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?"
...renewals of the license are cheap. (Provided that the big honking file can actually be reused.)
:^)
I don't think I'm ready to pay $2.99 or even $1.99 every time I want to watch the movie. Maybe $0.99, but even that would get old after a while.
After 5-10 viewings, I'm better off having bought the DVD, since that's got infinite viewings (theoretically speaking) and resale value.
As much as we live in a virtual world nowadays, humans still like shiny material things they can hold in their hands. Hard to see how a timelocked file can overcome that urge to "own".
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I know it can be a foolish position to maintain on this site, but I strongly support the emergence of (open, cross-platform, fair) DRM technology.
As someone who makes his living from what I write, I know that I wouldn't release my work to widespread, instantaneous copying unless I knew I could secure some of my own rights as to how that copying takes place. Many other individuals (as well as big, greedy corporations) feel the same. The fundamental idea is that before I hand you the keys to my car, I want to know whether you can run out back and give my car away to a dozen of your buddies - or strangers.
So as long as DRM is reasonable about fair use, stops the majority of people from doing the wrong thing (and can more-or-less keep up with the bleeding-edge crackers), I look forward to it. This way I can get the downloadable movies, music, and text that I want, while actually supporting the person who made it all for my pleasure.
But man, I wish that software was available for Mac or Linux.
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
I figure this is a test. They want to see if people will copy it.
I would be willing to bet they've got something in there which they can look for to prove that any given copy of the film came from the download site. So then they can point to it and say "see - people do copy things and pass them round once they've downloaded them from the net". And it will make a great lobbying tool for them to use to get all the anti-piracy legislation through that they want.
Hmmm... sorry... maybe I'm just feeling a bit pessemistic today.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
I think it's hilarious that a company is, for once, not stepping blindly on the rights of consumers and experimenting with a delivery method that utilizes broadband in a way that slashdot readers and geeks all over have been asking for for some time, and all I see in the comments are people saying it won't work. What the hell is wrong with you guys? do you like ANYTHING?
Ta add to you theory read this:
Harry potter dvd does not have macrovision protection
Welcome to the future boys and girls. Divx (think circuit city) may have failed, but it's what media companies want, so it's what they'll make consumers "want".
Pretty soon, EVERYTHING will be "licensed" instead of bought. I can't wait to get my Microsoft House(TM) with Human Rights Management(TM), this condo of mine is getting cramped!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Sure, that is more than enough to cover hosting/bandwidth costs. For a high bandwidth site, there are download services that will serve your downloads for less than $1/GB (I know of one that offers $.75/GB, and I have heard of one in the $.50/GB range). And remember that these ISPs even make a profit at these rates. If such a movie distribution service were to take off, they could justify cutting out the middle man and serving the files directly, reducing their costs further.
Sure, it's great to be able to download a movie anytime you want but, I frear that the net can't handle it.
Lets fast-forward a few years. Everyone has xDSL or cable and everyone downloads or streams their movies. At 700+ MB per movie and possibly per person what is the internet going to be like? I know that there is presently excess bandwidth available and that there is supposed to be a fair bit of dark fibre but, is there really enough. How much bandwidth will be left for email and surfing, not to mention IP phones, when everybody is downloading their movies?
Today, it is possible for several people in a household to be watching several different movies at the same time but, on different channels. What will it be like when those same people are all downloading a 700+ MB film? Remember that their neighbors will be doing the same thing with possibly different films at slightly different times. What will it be like when, rather than broadcasting 100 streams to millions of viewers, there are millions of streams. Many of these streams will be the same, as is the case with broadcast, but they will be separate because they will be out of phase time wise.
It all seems grossly inefficient to me and I don't believe that the internet or even Internet2 can handle the kind of traffic that this will produce and still remain usable.
I'm also a lazy bum.
But with Netflix, who cares? Yes, there's a bit of a delay if I REALLY REALLY want to see a particular movie. But in general, I'm fed with a constant stream of movies, usually faster than I get around to watching them, at what probably averages to $3 a movie or less. (Depending on how quickly I get around to watching em')
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
They could also extend that annoying 1 day viewing period. I was ready to jump over there and 'buy' Harry Potter since I've been told by peers that its "really good" and "worth watching" and the price ($3.99) sounded right. I figured I'd start the download now before I leave for work and could watch the movie tonight. However I want to pay for the whole damn movie, not the 'right' to view the movie for a 24 hour period. They DO offer a service called "Premium Pass" that allows you to watch all the Premium films you want an unlimited amount of times for only $9.95/month. That also 'might' intrest me... if it would work under Linux. The problem again is that I don't want to redownload a movie every time I want to watch it.
Oh well. A friend of mine already bought the DVD, so I guess I'll just have to go over to his house to watch it. He doesn't charge me anything to watch his DVDs because I let him watch all of mine. It is, however, kinda annoying that I have to call him up and arrange a time when we're both not busy to do it. Although I hate people, I do enjoy watching movies as part of a gathering. Ironic, isn't it?
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
If you don't want a topic to come up, don't mention it. Certainly, don't base your entire premise around that point and then ask that it not be questioned.
"Piracy", as in, unauthorized duplication, is *not* stealing. Stealing refers, specifically, to taking something tangible away from the owner.
It is many things, immoral often being one of them, but it isn't stealing.
Words have precise meanings; don't muddle them up to support your opinions, you rapist. (By which, of course, I mean someone who uses the words incorrectly.)