The rise of on-demand streaming raises questions about the importance of content ownership in the eyes of media consumers. The term ‘ownership’ when discussing the consumer, can be ambiguous and legally fraught. For the purposes of this discussion, ‘ownership‘ refers to consumers purchasing physical or downloaded copies of media and then being able to view it indefinitely. Marie Heimer argues in her 2011 thesis, regarding Spotify, that for many accessibility of content has replaced the importance of ownership. While Heimer’s study focuses on music streaming services, the question of ownership versus accessibility are equally relevant for the television and film industries. Heimer asks ‘is property an antiquated value in the age of unlimited change and speed?’ (Heimer, 2011, p2). While it is impossible to speak to the importance of ownership of all consumers, one of the main reasons people illegally pirate content is the ease and accessibility that comes with P2P file-sharing (Nieves, 2012).

As Netflix’s Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos succinctly states when discussing the rise of piracy, people want “a great experience and they want access”. Adding “one of the side effects of growth of content is an expectation to have access to it. You can’t use the Internet as a marketing vehicle and then not as a delivery vehicle” (2013b).

​

Although Heimer’s study only analyses the issue of ownership for consumers, it is also of principle importance to video and music on-demand services. The success of business models like Netflix and Spotify rely on their ability to provide access to a wide range of content, a range not offered by traditional cable networks or record labels. However, in recent years the diversity of Netflix’s catalogue has suffered as a result of content licensing problems. Earlier this year US cable network Starz announced it had extended a deal with Sony granting them the exclusive streaming rights of their content until 2021 (Starz, 2013). Furthermore, in April Netflix announced it would not extend its licensing agreement with Viacom, a move which would cost the company nearly 1,800 titles. Although Netflix insists licensing agreements are not a problem, they simply “ebb and flow...all the time” (Bishop, 2013), it’s possible to imagine a future where such ebbing and flowing could drag the company under.

​

With more than 17,000 movies and TV episodes (Byford, 2013) Amazon Prime is quickly becoming one of Netflix’ primary competitors. In their latest quarterly earnings call in April Netflix CEO Reed Hastings confirmed the internet giant’s presence had “noticeably changed” the business landscape in the previous twelve months by “bidding more aggressively” for shows, which in turn drove licensing prices up (Hastings, 2013). Given Amazon and rival on-demand service Hulu’s presence in the market is bolstering competition, an increase in subscription prices to pay for higher content licensing fees seems inevitable. The company could not be expected to absorb these costs indefinitely. However, with their dramatic share price crash in 2011 still a recent memory, Netflix’ would be loathe to increase subscription prices again too soon.
In many ways this stalemate has lead to both video and music-on-demand streaming services being held to ransom by the owners of the content they license. The question of ownership versus accessibility is not so black and white for businesses.