Criticism of Netflix
Criticism of Netflix
Main page

Criticism of Netflix

logo
Community Hub0 subscribers
What are your thoughts?
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Criticism of Netflix

Netflix is a subscription streaming service owned by the American company Netflix, Inc. Launched on August 29, 1997, it initially offered DVD rental and sale by mail, but the sales were eliminated within a year to focus on the DVD rental business. In 2007, the company began transitioning to its current subscription streaming model. Since its launch, the company was subject to numerous criticisms, the basis of which range from its business practices and workplace culture to issues with the service it provides, including content issues, lack of close captioning and pricing. This article provides an overview of key criticisms the company has faced.

In October 2019, Netflix began to experiment with allowing users to change the speed at which content is being played, ranging from half the original speed, to up to one-and-a-half times faster the original speed. The feature was deployed to selected users of the service's Android app. The feature was criticized by various members of the film industry, who argued that it harmed the artistic integrity of their work. Netflix vice president Keela Robison stated that the feature "generated a fair amount of feedback – both for and against," and noted use cases for slowing down playback, such as helping viewers locate details in scenes, or making it easier to understand dialogue in foreign languages if they are still learning the language. Robison also noted that they had deliberately limited the rollout of the feature due to "creator concerns," and that such functions had already been available on DVD players.

In 2015, Netflix and Cinedigm were sued by Corinth Films over its streaming of the 1948 Italian film Bicycle Thieves; although the film itself was considered public domain in the United States, distinct subtitling or dubbing of the film can still be considered a separate and copyrightable work. Corinth alleged that the specific version of the film, registered by Richard Feiner & Co. and owned by Corinth, was being licensed by Cinedigm to Netflix without permission. The parties later settled.

Steven Spielberg, governor of the directive branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), has questioned the eligibility of Netflix's feature films for Academy Award nominations since films are released simultaneously in cinemas and via video on demand, in defiance of the standard three-month release window. While Netflix had previously given its theatrical acquisitions a simultaneous release in theaters and streaming, Roma was the first under a new policy to provide at least a three-week theatrical run before streaming release. According to the official rules of the Academy, a film only needs to be screened in the city of Los Angeles for seven days, with a minimum of three public showings per-day, to qualify for an Oscar nomination. However, the eligibility criteria do allow for simultaneous releases on non-theatrical platforms.

Spielberg complained that films "that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week" shouldn't qualify. Following the 91st Academy Awards (during which Roma became the first film distributed by a streaming service to be nominated for Best Picture, and won Best Foreign Language Film and two other awards), a spokesperson for Spielberg's studio, Amblin Partners, stated that he "feels strongly about the difference between the streaming and theatrical situation," and would address the issue at the Academy's next board of governors meeting in April 2019.

Critics argued that Roma had an unfair advantage, singling out the service's wide availability, refusal to report box office numbers, disrespect of the industry's standard release windows with only three weeks of exclusive theatrical play (although it is not uncommon for some nominees to only receive the week-long minimum run), and excessive marketing spend (with reports ranging between $25 and $50 million, although its Oscars marketing was rolled into Netflix's overall marketing budget, which should not be). Due to its contravention of the standard three-month windows used by all major distributors, national cinema chains have refused to carry Netflix's theatrical releases. Netflix defended its distribution model, arguing that it was devoted to "[providing] access for people who can't always afford, or live in towns without, theaters. Letting everyone, everywhere enjoy releases at the same time. Giving filmmakers more ways to share art. These things are not mutually exclusive."

The U.S. Department of Justice warned the Academy that attempts to change its rules to discriminate against Netflix and other streaming platforms could violate antitrust law, as the parent companies of the traditional major studios (in particular, AT&T and Disney) have been making investments into streaming services that directly compete with Netflix.

In April 2019, the Academy voted against making any changes to its eligibility criteria, but AMPAS president John Bailey stated that the organization would study changes to the industry.

See all
User Avatar
No comments yet.