Roku Developer Program

Developers and content creators—a complete solution for growing an audience directly.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Level 10

Re: Copyright laws, streaming from AWS

Thanks for clearing those up for me Joel.
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Level 9

Re: Copyright laws, streaming from AWS

"destruk" wrote:
Well see, we just don't know - ther terms of their exclusivity deal have never been disclosed - the length of exclusivity hasn't been disclosed (meaning it's most likely renewed when the original expires) so it would be indefinite/forever, and Dishwold and Roku actively enforce this exclusivity and ensure the content is legal or at least allowed by Dishworld.

It's about this weird concept of a 3rd party (DW) "blessing" streaming of specific non-domestic content - not about legal right to it, that's what i am pointing out. Though i understand how it simplifies RokuCo's life - by giving first dibs to DW, because of their size they are sure they'd license content right - and RokuCo does not have to learn the intricate details of content licensing abroad. Which differ wildly from country to country - as example do you remember AllofMP3.com case, where a Russian company was selling non-DRM MP3 at $0.10/song in full compliance with Russian law, while paying license fees to their version of RIAA? That was a very sticky situation, bringing questions about legality of trans-border transactions (i.e. if something purchased under other country's law gets imported here, where different rules apply - and the impracticality of Customs/duty on internet). Ultimately that site was shut down through extra-legal means, where Russian government reps* "influenced" the parent company into shutting down the service after USA government reps** have "hinted" that Russia's entry into WTO might be jeopardized if that egg-on-RIAAs-face of a website continues to exist. "The Godfather" vibe going on there. Not the kind of troubles Roku wants to be near anyway.

OTOH, the part where because of DW they took down existing international channels is a low part in RokuCo's existence. Maybe the lowest.

Although Dishworld hasn't added any languages since they launched on Roku they have this to say -- "We intend to continue to expand the languages we offer on Roku and aren’t prepared at this point to provide blanket waivers of our exclusivity." They have nothing for American Indians content language so I wanted to ask if they would allow a waiver for all American Indian content - but they want to keep their options open, and have developers PAY them to have said content available on roku, and then it gets merged into their expensive package deals as you get bought out. No thanks - we'll just provide said content on every device EXCEPT roku.

So you are saying it's a case of dog in the manger, "for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat hay nor does he let the oxen eat"?
[spoiler=dog in the manger, visual:2pr8nrau][/spoiler:2pr8nrau] I suspect such position won't bear scrutiny if challenged - though your likely lack the legal muscle to do it. Because DW are sufficiently big to start talking about monopoly in their anti-competitive actions and going against public's interest. Going to court would bring to light the details of Roku-DW deal and has significant risk of breaking the cozy relationship; it might be ordered they could not be "first among equals" even. They'll resolve the issue inter partes.

Are you sure that after sufficient dragging of feet RokuCo won't allow you to publish w/o DW consent? I read something that made me think they would, after giving an ample head-start time to DW.

You would have to think there is some kind of vetting process for channels that pay Roku for their premium support like Hulu, Netflix, Dishworld, etc - it'd be both a problem for roku and these other businesses if something somehow got in that shouldn't be there. All I'm saying is at least during the initial channel approval process Roku is big enough now (10 million devices) that it might be a good idea to look a little closer at the content rights itself before simply adding it to the channel store to begin with.

Actually the sheer size is the reason why RokuCo cannot do that. Would you say IRS is big enough to audit 100% of all tax returns? And don't forget one is presumed innocent until proven guilty - not the other way around. See also, YouTube - you publish on good faith, they check on DMCA notice.

(*) we tend to call those "thugs" when events don't align with US geopolitical interests
(**) we call these "trade representatives" and not thugs since they defend US interests
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Level 9

Re: Copyright laws, streaming from AWS

"RokuJoel" wrote:
I don't think PayPal takes a cut on payments we send to developers, at least they are not supposed to.
Paypal takes a cut when an individual or small business pays someone, but we have a different kind of account with PayPal that is not supposed to do that.

That's great! Frankly PayPal website is quite elusive about fees for receiving moneys, unless it is for "friends and family", when "Sending money to friends and family is free for you and the recipient in the US when you fund the transfer with your bank account". I have assumed xfers from RokuCo are governed by this https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees

Can someone that regularly receives from Roku confirm paypal does not skim any?
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Level 9

Re: Copyright laws, streaming from AWS

"RokuJoel" wrote:
... Interestingly, DISHWorlds business model pays the channel owner revenue to be on their platform.

Yeah, at first i gasped in disbelief when @destruk said "they want to ... have developers PAY them to have said content available on roku" - but then i figured it must be creative writing, in which "PAY them" was misleadingly used for DW asking for profit sharing (% of sales) when carrying content on their network.
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Level 10

Re: Copyright laws, streaming from AWS

Enterr ? Really? Ok, so if somebody pays you $5 to allow you to put your content on Roku - and in order to get that payment they would add your content to their own offerings as they have 'exclusivity' , and then they charge people viewing your content $20 to view it, the original provider (you) are losing $15 in revenue. That's not creative at all, that's just economics. You could just as easily (and it makes more sense to do so) charge $20 yourself for your content on any other platform besides roku and dishworld wouldn't get a penny from that. Do I have that wrong?
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Level 7

Re: Copyright laws, streaming from AWS

"EnTerr" wrote:
"RokuJoel" wrote:
I don't think PayPal takes a cut on payments we send to developers, at least they are not supposed to.
Paypal takes a cut when an individual or small business pays someone, but we have a different kind of account with PayPal that is not supposed to do that.

That's great! Frankly PayPal website is quite elusive about fees for receiving moneys, unless it is for "friends and family", when "Sending money to friends and family is free for you and the recipient in the US when you fund the transfer with your bank account". I have assumed xfers from RokuCo are governed by this https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees

Can someone that regularly receives from Roku confirm paypal does not skim any?

No fees are taken from Roku payments via PayPal.
My Channels: http://roku.permanence.com - Twitter: @TheEndlessDev
Instant Watch Browser (NetflixIWB), Aquarium Screensaver (AQUARIUM), Clever Clocks Screensaver (CLEVERCLOCKS), iTunes Podcasts (ITPC), My Channels (MYCHANNELS)
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Roku Employee
Roku Employee

Re: Copyright laws, streaming from AWS

"EnTerr" wrote:
"RokuJoel" wrote:
... Interestingly, DISHWorlds business model pays the channel owner revenue to be on their platform.

Yeah, at first i gasped in disbelief when @destruk said "they want to ... have developers PAY them to have said content available on roku" - but then i figured it must be creative writing, in which "PAY them" was misleadingly used for DW asking for profit sharing (% of sales) when carrying content on their network.


My understanding is that if you become a partner with DISHWorld, broadcasting on their network and in their channel, they pay you to be there, not the other way around. They have to want you though.

- Joel
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Level 9

Re: Copyright laws, streaming from AWS

"destruk" wrote:
Enterr ? Really? Ok, so if somebody pays you $5 to allow you to put your content on Roku - and in order to get that payment they would add your content to their own offerings as they have 'exclusivity' , and then they charge people viewing your content $20 to view it, the original provider (you) are losing $15 in revenue. That's not creative at all, that's just economics. You could just as easily (and it makes more sense to do so) charge $20 yourself for your content on any other platform besides roku and dishworld wouldn't get a penny from that. Do I have that wrong?

I don't know, man. I don't understand the $ explanation you just gave. Who pays you $5 to allow you to put your content on Roku etc...
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Roku Employee
Roku Employee

Re: Copyright laws, streaming from AWS

DISHWorld pays content providers to be on their platform, be it Satellite or Roku, as I understand it from my conversions with them. Not sure where you got the five dollar figure.

- Joel
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Level 10

Re: Copyright laws, streaming from AWS

Here, I'll break it down even further for you - "(hypothetical, example)" - since I don't have an agreement with Dishworld I have no printed contract to refer to.
Dishworld is in business to "MAKE money" - not to give all their profits to channel developers.
Therefore, if Dishworld is selling the "Ethiopian Entertainment package" for $29.99/month - they then pay a portion of that money to the provider of the channels and content available within that package.
They would not be in business if they paid $35 to the providers of content of the package and only took $29.99 per month from the customer they are providing to.

Can it be any clearer than that?

So -- if they paid the providers $29.99/month per customer to each provider, and they collect $29.99/month per customer using their service, they make no money and can't cover their own costs because 100% of all money they receive goes right back out again. It's just not possible.

With that as a fact - no matter if it's $60, $5, $20, or $40, or any other figure that makes you feel awesome at the moment, 100% is 100% no matter what number you use.

Therefore, if they are paying the providers less than what they are making, what benefit is there to you accepting less money than your content is worth to the world? You are taking a loss for the privilege.
It doesn't matter what they are paying you, you are still missing out on money that they collect off of your hard work. I see this as a scam - because they have exclusivity they hold developers at ransom to get their cut of money out of the deal which makes it rather pointless to pursue under these terms.
0 Kudos