Woody Allen to write and direct a string because of its SVoD solutions in January 2015 and its aggressive force in TV by landing two Golden Globe trophies for the best humor because of its critically praised Transparent and celebrity for string star Jeffrey Tambor additionally in January 2015.

Therefore the future is much more than glowing, for SVoD suppliers, but what would be the dangers for their rising supremacy and market share?

A sorry state of affair to get SVoD suppliers and Conventional video suppliers: counterfeiting from the movie streaming market

film in streaming 2019

A tentative growth to global territories? A false alarm

At first, the significant threat to the increase and scaling from SVoD services globally came in the hesitation, by many European nations to adapt and”psychologically adapt” into the business model given by the likes of Netflix.

The French, in particular, were a hassle: In words of then French Minister of Culture Aurelie Filipetti,”(the French) are absolutely not going to close the door to (Netflix), but they need to get used to the differences with the French market and how they can participate constructively.” France has a number of the world’s toughest principles for protecting its home-grown movie and music businesses, and not one of these can make it effortless to get a foreign service such as Netflix to make a significant dent on the industry. The organization, which finally began offering SVoD providers in France around November 2014, confronts higher taxes than it’s used to, for example 20 percent VAT, in addition to obligatory investment quotas from its own profits. Truly, SVoD services established in France with yearly earnings of over 10 million euros need to hand over 15 percent of the earnings to the European film business and 12 percentage to French filmmakers.

Meanwhile, France insists that 40% of mainstream broadcasters’ content must be in French, while existing SVoD providers – including Canal Plus'”Infinity” and also Wild Bunch’s”Filmo TV” – are now made to wait 36 weeks after a movie’s theater release until they could flow that articles online. These principles – the so called”Cultural Exception” – imply that France keeps a wholesome picture and music business despite fierce competition from the Anglo-Saxon world. And while a few commentators have stated this version is obsolete as ever-increasing quantities of individuals obtain their audiovisual entertainment online instead of from more traditional TV and radio websites, France is still continuing to do everything it can to secure its homegrown businesses.

As stated previously, despite these challenges, Netflix finally began offering SVoD solutions in France, the toughest overseas market to enter of yet, throughout the fourth quarter of 2014. In MIPCOM 2014, Netflix main content officer Sarandos went to record for stating that audience behavior, in Germany and France, was”on par with our successful launches elsewhere in the world” and Netflix prison dramedy’Orange is the new black’ was the most watched series about the SVoD service in all the six European lands. Sarandos added that the screening blend in Europe – roughly 70 percent tv show and 30 percent attribute movies – was similar to this on Netflix services across the world. Hence, the significant threat to SVoD suppliers, and their traditional video suppliers, lies elsewhere.

The offenders: prohibited video streaming apps and suppliers

While the illegal downloading of songs has significantly diminished in comparison to previous measurements (roughly a quarter of individuals using music streaming solutions still download music illegally, compared to 32% in September 2014), 35 percent of individuals using SVoD providers are still downloading films and TV show illegally. This is in line with this analysis Trends in Digital Entertainment, from January 2015, which can be conducted by GfK and seems once a quarter. Some prohibited SVoD suppliers are kicking and alive like Time4popcorn. They supply SVoD solutions to members of the general public, on the world wide web, with no paid appropriate and consented licensing exemptions to the owners of their rights from the movie content that is being streamed in their stations.

One of those illegal SVoD providers was Aereo.com, which filed for Chapter 11 reorganization event in November 2014. In June 2014, the US Federal Supreme Court handed down a decision in ABC v Aereo. Aereo, a TV-over-the-internet assistance, had introduced a disruptive business model, with tens of thousands of tiny antennas kept in a warehouse, to live stream broadcast signs that they had encoded into packets, right into the house of users. It had been sued by the broadcasters (initially including 21st Century Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC) for breach of the copyright in general operation. Aereo defended its actions asserting that it did was to supply a device to see a programme which was available. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the broadcasters, judgment that Aereo and its own cloud-based technology was too like a conventional cable business to state that its support didn’t infringe. The failed watch-TV-on-the-Internet startup Aereo.com may return however, since TiVo purchased its own trademarks, domains and client record , for the bargain price of USD1 million in March 2015. TiVo might be looking into supplying an Aereo-like support but one which is accredited by TV networks[5].

film in streaming 2019

Throughout the AIPPI Congress in September 2014, Elizabeth Valentina, Vice President Content Protection for Fox Entertainment Group, (talking on her behalf since Fox was litigating the situation ), pointed out that Aereo’s business model included the buffering of broadcast content acquired without consent, authorisation or permit, and for that service Aereo were charging their readers. This business model has been damaging that of their broadcasters and content owners, by distributing their articles, interfering with private bargains for articles to be delivered across the net and also to mobile devices, in addition to diverting eyeballs from TV advertising revenue. It ended up being a harm clearly recognized by Judge Nathan at first example, at the broadcasters’ motion for a preliminary injunction. During the same congress, Sanna Wolk (Associate Professor at University of Uppsala, Sweden and co-chair of AIPPI’s copyright committee) compared the US position with that adopted in the EU where the CJEU in March 2013 ruled that online near-live streaming by the UK Company, TV Catchup, was an unauthorised “communication to the public” within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (InfoSoc Directive) and therefore an actionable infringement of copyright. The CJEU concluded that as TV Catchup was making the works in the original “terrestrial” TV broadcast available over the internet, and hence using different technical means to retransmit the broadcast, this retransmission was a “communication” within the meaning of the Article 3(1). Furthermore in the circumstances the court did not have to consider whether communication was to a”new people”, as the new transmission required an individual and separate authorisation from the copyright owners. While full-blown litigation seems the obvious and mostly-used response to copyright infringement and counterfeiting in video streaming services, it is debatable as to whether an ardent battle against streaming video piracy is worth it. Indeed, drawing on the experience from the inconclusive fight, led by the music industry, against illegal downloads of music tracks offered by peer-to-peer websites in the early noughties, it may be worth biting the bullet and exploring non-legal avenues to this endemic and crippling infringement.

For example, Popcorn Time, dubbed the “Netflix for pirates” was recently on the run. Time4Popcorn.eu, one of the most popular iterations of the illegal movie site, has had its URL suspended by European regulators in October 2014, effectively turning off the lights for a site that had attracted millions of users in just a few months.

The European ID Registry knocked Time4Popcorn.eu offline due to suspicion that the page was registered with inaccurate administrator contact details. The site’s developers, rather than provide accurate contact information, simply relocated to Time4Popcorn.com. With more and more court decisions forcing ISPs to block access to certain websites in the territories that they cover, the best legal approach seems to request an injunction, in key territories, for ISPs to block end users access to the websites of illegal SVoD providers.

What’s in the stars for video streaming players and traditional feature film and sitcom producers?

In the short term, I think that traditional players in the TV and film industries, including Hollywood major studios, are going to start feeling the pain, as revenues are derailed by the economic and creative successes of legal and illegal SVoD providers alike. As a result, traditional feature film and TV series producers will have to up their game, focusing their financial and creative efforts on solely “block-buster” material projects. It is going to become even more difficult for independent and young directors and producers to finance their content creation processes, in the future.

In the long term, there will be a leap towards more high-quality content being produced (with stronger plots, bankable stars and exceedingly talented writers, directors and actors included in the content creation mix) by both traditional and SVoD content providers: Darwinism will be in the works, with the survival of only the fittest. Major film studios and distributors will have to adapt or die because video streaming is here to stay and will eventually scale up even more due to easier accessibility and affordability on major consumers’ lands, better wifi relations (specifically, on account of this generalisation of optical fiber ), a broader spectrum of devices on which to observe and flow videos (tablets tablets, PCs, TV displays, etc.) and altering habits towards civilization ingestion (for example, the hesitation to pay to watch films, an inability to keep in front of a movie screen for about 2 hours to get centuries of customers and the development of cocooning).