Download-to-own Films Coming Soon 335
riflemann writes "CNN is reporting that Universal Pictures will soon launch a service whereby films can be downloaded legally to own, i.e. non time-limited digital downloads. Currently most legally downloaded movies are time limited. Buyers will also receive a DVD version in the post. Is the movie industry finally listening? And how will they define 'own?'"
40$ for Kong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Security Measures? (Score:5, Insightful)
What else will they prevent us from doing?
Still too much (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds good to me (Score:4, Insightful)
I predict at least two of those, probably 3. The second on the list (Windows only) is almost a certainty. Good luck to them, this sounds very good, but my experience tells me there are some major catches in there that we can't see yet.
Re:40$ for Kong? (Score:5, Insightful)
"You see, Mr. Congressman? We tried the newfangled approach and it just doesn't work, you can't sell things on the Intarweb, so we're going back to our old-fashioned screw-the-consumer oligopoly. We know we can make money with that."
More expensive than normal DVD's. (Score:5, Insightful)
Has potential, for sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
This service could really be huge if they implemented something vaguely similar to FairPlay in the sense that you can put it on a few other computers, and instead of putting it on your iPod, you could have a 30 day "timeout" -- if you don't connect to the internet in 30 days and reauthenticate your DRM'ed movie, you can't play it. This way it'll still work if you go on vacation or whatnot.
The big issue here is we're talking about a movie -- a multi-million dollar venue, corporations don't lightly toss around the idea of letting you put a $500 million production on five other computers for nothing. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction and not just some kind of sick ploy, like if they load it with horrible DRM that eats your soul and then afterwards (when the service rightfully bombs) they just say "eh, there's no market for this kind of service" and never try again. Anyway here's hoping.
$35 each, sign me up! (Score:4, Insightful)
The media companies look at every new format as an opportunity to raise prices, even when the cost of manufacturing and distribution drops significantly.
my anal-orgy (Score:2, Insightful)
I OWN a car, I can lend it to anyone I please and I can drive it on all public roads in my country. Yes there are limitations, I can only accomodate as many people as the law allows. But if I am not allowed to lend it to anyone i like, I dont own it. So no, this does not actually satisfy my definition of OWN
Loaners (Score:2, Insightful)
Typically a factory-direct model like this is CHEAPER than going through the middle man. Why would we pay MORE for it?
No thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Security Measures? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, given how quickly every protection scheme that has come down the pike so far has been cracked, I'd have to say
Re:40$ for Kong? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is bad enough the average parent can't afford to take a family of 3 - 4 to see a movie. Now they've gone and done this. Nimrods.
What next, do I have to go buy my nachos at a cinema before I can watch the movie at home? Screw DRM, and screw them for gouging. Just wait till all of the torrent networks start forwarding traffic directly to them to let them know just what they think of the idea. You thought the slashdot effect baked a CPU
Bad move on that thar MS network guys. Bad Move.
Jackasses.
Off my soapbox.
Nothing to see here (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Security Measures? (Score:4, Insightful)
if i got a full length movie sent via e-mail to me and the mail server accepted it i would first fix the mail server then beat the person who sent it to me
Re:40$ for Kong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Torrent networks don't "attack" things.. while it might be possible to add someone's IP to the list of tracked peers and generate bogus SYN traffic, it wouldn't accomplish much as Bittorrent clients are designed to initiate a connection less than once every 5 minutes to any given host or tracker.
Rewinding to the main topic, the only way to communicate to these media conglomerates isn't whining on
The day common people understand the democratic power of money, is the day democracy will start working for everyone.
Betting On (Score:2, Insightful)
To throw some oil into the water so to speak, in order to download A MOVIE... Youre talking about 2-3 hours for high quality... (your really think they'll use a fancy codec (xvid etc etc?) Thats 2 hours too long as your nearest blockbuster/walmart,bestbuy is 30 min away at the most, and you can take your family out for ice cream
Theres ALOT at stake here. They have a HUGE piracy issue at hands, the wood they are throwing onto the fire better be wet.
And no, I didn rtfa.
Re:Security Measures? (Score:4, Insightful)
May as well wait for the mail (Score:3, Insightful)
Your feeble marketing skills are no match for the power of the Postal Service! You will pay the price for your lack of vision!
I'm serious about that lack of vision thing. I give them kudos for at least trying, but trying in a way that is bound to fail isn't innovation - it is just plain stupid.
On Apple and iTunes...music and film (Score:5, Insightful)
The service proposed in the article is a perfect example of what we would get if the music industry got their way with iTunes music pricing. The labels are insisting they be allowed to charge more for newer, and more popular music (driving the prices of digital content closer to that of physical media) while offering "lower" prices for older content (Steve Jobs is resisting the increases). The Universal movie service will charge you $35 for new releases, and offer an "incredible" 50% discount on older films, which brings the price for the back catalog down to what you would pay for a physical DVD.
Economics dictates that they can charge whatever the market will bear, but I think the past few years has proven that the market simply will not bear what the conglomerates are demanding. They have this fantasy that if online stores offer the same products that they aren't selling enough of in brick-and-mortar stores at the same, or a higher price than the brick-and-mortar stores, that sales will increase.
The prevalence of file sharing had a lot to do with the convenience, but it was also much more a direct rebellion against the pricing schemes that the cartels had shoved down our throats for decades. iTunes killed two birds with one stone and took away the incredible premium they were demanding in retail stores, and adopted the convenience of the file sharing networks. Sales rebounded, and now they feel as if their original methodology was somehow correct and they can begin maximizing their profits by demanding more money for less product.
They are unable to accept the notion that they have been wrong all of these years, and are terrified that Apple is increasingly making them irrelevant in the marketplace. They are not producing any physical product, the overhead and media itself is being paid for out of Apple's tiny cut (they've only recently passed break-even on the store) and they are collecting a lionshare of the proceeds for doing nothing but allowing Apple to reproduce the content they did not make. It's a zero-risk, zero-investment game with high returns for them and them alone. With fewer bands (even established ones) getting any attention from the marketing departments at major labels, the day is coming when they will be cut out of the arrangement altogether and bands upload their music on their own (as they can do right now when they lack a big-label contract prohibiting such things). If you're not getting any airplay, the only thing you need is GarageBand, a tour promoter and an iTunes merchant account. The 90% take the labels claim on each sale, and the indentured servitude they put bands in for the ridiculous expenses they charge to each group just isn't getting anyone but a few main artists any kind of return.
The film studios are well-aware of the trap the music labels walked into, and want to ensure that any movie service has no room in it for the individual copyright holder and is arranged so if the movie studios are the only source for content, they get a monthly cut and there is no ability for individuals to upload their own films, as there is no way for them to tap into the monthly revenue stream going back to Hollywood.
Re:Own (Score:2, Insightful)
You will not have your files on more than one computer.
You may not share the files under any circumstance.
Standard DRM stuff. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
You may not playback the movie to more than 5 people.
The usual wording is more like "For home viewing only. This film may not be rented or shown in public, clubs, schools, churches, prisons, etc"
Re:40$ for Kong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:40$ for Kong? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they nuts? (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect their argument will go something like this: "See, nobody is buying them. Selling online doesn't work because everyone is pirating it." When I saw the headline I was surprised and optimistic, but then I read the fine print and it all made perfect sense.
Oh well, the MPAA and RIAA are just putting themselves out of business. Too bad for them.
Set it equal to price of movie ticket and I'm in (Score:2, Insightful)
mind paying $8 for a movie that I can watch in comfort at home with my own food.
I think they could really make it big. But at $30 it's a no brainer...no one would use it
iTunes became big because it's fair priced. $1 is not that much and you feel good about not pirating.
Re:So when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now. http://www.fsf.org/ [fsf.org]
Still not priced right... (Score:3, Insightful)
What do I own? For both music or video it averages about $5 a disc (on sale, ebay, cdbaby, Costco...)
Priced more than that? I somehow find other distractions to fill the time.
For me (and I am in the uber-top % of wage earners, per this site [globalrichlist.com]) it just isn't worth more than about $2-3 for a whole CD of music or $4-5 for a DVD. For others it might be less - but it is worth something. Downloading stuff for "free" isn't free - it takes time, burning it to discs cost money, and hey, you have evidence of a felony laying around now... who needs that?
I do have an iPod - But I have spent $0 at iTunes. Why? Because CDEX and my own Discs work just fine, thank you.
All my CDs and DVDs are from eBay, Costco, the "bargin bin" at Circuit City, etc. Full-retail just doesn't cut it. Even the annoying "join-now-get-X-discs-free" clubs work out to about $6/disc if you join, do the minimum, and quit.
Whatever happened to the concept of "making more profit on volume?" Media companies are missing out on a lot of sales, IMO, with their current pricing strategy.
While broke kids will always download stuff "for free", regular honest folks will buy tons of stuff at "Wal-Mart" prices - or not at all, when it comes to non-essential items like music and videos.
Re:The UK price (Score:3, Insightful)
If I can get the original media for, as you point out, £14 rather than £20, watch it, and if I so desire, trade it, sell it on, etc. I can then rip and transcode it, and play it on the device of my choice. Very useful for my work laptop, which is from the stone age and has no DVD-ROM.
Or I can download it for *more money*. And get a complimentary physical backup of the DRM-ised file, which I cannot trade or sell on.
They are either not thinking this through at all, or they are just waving it in the breeze as a token gesture to the courts ; "look, we tried, but those smelly hackers kept on breaking the law!"
Re:Would you copy a car? Anti MPAA message. (Score:3, Insightful)
It of course showed no signs of that on the show floor.