In the temporary, I think that traditional players in the TV and film industries, including Hollywood major studios, will 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 must up their game, focusing their financial and creative efforts on solely “block-buster” material projects. It will become a lot more burdensome for independent and young directors and producers to finance their content creation processes, in the future.
In the future, there is a leap towards more high-quality content being produced (with stronger plots, bankable stars and exceedingly talented writers, directors and actors contained in the content creation mix) by both traditional and SVoD content providers: vk streaming film Darwinism will be in the works, with the survival of only the fittest. Major film studios and distributors must adapt or die because video streaming will be here to remain and could eventually scale up a lot more because of easier accessibility and affordability on major consumers’territories, better wifi connections (in particular, because of the generalisation of optical fibre), a greater spectrum of devices on which to watch and stream videos (smartphones, tablets, PCs, TV screens, etc.) and changing habits towards culture consumption (such as, the reluctance to cover to watch movies, an inability to stay in front of a movie screen for around 2 hours for younger generations of consumers and the growth of cocooning).
Overall, the advent of SVoD services and the choice in a variety of SVoD providers is really a boon for consumers, as they are spoiled for choice in order to consume only high-quality content; will be able to avoid watching tiring and mandatory advertisements which are crippling TV shows, especially on US TV channels; and could be more in control over the devices on that they desire to consume TV series and feature film content.
So the near future is more than bright, for SVoD providers, but A sorry state of affair for SVoD providers and traditional video distributors: counterfeiting in the video streaming market Throughout the AIPPI Congress in September 2014, Elizabeth Valentina, Vice President Content Protection for Fox Entertainment Group, (speaking on her own behalf as Fox was still litigating the case), remarked that Aereo’s business model involved the streaming of broadcast content obtained without permission, authorisation or license, and for which service Aereo were charging their subscribers. This business model was harming that of the broadcasters and content owners, by devaluing their content, interfering with exclusive deals for content to be delivered online and to cellular devices, in addition to diverting eyeballs from TV advertising revenue. It absolutely was a harm clearly recognised by Judge Nathan initially instance, in the broadcasters’motion for a preliminary injunction. During the exact same congress, Sanna Wolk (Associate Professor at University of Uppsala, Sweden and co-chair of AIPPI’s copyright committee) compared the US position with this 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 first “terrestrial” TV broadcast available online, and hence using different technical way 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 need to take into account whether communication was to a “new public”, as the newest transmission required a person and separate authorisation from the copyright owners. While full-blown litigation seems the most 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 may be worth it. Indeed, drawing on the knowledge from the inconclusive fight, led by the music industry, against illegal downloads of music tracks made available from peer-to-peer websites in early noughties, it might be worth biting the bullet and exploring non-legal avenues to the endemic and crippling infringement.
Like, Popcorn Time, dubbed the “Netflix for pirates” was recently on the run. Time4Popcorn.eu, certainly one of the most used iterations of the illegal movie site, has already established its URL suspended by European regulators in October 2014, effectively turning off the lights for a website that had attracted an incredible number of users in just a few months.