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?"

1 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Are me eyes deceivin' me? by Eccles · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.