Apple to Announce iTunes Movie Rentals? 347
An anonymous reader writes "Think Secret is reporting that the next Apple Worldwide Developer's Conference may be the company's platform to announce movie rentals via iTunes. The files would probably have a built-in shutoff timer, or only allow a certain number of viewings." From the article: "Apple is said to have ironed out agreements with Walt Disney, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures, and Warner Bros., and is currently in talks with other major movie studios as well. It's unknown to what extent content will be available come the August 7 announcement, or whether Apple will announce all of its studio deals at that time ... Apple had been trying for months to persuade the movie studios that the a-la-carte model of buying individual titles, as the iTunes Music Store offers with music, was the way to go. The studios, however, have been fixed on offering only a subscription or rental-based model."
And in other news later today... (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix had better watch out (Score:4, Insightful)
Shut off timer / certain number of viewings (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple fanboys are about to mod me down.
Steve sell us out? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't wait to see the sugar coating.
Frankly, he should have told them to stuff it. I figure what happened is that they went full on developing the video iPod and supporting software figuring they could bully their way over the studios. Now with the hardware in hand and no progress he is being forced to do something to move the new product.... aren't shareholders wonderful - can't let the carpet ride end.
Still, no way, no how. I don't care who packages the DRM of this sort. Its wrong. If I pay for it I want access to it when I want to access it. Otherwise refund me when it expires.
As long as it's cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Netflix had better watch out (Score:4, Insightful)
I can keep and watch a NetFlix DVD for days, even weeks if I choose. It takes up a slot of my subscription, but I incur no extra fees.
Can I do that with a rented download?
Also, am I willing to spend all day tying up my DSL downloading 8GB of data for a DVD-quality movie? No.
Will downloaded movies that are much smaller have degraded video quality, lack extras and other things that equivalent titles on DVD have? Probably.
Somehow, I don't think NetFlix is going to disappear quickly, even if they don't do downloads.
Re:As long as it's cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
This is thinksecret people, ... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny to see everyone commenting and producing all kinds of opinions based on a rumour from thinksecret. How many rumours have they actually ever gotten right?
It seems unlikely to me that S. Jobs who has already explicitely stated he does not like the rental model on several occasions, would suddenly change his mind (though I would not rule it out as an option). And he "managed to be convinced by Disney et al."? That must be real hard for Disney to do(considering he is the single biggest shareholder of that company and notoriously difficult to convince of anything).
Jeez lighten up. It's a rumour. On a site. That barely ever gets anything right.
J.
I think it's a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Good but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno. Do you ever visit Blockbuster or use Netflix? Then this may be "too good to be true" as long as the price is reasonable (read: WAY BETTER THAN BLOCKBUSTER), the selection is good, and I get a whole week to rent it. I've used Movielink for a similar service, and I have to say that it's actually quite nice.
While I have a few nits with MovieLink, the only real complaint I have is that their selection sucks. When a new movie comes to DVD, you can forget about finding it on Movielink. First you have to wait to see if it's a failure, then you can rent it three months later. Gee, thanks MPAA members. You're killing your own movie rental service that was supposed to pave the way to the future. (Actually, I think it was to keep Congress off their backs.)
I for one look forward to Apple's offerings. And if you don't like it, don't buy it. No one is forcing you. Besides, Apple also offers the purchase of movies and TV shows for oddballs like you who wish to own every movie they watch. (Really, I think you're probably complaining because it's going to make DVD burning habits look even less legit.)
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know full well the artist is seeing NO compensation when you buy his stuff from allofmp3. If you still want his songs, just steal them yourself already, instead of hiring goons to do it for you.
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:2, Insightful)
No outgoing mail? (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh?
What do you mean, it doesn't collect outgoing mail?
I live in a city too, and you can't go two blocks without tripping over a USPS "blue box." Plus, every apartment building that I've ever been in has an outgoing mailbox, right next to the incoming boxes (which are actually superior to the way you do outgoing mail in a rural area -- where you put it in your regular box and put the flag up -- since it can't be stolen).
I'd say that Netflix is much more convenient/practical for people in urban areas than in rural ones, since the delivery turnaround times are usually faster, and in many cases you can send the discs back faster. When I lived in a rural area, I'd stick them in my mailbox and wait for the carrier to pick them up the next morning; now that I live in a city, I put them in the USPS box on the corner, and they go out that afternoon (pickup at 4:30 pm), effectively cutting a day off the mail-in time. When I'm feeling lazy, I just put them in the box on my house and they get picked up the next day.
I can't think of any situation where you can receive mail, but not send it back out. If you use lockable boxes, there should be an outgoing-slot or receptacle nearby. (I think this is required by the DMM.) If you use a box affixed to your house without a flag, then you put your outgoing stuff in it and the carrier will take it out before putting the incoming mail in, and if you have a rural streetside box, then you put it in there and set the flag up.
Any carrier delivering mail will also accept it (assuming it's of "nominal amount" -- you can't hand them a 20 lb package and expect them to carry it around the rest of their route), so if you have mail delivery, you should have a way of sending it back out.
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I go to newsgroups, or other file sharing services, I can't always get the encoding that I want. There's also a good chance that the stuff is mislabeled, or is totally corrupted. Those aren't problems when buying from AllOfMP3.
Basically, I don't use AllOfMP3 because I feel guilty, I use it because it is by far the easiest way to get music in the format that I want, and I don't have to worry about it installing crap on my computer when I play a song.
Re:Netflix had better watch out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Netflix had better watch out (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Apple will use MP4, as they already do with TV and music videos. That means for "effective" DVD quality they compress to something like 1.4Mbps instead of the more normal 7Mbps found on DVDs. A fourfold decrease in bitrate means a full DVD quality movie is only 2GB, and given their proclivity for trading usability for quality, it will probably NOT be full DVD quality, meaning it won't be 2GB in size either. They can lower the resolution as well as increase the compression. Let us say they keep movies to about 1GB in size.
So here's where NetFlix has to worry:
1) Downloads can be "faster" than mail
2) There is no need to "queue" because there is no effective limit on warehouse copies
3) A per download price can be much cheaper than a NetFlix subscription
4) A download can be portable (without risk of damage to the media)
5) There is no return
6) There is no subscription
One word: DIVX (Score:3, Insightful)
Or FlexPlay (EZ-D) "self-destructing" DVDs, launched into the stratosphere by the hit 2004 Christmas movie, Noel?
Or RCA's single-play cassettes that would mechanically lock at the end of one play and could only be unlocked by the rental store with a special tool?
You do remember all of these, don't you?
You don't? That's funny. I wonder why not.
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's still not legal in the p2p case, but it least it's more ethical than paying the RIAA."
The RIAA is a trade group; they don't see a cut of every sale. That's a bit like saying that you pay the AMA when you visit your doctor. A more accurate way to put it is "but at least it's more ethical than paying the record company that produced and distributed the music."
I agree wholeheartedly with your idea (paying the artist directly) if the artist was also the one who did the cover art, engineered and produced the music, planned the marketing campaign, and did all the other things that the record company pays for, cash out of pocket (the costs for which, of course, they recoup from sales, leaving the artist the last one to be paid).
The good news is that people who like the "pay the artist directly" model can find plenty of unsigned artists who do fund all of that themselves; so it's right and proper that you give them cash directly -- after all, they've already paid all the people who helped them make their music, so you're helping to ensure that they end up in the black. But for most of the music out there, whether we like it or not, it's the record company that came up with the funds to make it happen.
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, the right to culture does not have to be enumerated; it exists by default.
Second, what part of "To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" do you not understand? Not only does that phrase implicitly affirm the public's right to have access to information and culture (i.e. affirms the existence of the Public Domain), but it's also the only thing justifying the existence of copyright (and patents, and trademarks) to begin with. In other words, if the clause that includes that phrase did not exist, no monopoly privilages would be granted to creators of works of intellect at all.
I never did have any justifications for "piracy!" I do, however, have quite a few justifications for copyright infringment, of which I've written extensively about here in the past.
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:2, Insightful)
Lots of people (which is Internet for nobody but yourself, and even then only in your head) have asked the government why they killed Elvis and I have not seen one story to indicate they didn't kill him, so thus, it must be true.
You're just picking arbitrarily picking a side and saying "since I haven't seen any proof for either position, my way is right."
My opinion (and based on the same vacuum of official artists stance as yours) is that they lump allofmp3.com in with Kazaa and Limewire and Napster before it and so when they say "stealing our music means we don't get any reward for our work" they are including feel-good-piracy.
Don't tell others to stick to facts when you have none to go on. YOU stick to the facts which is that there is no proof any of this money goes to anyone but webmaster@allofmp3.com.
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple took risk here. It refused to play ball, meaning that consumers who had bought the Dave Matthews' Band or Foo Fighters albums last year couldn't load them onto iTunes without a stupid workaround. Sony blamed Apple, saying that it was up to them to "flip the switch." The bands posted statements on their web sites telling people to complain to Apple. Still, Apple didn't back down.
http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/05/08/04/cds.not.w
Then, after the Sony rookit debacle, it was Sony that was beaten into submission.
So, although I agree that Apple uses FairPlay to create a lock-in effect, they have often stood up to the record industry as well. If they had played along with Sony, the practice might have become commonplace.
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I know a lot of musicians and songwriters who earn mechanical royalties on music sold at retail locations. Apparently, these "record stores" have existed for a few years and afforded tens of thousands of people a good living.
I find it sad that no one gave a damn what these people made until P2P came along and they had a reason to question the distribution chain. All of the sudden every P2P file trader is an activist who just standing up to the man. Utter bullshit.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM Creep? (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's $0.03 for a $0.99 song. Don't lie."
Mechanicals alone are around $0.07 per track by law. Even if you're only making the statutory mechanical rate, if 1,000 kids opt to buy rather than pirate, that's $70 more you'll have each month.
"And the first $2 million of that goes to the label for recording, promotion, etc. before the artist sees anything."
If the CD cost $2MM to produce, why then yes. That's because it was the record label, and not the artist, who invested the $2MM. The "Spend $2MM on producing a record and let the artist have all the revenue" idea doesn't work if you're trying to stay in business.
"Just go to their shows or send them money direct. Seriously."
This is a good philosophy if you don't believe that all the people who helped make the music happen (the engineers, the session musicians, etc.) deserve to be compensated. It could very well be that you only care about the person whose name is on the CD, and you'd prefer not to think about all the others who made the music a reality, or how they get paid. It's an even better philosophy if you only spend your money on CDs where it's the artist who's invested 100% of the money to get their work out there -- and there's plenty of music out there that fits this model. In this instance, it's only right and fair that the artist gets to keep 100% of the money from the sale.