Slashdot Mirror
'Harry Potter' Offered (Legitimately) on the Net
Skyshadow writes "Warner Brothers is distributing several movies, including Harry Potter and Mars Attacks via the internet. The price is the same as I pay for Pay-Per-View from my satellite provider ($3.99 for a 24 license), and the movies are in the area of 700 megs. I'm sure that movies on demand will eventually take off as a legitimate and feasible distribution method, but given that a vast majority of US households are without broadband, is this an idea before its time?"
Here in Canada, I don't know ONE PERSON who doesn't have broadband -- even among people who don't know how to use a mouse-wheel. Beyond ranting, it is my feeling that US broadband is far behind the times, and must catch up. Hopefully the new demand created by services such as this one will help to move the market forward.
Which will be hacked to allow unlimited playtime in... 3...2...1...
(Excuse me for a second while I climb on my anti-palladium soapbox... there.)
And when it does get hacked, the studios will be crying for Palladium more than ever. I realize the current protection is being offered by Microsoft, but would it be too much to ask for this to NOT be hacked? Isn't this finally what everyone has been asking for, to be able to pay for entertainment on demand legitimately?
Yes, I realize it's still in a protected format, but this is NOT DIVX (the late Circuit City format, not the codec). Divx represented the potential for DVDs to be replaced with movies that were ALWAYS pay-per-view locked and could never be licenced for unlimited personal use playback. Let's face it, the studios UNDERSTAND that not everyone owns a computer and they would NEVER stop selling DVDs. Supporting this format is NOT a threat to DVD, and respecting their rights by NOT hacking the format is a mature attitude to have, and it gives them less of a reason to force a "secure computing platform" down our throats.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
" 1) If you are a content owner and want to protect content, then you need Windows Media Rights Manager SDK. 2) If you are a license clearing house and need to build a license server, then you need Windows Media Rights Manager SDK. 3) If you are an ISV and want to build a player application that can decrypt content protected with Windows Media DRM, you need to license Windows Media Format SDK and a key. "
Does not look very open.
Me, I like to make SVCDs of the VHS tapes I own so I can eventually get rid of my VCR.
I tried a service like that called Intertainer from my broadband company, Zoomtown. The streaming video broke down, and became like a series of slides. There was just not enough bandwidth to make it work.
Movies streaming over the net could be a great alternative to cable and satellite TV if they could get it to work, but what I have seen so far was too poor in quality.
I got a free wireless audio/video transmitter to watch streaming video in the living on my TV for trying Intertainer. That at least was cool.
How ya like dat?
I have Time Warner cable:
We know have video on demand here which means I can order Harry Potter and watch it anytime I want for an eight hour period. This sounds much better than waiting to for a huge download and watching the movie on my pc!
Its also a little cheaper... $3.95 for new movies and $1.95 for older ones.
Haven't tested anything, so I can't say for sure.. But Mediaplayer 7 for OS X does support DRM, so it should work just fine..
What the what!?! Amidst all this lagal brick-a-brack and industry association B.S. a company is actually doing something that reflects a real consumer market?
Nope, it's $3.99 for a video you can view for only 24 hours, after spending the downloading time. Compare this to a $4 5 day rental at Blockbuster, or buying it on DVD for $16.99, it doesn't look so good. Whose kid is only ever going to want to watch it once, and in most cases on a computer screen (TV out isn't *that* common)?
Unrestricted, it would make sense. For a lot of movies, they'd make up in volume what they'd lose in per-copy prices. (The $16.99 includes distributor and vendor markups.) Harry Potter might be one of a few where this isn't the case, simply because so high a percentage of the potential purchasers are buying it already.
I think this is just intended to fail. "Look, we offered stuff over the net, but they've already pirated it and refuse to buy it."
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Actully it was. They just said it was for Linux to have better positions at court. And now, couple years later, those who were'nt around before decss (and dod speed ripper) releases don't know truth.
And this misconception is where the entire concept of copyright needs to be redefined.
You shouldnt have a right to prevent copying, you should only have the right to prohibit _publishing_, eg the act of distribution for sale.
You car analogy is wrong - someone giving your car to someone else deprives you of your car. Someone making a copy of data does not deprive you of your data.
Private copying is none of your business.
Not that it matters, becuase what you envision will never happen. Digital data files will always be copyable, and no matter how much Microsoft might like to make money off RIAA/MPAA selling them software the claim is 'secure', Microsoft cant make a secure product, nor do they even really bother trying. Once they've got their money, they no longer care.
i tried a classic login/passwd: cypherpunks/cypherpunks
and lo and behold, it works! enjoy.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.