Slashdot Mirror
New Movie Download Pay Service
SailorBob writes " After nearly two years in production, Hollywood-backed Movielink is giving the green light to its online movie rental service.
The Web site, a joint project of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros., will debut Monday with a limited selection of first-run and classic films from the five major motion pictures studios, in a test of the technology to select U.S. residents. Though the film studios have licensed content to other video-on-demand sites, it is the first time they've introduced a service of their own.
Of course, just like the new music services, this is also only available to US residents. "
And those residing in the US who are using Internet Explorer 5 or later.
Dont they want money from outside the US?
I am interested in this, but they are not letting me in, so does anyone know of any open proxy servers based in the US so I can have a look see?
Cheers
Hmmm.
;)
When I first saw the headline I assumed it was going to a great step towards truly using the power of the internet and online sales.
However, this is nothing more than glorified movie rental with the user paying well over the odds.
I've been using something called DVDSONTAP for a while now, pay £9.99 a month and rent as many dvds as I like and send them back when I like. $4.99 AND the "pleasure" of downloading AND having to install their DRM crap? No thanks. I'll stick to regular DVD and of course, leeching from usenet
Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers; however, you currently do not meet our minimum system requirements. You will need to adjust the following:
* You Need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP
They are severely limiting their audience here. While "normal" people will simply go to Blockbuster and rent the DVD, the Internet community doesn't allow have "Windows 98, ME, 2000, or XP".
As I (obviously) can't browse through the webpage, could someone tell me how format these are going to be distributed in?
[BTW, I'm running Mozilla 1.1 on SuSE 8.1 Professional.]
Here is the jist according to me:
..)
1. You can download certain videos that are probably like the "new release" section at the video store, but also some classics (examples- A beautiful mind, harry potter,
2. You can view it within 30 days of the download, but once "play is hit" you can only watch it within a 24 hr period (but as many times as you want).
3. Cost will be between 2.99 and 4.99
My question is- Why not save yourself 1 1/2 hrs and possibly a buck and drive to the video store? The only thing I can think of is no late fees. A little more convenient in that sense. But what about video quality? Who wants to watch a video on their pc as opposed to the big screen tv upstairs?
Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers, but it is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States.
;)
I'm don't see why I can't even have a look? Are they just paranoid of people copying their service in the rest of the world?
I'd be nice to know more, but seems we have to resort to Gnutella/eDonkey/etc... here
.: Max Romantschuk
I may not have articulated it very well, but I'm sure you all know what's at stake here. So go there, look for a movie you like and pay for it. And don't put it in a shared folder.
It's early on for Movielink, but in its initial incarnation, its strictly Windows & Strictly IE. If you try anything else, you'll get:
Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers; however, you currently do not meet our minimum system requirements. You will need to adjust the following:
*
You Need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP
Running Netscape, even on Windows will get you:
Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers; however, you currently do not meet our minimum system requirements. You will need to adjust the following:
You need Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher - Upgrade Now
Spoofing your browser & javascript settings will just hang your machine.
Yes, someone will crack the DRM. Yes, the adoption rate will suck because most non-geeks really do want to watch movies on their televisions. But all in all, movie-industry suits have shown themselves to be more adaptable in the face of change than their counterparts in the music industry -- CDs cost what they cost a decade ago, but DVDs are probably about a tenth or twentieth of what the first VHS movies cost when you factor in inflation.
Bottom line: I'd rather have the movie industry experimenting and learning than have them go into siege mode the way the music industry has done. They both have a lot of money to throw at Congress -- money and influence we can't ever match -- so signs (even dull glimmers) of cluefullness are greatfully appreciated.
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
It's a bit low-tech, but since I moved to NY I've been getting four or five movies a week from the public library. The selection is vastly larger than my local Blockbuster, you can request things online (telnet lives!) and they send them to your local branch and then e-mail you when it comes in, you can have up to 15 requests active, you get the movies for a full week, and it's all completely free! Most films even come in DVD now. (The system is for books, too. Remember books?) It's amazing. Plus, when you pay your dollar-a-day overdue fee you get a warm fuzzy feeling for giving to the library, as opposed to handing four bucks to some mumbling chowderhead at the video megalopoly outlet. The NY site is here.
- $3.00 to rent a movie for 24 hours, versus $5.00 to rent it for a week from the shop down the road.
- It's not portable. I can only watch it from the downloading computer.
- Forced, automatic "updating" of their software.
For any lurkers: Charge me $5 to $10, depending on age, for a permanant copy which I can burn to DVD myself. Charge me extra if I want the "value added" version (the retail DVD, versus just a movie.) Afraid I might pirate your stuff? Please, if I have broadband, I already can. So, take my money, the way I want you to, or I'll get your product somewhere else. Get over it and get with the economy."You're never ready, just less unprepared."
But the site has no search feature. I went to the Comedy link, and it completely failed the one-shot test:
The Appointments of Dennis Jennings
Does anyone know why this intense, Oscar winning IIRC, little film cannot be found under the sun?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
(and before you say "it's not a test without platform X", I'm sure if they can get it to work on Windows, they can get it working on your platform).
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Dont they want money from outside the US?
The difference is that in the United States, the studios own the movies' copyrights because of the "work made for hire" rule. Elsewhere, the "work made for hire" rule applies less or not at all, and the studios do not own the movies; the director, screenwriter, and score composer do. The studios may have to negotiate a separate contract for each country where the service is offered.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's true then, I'm not American... .. that makes me happy
You fool! You've given cheese to a lactose intolerant volcano god! Do you know what that means?
VGA out + MPEG2 in * DIVX = KAZAA.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers, but it is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States.
Europeans not allowed, and it is not slashdotted. This proves that we, europeans, are the major factor in the slashdot effect
Q.E.D.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers, but it is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States.
The pirates are so much more user/customer-friendly.
Working in Turkey at the moment, around the block from the hotel people are standing around with these huge boxes full of DIVX movies. costs about a buck or 2 a movie (depends on your bartering skills)...
the amazing this is that they even have a system! It's all DVD quality, autorun feature that would install all the codecs, subtitling software,...
now i don't feel so bad for having bought some of those when i' really really bored...
i was going to buy some from your site mr. movie exec... but you wouldn't let me... so this was my only option
Windows has nothing to do with it. I tried to click the link with Windows 2000 running Phoenix 0.3 and it just refused to let me in.
Only IE can access it. Sucks to be them. I guess they view the Open Source users as non-consumers. And the site is running java for fuck's sake.
I'll stick with my Charter on Demand movies. My TV has a bigger screen, the prices are just as good and the selections are better.
It doesn't require my to go by a specific TV from a specific vender either! I can use an old B&W tv with vacuum tubes or a new shiney one. It can be a large screen, or HDTV or just a regular TV.
Life is good when you don't have to buy even more stuff you don't want (like a WindozeXX computer) just to see a stupid movie!
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Did they make up a big list of things that would make the service suck and pick them all?
Okay, so lets review. You pay $4.99 for a new release, you get one day to watch it, it's lower video quality than DVD, you can only watch it on the PC (unless you have video out hooked to a TV) and to top it all off, you can't use the service without Windows let alone even browse the site without IE?
How this is even close to spending $3.99 to rent a DVD new release you can watch on a TV for two days with full quality video and sound is lost on me. Yeah, you don't have to drive anywhere to get it, but you pay more and get a lot less.
I can't imagine why this service would fail to catch the business of regular people, and of course those people trading DVDs.
Of course, just like the new music services, this is also only available to US residents.
And for the rest of residents on this globe... P2P... gosh, the people in the movie industry are just as smart as the music industry. They're going to be flushed down the drain if they're not coming up with a viable internet business idea soon...
We're supposed to support something that has already failed in the marketplace? (Hint: Think Divx.) Just because they've added a bandwidth crippling download and locked it to your PC without all of the extra DVD-goodness?
Not to mention the charges are HIGHER than at your local video store. $2.99 for a 24-hour rental? Not to mention at lower quality and you can't even play it on your living room TV.
No, this does not deserve our support.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The only appealing use of this that I can think of right now might be to load a movie or two on the laptop prior to a plane flight.
I was hoping that this may allow you to burn a DVD or VCD from the downloaded site but no such luck. I can't think of any time that I would sit and watch a movie on my PC except when travelling.
I can't quite see how they expect to make any money off of this. To be competitive this services has to offer something better than the existing distribution channels. I see far too many bad points and only one good, no returns or late fees.
I hate it when I do stupid stuff like pick the wrong format. Once more with appropriate breaking:
Blackmail implies a negative outcome for the company. Or, at least, an outcome more negative than had I no dealings with the product. They gain money by providing me with product, and they lose no money (save what they had to gain) by not. That is not blackmail.
The part about acquiring it illegally is a given about much of the public in many ways of life. 30 seconds on packetnews, go to the appropriate IRC channel, and get the newest Screener or DVDRip. Been that way for awhile. You might bemoan that, but it's still the case.
Here they're trying to fulfill a market that doesn't exist (24 hour online rentals) and so of course it's going to fail. The only people interested in online rentals are agorophobians and people who live in desolate areas. So that leaves Johnny Carson, and who else?
Porn is the only industry that gets off (pun intended) on that business structure, and this venture won't change that.
Side notes: In my meager defense, I've downloaded a move exactly once, then realized why screeners really suck. I will likely do it for Spirited Away though, because of Disney's cock-up in distributing it to all of 200 screens in total, with the nearest being three+ hours away. I may do it for Bowling for Columbine too, because of the Regal Cinemas flap, unless Michael Moore wants to sell me a DVD personally, so I'll know he's getting my cash and not a distributor.
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
I tried to go there with latest nightly build of Mozilla and got this lovely message:
'* You need Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher - Upgrade Now'
Food for thought.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
This service will no doubt fail as it requires too many things for all it delivers. The more likely thing we will see from this is after this fails more lobbying in washington as they can now "proove" that the internet is only comprised of pirates! See we opened a pay service and nobody used it!
Got hosting
ATI All-in-Wonder video cards can output NTSC television signals. It should also be pretty easy to connect a VGA signal to an HDTV set.
It's not difficult to connect a VGA signal using those output jobbies on the back of the card, I agree. However, the quality leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I haven't used the ATI card, but my AGP Diamond card had a video out and it doesn't come close to the quality that my DVD player gives me. Not only that, but you also have to get that connection TO the TV. A lot of people don't have the tv right next to the PC, so that means that they have to either buy a long cable and run it or use one of the wireless transmitter/reciever devices. Again, crappy quality and a lot more work than just sticking a DVD in the player.
However, your other point (video availability) is a pretty good one. It really gets me ticked when I go to the video and the 99 copies of the new release are gone. However, after reading the article it kind of sounds like the new releas selection will be AFTER the videos have been released at the video store.
"the typical Linux enthusiast is very vocal in his/her choice of free (beer/speech, irrelevant really), therefore such a paying service would, really, just induce laughter in the Linux community."
i think this is a incorrect generalization. i'm a big supporter of OSS, GPL, free speech, etc., but i'm also very willing to pay for content i appreciate. not *everything* has to or should be free, and i gladly pay for content i could get for free (ie music). i do this because i understand that an efficient way to encourage content production (code, art, etc.) is through monetary support.
smd4985
I tried it last night. Rented and downloaded an older classic for $1.99 (took 1.08 hours on my DSL). It seems their codec could have been much better. I have seen DivX movies the same size (628MB) and same length movie that were higher quality. I would say the quality was similar to VHS. I don't know what codec they are using, but it doesn't seem like MPEG4, which is what I would like to see them use to make maximum use of bandwidth. :-)
This service would actually be useful for us, because we live so far away from any rental store... and sometimes have problems getting the movies back on time.
We usually watch DVDs on the computer anyway.
If a service opens up that uses MPEG4 (or DivX) and has good prices, then we will be using it quite frequently.
Plus, when you pay your dollar-a-day overdue fee you get a warm fuzzy feeling for giving to the library, as opposed to handing four bucks to some mumbling chowderhead at the video megalopoly outlet.
;-) Yeah, paying late fees at Roger's or Blockheads^H^H^H^H^Hbuster really sucks. And yes, local libraries can have a surprisingly good selection, everything from arty European stuff to Kurosawa to four copies of The Matrix :-D
I consider library fines to be one of my major modes of charitable donation. I don't deliberately keep books overdue, it just works out that way... a lot
Freedom: "I won't!"
Appreciate your right to an opinion, dinna agree, laddy.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Any would they care if it ran on anything else but windows?
Before some linux fanatic mods me down, look at
this. In the "Web Browsers Used To Access Google" graph, IE clearly dominates everything else.
This is from August, but I doubt anything has changed. Linux is only 1% of the OS used to access google. Even with it's own linux portal!
I'm a big fan of linux. My websites use linux. My firewall is linux. My Tivo is linux! However, if you think that companies will try to build a web application that only 1% of population will ever see, then you're misinformed.
Now let's see if I get modded down...
Live web cams
Ironic that you post this on Veteran's Day.
While Hanoi Jane may look good in that movie, my TV and PC both know that any appearance of her on either screen for more than 3 seconds will result in swift destruction of the offending device. As such, they refuse to display her countenance.
For those that do not know, Hanoi Jane (Fonda) actively colluded with the North Vietnamese during the war. A better looking 60's John Walker Lindh.
You may think a particular war or military action is wrong, but actively helping the other side (whomever they may be), against your own country, is just plain wrong.
I personally find this web design to be:
:-)
;-)
- Easy to browse.
- Compatible with multiple browsers.
- International, by allowing non-americans to connect.
- Searchable.
They also use innovative comments called "nukes" to tell us if the quality isn't what a user would expect.
So, I think MovieLink should learn from that one and come back.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Does this strike anyone else of illegal collusion? to fix prices, distribution modes etc? really, i thought sony, MGM et al were supposed to be competing?
i think he is more covering mac here which does have windows media player, internet explorer and realplayer. why is it only windows compatible when it should work just fine on the mac?
This sort of service has some potential. There are several issues - i think I can live with DRM for this, provided that whatever system they have is self-contained. Also their download system must work, and work well. It must be convenient or why bother?
But perhaps the biggest issue here may be bandwidth - even with 1.5 Mbps DSL at home it'll take awhile to download a movie. (I wonder how the quality is at that...) If I'm going to rent a movie, it is rare that I'm thinking ahead as to what I'd like to watch. So once I decide "hey let's rent a movie", the download process begins and a few hours later I can actually watch the movie. As opposed to running to the video store for about the same price in half an hour.
An even bigger threat may be Video on Demand (VOD) services slowly being introduced by cable companies. They are basically offering the same service, but you don't have to wait for it, and it works with your TV equipment, not your PC.
Even with all of these problems, there may be a niche market here - such as going on a flight - just DL a movie ahead of time. Of course DVDs are readily available - but at least in this case you can do it a week ahead of time and not worry about returns - hey here's a thought maybe they can offer LAN services from stores a local airports? Download over your ethernet from airport store servers?
I hope they have a business plan though!
I want to like this system. Really, I do, but being UK based, having a pathological dislike of IE, and living 4 minutes walk away from a DVD rental shop, I just feel this doesn't give me what I want. Especially because it would tie me to Windows even more.
I don't object to the self destructing movies - really that's quite reasonable if the price is low enough. As long as this is done sensibly, will allow me to transfer the movie to a different machine, and reregister the same copy if I want to see it again, a few months later I'd happily pay a reasonable amount for a convenient download (although "convenient" implies it will take less than 3 hours to download).
It looks like I don't even have the right to buy a VCD version online. That's something I want. I want to be able to download it, burn to CD, and watch it on my DVD player. I want to be able to access it via FTP or any other open protocol. I want to be able to choose the software I download with. I like my text based FTP client. They should stop trying to force me to use what they think is better. I want them to accept that some piracy will happen, and stop punishing me - the purchaser - for other people's piracy. I'd willingly pay a reasonable amount. Considering the distribution and manufacturing costs aren't as high as for VHS, and the quality is worse than DVD, I'd expect the costs to be substantially lower.
Piracy will happen. If they can't pirate from the video files, they'll pirate from a rented DVD. Macrovision doesn't work as well as they like to think, and an MPEG 1 recode is good enough for most people. You only need one person to pirate it. Everyone else will just spread that copy.
Yes, gasp on that last one. I do actually pay-per-view right now, when there's something showing that I want to see. Look, actual currency, waiting to go into your bloated pockets! I'm not a habitual collector of free content. I'll only leech if there's no easier way to view the content (like, you refuse to make it available to me to maintain your artificial market segmentation).
But this is asking too much, offering too little, and it's hostile as all hell. It looks as though it's pretty much set up to fail, which might be the point.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
yes and we all know how smoothly the video plays and everytrhing else runs through virtualpc.
Specs:
.75 * .65 * .8 * .2 = .078 or ~ 8%
You need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP
You need Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher - Upgrade Now
You need RealPlayer 8.0 or higher
Windows Media Player 7.1 or higher
You need a Connection Speed of 128 kbps or higher
Most folks run 98 or higher, but still a large % don't. (Win95, Mac, Linux, etc.) ~ 75% do.
Most people have IE 5 or higher, but still a lot don't. ~ 65% do.
Most have Real 8 or Media Player 7 or higher. ~ 80% do.
Few have a high speed connection. ~ 20% do.
So, I hope my math is right, but:
Of those 8% of computer users, how many are going to use the service? How many are willing to wait for the download vs. walking down the street ot rent the DVD for less?
Sounds like an excellent business model!
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
"Back in the Day" I ran on-air ops for a major cable premium network, from whence this anecdote, and perhaps some inkling into H-Wood's current mindset, arises:
In the big hubbub prior to "The Day The Skies Went Black," i.e., the time when HBO and Showtime began encrypting their signals (early 80's), denying them from the long-standing C-Band pirates, various congressfolk went ballistic. Their gripe (inexplicable and amazing to us in the industry at the time) was that the cable networks could not all-of-a-sudden deny the pirates their entertainment; we had to at least offer a for-pay alternative to what they had gotten previously for free. This neccessitated a tremendous cost in building out certain shared encryption operations centers that would pool subscriber data, etc etc. (Happy upside that nobody predicted was that the revenues garnered from catering to the former pirates was HUGE, in some networks' instances well in advance of Cable susbcriber revenue.)
Of course, this didn't stop the real dyed-in-the-wool, off-shore-operating, parrot-on-the-shoulder, chip-modding, math-prodigy, Trans-Am-On-The-Cinder-Blocks, Complete-and-Total-Social-Outcast Pirates, who set about cracking the (ridiculously loose, in hind sight) encryption we used at the time. But... because we had gone to the pain and expense of creating this "inclusion" distribution for all the dis-affected Big-Ugly-Dish geeks nationwide, we as an industry had tremendous goodwill with the Gov't. This led to numerous FBI sting operations against the pirates, whereas before the industry couldn't really get the authorities' attention on the matter. In fact, my boss at the time was one of the industry guys who travelled around with the FBI agents cuffing the pirates. Big, Big, Fed-Entertainment Industry co-op, once the Ent Industry showed good faith in creating a system that ensured "no one was left out."
You see where I'm going with this. "Back In the Day," the pirates said, basically, "If you don't want me to view your network, keep it out of my living room." Tough to argue with, so the Ent industry encrypted and provided Joe Dish-Geek a means to buy his entertainment. Flash forward 20 years (ye gods... has it been that long? Christ, I'm old...), and Joe Internet-Geek is saying, "Look, I'm getting this entertainment on the Net, I'm accustomed to getting it on the Net, you can't deny it to me." By providing a net-based, for-pay service, H-Wood is "fulfilling its tech evolutional obligations" yet again. And they are doing so faster than their peers in the Music and Book Publishing industries.
Only Windows? Only US? Who cares? Certainly not H-Wood, or US Law Makers and Enforcers. It ain't about wide-spread adoption (although if they can make some money on this, they won't turn it down) it's about having some credibility and teeth in the subsequent piracy pogroms.
dude, you CAN spoof the OS in the browser useragent. I use a mac and believe the numbers, but if you believe that an OS can't be spoofed in the useragent you are mistaken.
For $17.99 - $24.99 I can get most of these movies on DVD. The price of a DVD includes All the extra "features" and "enhancements" movie companies put on the disc are now gone, which should wipe out a good chunk of the cost right there. Take out another big chunk for the sound and video quality being generally crappy (A VHS rental tape would look/sound better.). This leaves me with a shitty copy of a movie that I could have rented for the same price.
Why not just charge a little more, sell a nice DiVX rip of the DVD, so that I can buy the movie, download it, burn it to a CD, and watch it all I want? The movie companies would make more money in the long run, because they no longer have to package and (physically.) distribute the movie. Of course, I might just serve the video up on Kaazaa, a private FTP, or an IRC bot, but someone else was already doing that when the movie was in the theatre!
I think it is nice that the movie companies are doing this, but they need to loosen up a little. Exisiting distribution paradigms are dying fast, the time has come to cut losses and just give consumers what the consumers are already getting for FREE, instead of selling a crappy version.
<recording studios>
Lets make a site that is ridiculously restrictive so that when most people come to it, they will be forced to either upgrade or go away. This way when can point to movielink and say, "We tried, but the pirates do not want to pay for anything." Then we will be able to convince congress to force mandatory drm.
</recording studios>
"
Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers, but it is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States. "
I guess Denver, Colorado isn't a part of the US. (Or AT&T Broadband, either.)
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Oh, but the error message they give is rather interesting:
Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers, but it is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States.
If you really wanted me take part, then you wouldn't stop me from entering.
... And that sucks!
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
The thing is, both Realplayer and Windows Media Player exist on the Mac. So the only reason I can think of for not allowing Macs is pure laziness. (shrug)
The truth hurts I guess. Maybe you should get a life and not worry so much about the proliferation of linux.
Live web cams
Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers; however, you currently do not meet our minimum system requirements. You will need to adjust the following:
*
You Need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
I worked on the site, so I can't comment on the political aspects of it (which are large and complicated) but I can tell you this:
Last night I downloaded a 650mb film in under 20 minutes. I was even shocked when the Movielink Manager estimated the time to download at "less than 25 minutes", thinking it was in error. But the sucker came down at a steady 4mbps.
I've only ever gotten speed like that from Apple FTP, MSDN and one or two Internet 2 guys on IRC. Maybe it's due to huge capacity with probably only me using it (heh) but whatever the complaints, it's hard to complain the download is slow.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
However, what's more important is that the movie industry is at least starting off on the right foot into the online digital distribution model, compares with the music industry. Here, yes, you have to watch the movie within a month, and then for only 24 hrs since you start it, it costs about as much as a rental (and takes more time), quality is not as great as a DVD rental, and a list of other problems. But this is the first trial of their service. Maybe later they'll add the option that for $5, you can keep the movie, possibly burn it off to some standard format, or have a quick order method to get the DVD shipping automatically to your home, offering a discount since you've watched it already. Maybe they'll eventually increase the time allowance on the movie, since 24hrs is awfully short. I don't know but this is certainly not an attempt to alienate customers (except for those outside the US, but someone pointed out the legal reasons for this regarding work-for-hires), but a chance to work with them, and to see if they can improve the service.
Of course, half the problem right now with this service is that putting 550megs downstream is slow and time consuming due to poor broadband adaption and dl caps for most consumers. This won't be a permenant situation, but will be with us for a while.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I second this, just because I think a lot of people assume virtual PC is slow and crappy, but I tried the latest version last month and it's amazing, it's totally usable (the G4 makes a huge difference I believe). The speed isn't quite up to what you'd want, and some ui things do respond slower than the native system, but it can do most things at a very very acceptable speed (and this is from someone who doesn't think OS X runs at an acceptable speed). use it in system 9 though for the best results, skip it on OS X.
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
Netflix advertises via spam - as such I would avoid doing business with them.
Google'd evidence
www.eFax.com are spammers
Try it on a G4, and make sure to use the most recent version and you'll be blown away, I know I was when I tried it a month ago. before that, my only experience with it was back when it was in version 2 or so, and the difference is astounding. I can play mp3s on it, tons of stuff.
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
I tried going to Movielink to check it out. Apparently, Massachusetts (or maybe just my hometown of Lynn) has seceded from the union, because it's telling me I don't live in the US.
I've GOT to start paying attention to the Globe!
everyone on Slashdot hates it, because it's Windows only.
I groked up the $4.95 to rent Ocean's Eleven, I'll report on how it is when it's done downloading. 561mb file.
Hey, I don't know what everyone is complaining about.
They have made this service available to every one withing the four corners of the world...
...of couse since they are from the US, four corners of the world means Florida, Maine, Washington and California.
Do you really think I'm go to put something novel here?
at work and it complained about NT but not IE6.
Someone has probably beaten me to it, but here goes:
1) Start new online movie distribution system
2) Make system difficult, cumbersome and a pain to use
3) ??
4. Profit!
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
both Realplayer and Windows Media Player exist on the Mac.
But WiMP for the Mac probably doesn't support digital restrictions management, the enabling technology for online movie rentals. It can't support DRM because last time I checked, Mac OS X didn't have signed drivers or a "secure audio path", unlike Windows ME, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. In addition, Win XP appears to have a "driver blacklist", purportedly for compatibility purposes, but which may help the DRM system.
So the only reason I can think of for not allowing Macs is pure laziness.
Or, perhaps, the fact that Apple doesn't believe in DRM?
Will I retire or break 10K?
From the website:
"Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers; however, you currently do not meet our minimum system requirements. You will need to adjust the following:
*
You Need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP"
Guess no movies for me.
"Smokey, this isn't Nam, there are rules." -Walter
I think you'll find that Linux users have a *choice*. Nice comparison though ha ha ha
These jokers charge $3 to rent a movie (roughly the same as Blockbuster), but you can only watch it in a 24 hour period. And even when done, it plays on your computer, not your TV. Do you want to pay $3.00 to watch Rollerball?
And, as I have mentioned before, you can't beat Blockbuster's bandwidth. Period. It is so much faster to walk to the video store and rent your movie then it is to wait for the download to complete.
Test your net with Netalyzr
The site isn't really supposed to make money. It's designed (in my opinion, anyways) to be a legal counterpart to all of the other services out there trying to do the same thing.
That is, if you're down with the MPAA, then you can put up a site such as this. If you're just some cheap hack trying to launch the same said service from Iran or something, then you'd better believe you're going down.
And this site helps to set the precedent for that.
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
This will fail just like music industry sites. The rates are too high. Let's see for $3.99 I can rent it from blockbuster and watch it on my DVD player in high resolution and with dolby digital 5.1. Or for $3.99 I can go to this site and watch a low quality version on my computer with real player which means my computer will crash like 6 times because real player sucks. Which will I do? This is just a bad business model. Consumers want one of two things either like a low cost per view (Like 25 cents) or a flat rate like $10 or $20 a month. I'm more apt to deal with issues like studdering video or low quality or sitting in front of my computer to watch a movie if it's a good deal. These companies bring piracy on themselves because they are too greedy. There is incovience when dealing with digital files everyone of these companies needs to take that in to effect when setting thier prices. For music it's me taking the time to download the files then the time to burn them on to a CD. If it's gonna cost me $15 to do this I'd rather go to the store and just buy the thing. Same with movies, if I have to deal with downloading the video and it studdering, I'd rather go to blockbuster and spend the same amount of money there. Lastly, most cable companies already have something like this with thier on-demand service. Basically these companies need to really reevaluate thier business models online.
If your not cheating your not trying. If your not trying your not winning and if your not winning why play?
No PC hassles, no software to load, and it works with my living room TV.
They also record and allow you to watch many network shows this way too -- currently free. Not sure about you, but I'd pay for that. Even with a PVR, you have to let it know what you want to record or let it choose for you. If On Demand takes off and makes available all shows, I'd have no problem paying a buck to watch certain tv shows done in the past week. For example, I never watch Friends but if someone said it was great, I might go in, find it, and pay a buck to watch it.
Very convenient. Spooling movies over the Internet is a stupid model. Bogs down the net for everyone else, will get you labled a bandwidth hog by your ISP, and is hardly instant gratification.
You must use Internet Explorer to view the movies.
DRM here we come!
Now, will it be the red pill, or the blue pill?
I have a Netflix subscription and LOVE it.
I'd say they have an excellent selection of non-mainstream films. Last year I shared the account with my apartmentmate Kate. She definately had non-mainstream taste in movies. I don't think there was a single movie she wanted that she couldn't find on NF.
Cheaper than this new service and higher-quality too. Also more flexible and available to those who don't have broadband.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
$1.99, I have 30 days to view it, and I can view it as many times as I want in the twenty-four hour period after I first start watching it.
I want to support stuff like this, but I personally think it is a bit pricey for all the restrictions. I could rent this DVD for about the same price at the local movie rental store. I'd get it for about three days. I could watch it whenever I want in that period. It is sure to be higher quality than the download. And even at DSL speeds, walking to the store, paying and returning is bound to be faster than the download (though it only took ten minutes here at work).
As other's have mentionned, I'd like the option to burn a VCD, or just to buy a copy that I can watch any time I feel like (even if it is locked to one PC using DRM).
I am consistently amazed at the digital content providers consistent overpricing of their content - first subscription web services, then e-books, now this. The technology just is not there yet folks to make computer delivery and reading of digital content competitive with the more traditional delivery mechanism. Until such a time as the technology improves, the content providers should be charging *less* not more.
-josh
Make the movie execs understand that they have to pay attention to consumer desires and demands.
Don't use it. Simply send them a mail asking, "What can you provide me that Netflix doesn't?". Then list the advantages Netflix has and tell them why they have to try harder:
Cheaper. I usually have a 1-week turnaround per Netflix movie. 3 movies out at a time = 12 movies/month. 20/12 = less than $2 per movie.
More convenient - I have multiple DVD players in my house. (One standalone, 2 PCs with DVD-ROM drives). I can watch the DVD in any of those devices, not on a single PC. Also, it doesn't tie up my 'net connection while I download the movie.
Less restrictive - If I want to keep the movie for a week, I can. It'll raise my average price per movie, but it still blows away $5 for every 24 hours.
Last but not least: Higher quality. DVD quality rather than crap streaming quality. I also don't have to worry about always having a few gigs of free HD space.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I recently figured out I get a Movies On Demand (channel 1000) on my Time Warner digital cable set top box. It's far more advanced than I anticipated.
Basically, I have a library of about 200 titles, I can scroll through, organize by theme/content...etc. I pick one I want, agree to buy it for 3-5 bucks, and can watch it for 24hrs from that moment. Movies I've bought and can still watch appear in a special list.
I get to use the controllers pause/rewind/fast forward buttons as well. The quality seems really good, i'm not sure what codec they use but i only notice the artifacts I notices on normal digital cable stations (i heard when the new mpeg is finalized the boxes will be updated with it).
These videos begin to "stream" to me within 15-30 seconds of playing the movie. This is all I want. I could care less about having this on my computer. I used to care, but that was before this was ever an option.
I guess if i wanted to I could pipe this into my computer and record the content. The set top has dolby digital out.
Video on demand, when it's content library is equal to a blockbuster, will be the killer app of digital cable.
I live in NY, and have access to a local video story which has every title you could possibly want. It's a huge selection, it's not blockbuster, and they have tons of foriegn as well. They deliver and pick up. It's as easy as ordering a pizza. I have a catlog of most of their movies, and I order them by a number. I have all this, and I would rarely rent movies. Why? Because i didn't feel like waiting 15mins for the movie to come. I can't explain it. But when I have a controller in my hand, and i know i can be watching some movie withing 15-30seconds, i more than likely buy on impulse.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Here's what I got:
Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers; however, you currently do not meet our minimum system requirements.
You will need to adjust the following:
You Need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP
Sorry, but I don't want to see Rollerball badly enough to ditch my Mac. What a lame site.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
"You have a rental period of 30 days to play the movie. Once started, watch the movie as many times as you'd like within 24-hours."
Also, it looks like it is offered in Real or Windows Media Player formats.
We have Netflix as well, $20/3 discs, and have been happy with it. No late fees, and never the god-awful feeling of returning a movie you never got around to watching. Now that they've opened a nearby fulfillment ctr (there used to be used one, in CA) we get 2-3 day turnaround. Their customer service has been fine, nice considering they're the only game in town, really. Once they get established ... watch out.
One advantage of Netflix over on-demand is that you can watch more than once. With kids, this comes up a lot, and they are heavy consumers of videos if you multiply out multiple viewings. Also the DVD's occcasional offer extra stuff worth watching, maybe not all at once.
They appear to have dropped the 2-disc plan mentioned elsewhere. Oh well.
I would expect on-demand to extinguish transitional by-mail eventually, but won't hold my breath.
If they're spamming, as alleged elsewhere here, I'll send them a complaint emphasizing that I am a subscriber and that's not kosher. I won't give them word-of-mouth if they're using strongarm.
Pardon my ignorance, but has anybody that uses this service ever had a situation where a movie they sent back was never received? What happens then?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
This just happened to be on either Oxygen or WE a week or so ago. I've always thought it would make a great Mystery Science Theatre.
- You need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP.
There's spyware.You need Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher>
You need RealPlayer 8.0 or higher or Windows Media Player 7.1 or higher.
You need a Connection Speed of 128 kbps or higher. Scripting must be enabled.
Cookies must be enabled.
-
a. Downloads. You acknowledge that Movielink and/or its authorized third party providers and affiliates may issue upgraded versions of the Services and Movielink Manager Software required to be downloaded by you from time to time, and may automatically electronically upgrade the version of the Movielink Manager Software that you are using on your computer. You consent to such automatic upgrading, and agree that these Terms of Use (as amended from time to time) along with the Software License Agreement and any amendments thereto will govern all such upgraded versions.
There's an arbitration clause like the one just struck down by the courts regarding PayPal.b. Modification of Services. Movielink reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to update, change, modify, add or remove any portion of the Services or these Terms of Use, in whole or in part, at any time. Changes to these Terms of Use will be effective when posted. You agree to review these Terms of Use periodically to be aware of any changes. By continuing to use the Services after any changes, you agree to be bound by subsequent revisions to these Terms of Use.
I have been using cinemanow.com for months now and I like it much better than what Movielink has to offer.
;o) ). They have some PPV stuff too, but who cares about that when you have access to hundreds of other films, eventhough they are not major releases? I like a good Indie film and Cinemanow has plenty of those not to mention good older films.
Because with Cinemanow for $9.95 a month I get access to hundreds of movies (including mature flicks
Movielink only has PPV and those prices are way too high, not to mention the time limits. With Cinemanow, I can watch a film as much as I want. I don't even get PPV from Cinemanow. Why am I going to pay $2-$4 to stream a movie I can watch a better version of via other methods(DVD, Cable/Satellite PPV)?
Most of these services are unusable for me. I bought a subscription to Rhapsody, the online music site, but they wanted me to download a Windows program to use it. I tried to WINE it, but gave up when I saw it required Internet Explorer (ie, it was nothing more than a browser skin, doh!) So I canceled the subscription. eMusic on the other hand, is easily accessible (web interface) from any OS I choose, so they got my money.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
They say up front that THIS IS A TEST. Okay, in at least one sense, I'd guess that it *is* a test -- they're looking to see how this will be received and what will happen in response to it.
It seems likely that this is more than *just* a test. Quite probably, the XXAA will take the results of this effort and "spin" them to suit other purposes. For example, results that can be interpreted as success of this effort may be used to justify lobbying for more repressive laws & regulations in other areas related to "fair use" because the XXAA is now providing access to movies online. Failure of this effort can be "spun" into support for legislation effecitvely banning transfer of movie data online because "there's no legitimate market for it -- we tried, see?"
They're trying to do this in a way that enforces the business model that they *want* to have: i.e., pay for the content every time you view it. They're offering "use it anytime within 30 days" and "view as many times as you like within 24 hours" but I think these are part of the smokescreen -- if you download a movie on Wednesday, watch it, like it, and want to have the girlfriends over to see it on the weekend, you have to pay them again...and this suits them just fine. From the consumer's point of view, it just about completely destroys any "fair use" rights -- they've defined the timeframe in which you may use the movie, and (if the test is successful) *this was accepted by the rest of the public*.
In order to enforce the business model they want to have, they have to make use of certain software and services on the user's end. They need the ability to restrict the activities of the user in ways supported by DRM and other functionality that's only present in the later versions of RealPlayer, Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. Not sure why Internet Explorer 5.x/6.x or Windows > 95 would be required, but it may be tied up in this need.
Could be that they're using some Java functionality to check that the underlying operating system *really* is one that will support their user-activity restrictions (and not some other OS pretending to be Windows), and that the Java from MSIE < 5 doesn't provide support for the necessary checking. Guessing, again.
This would explain why they don't (and won't, ever) support Linux. They can't get the necessary degree of control over the user's machine at all levels. Don't know about Macs. If they can't get DRM or an equivalent ability to restrict the users on the Macs, they probably won't ever support them.
The same consideration may apply to overseas users -- if they can't get an assurance that US laws will enforce the relationship *the way they want it* then they probably won't provide movies to people outside the US. They'll check this at the IP level if they can and through the payment mechanism (at the very least). Your credit card billing address is the *first* thing they'll look at, and they'll use the charge card clearing house service that checks the address you gave them against the real address for the card.
Now, they're putting lots of effort into making sure that their relationship with the consumer is the way they want it to be, but exactly what *is* that relationship?
Based on a quick review of their help texts, it seems that they assert that what they are selling is a license to download and view a movie. If you buy the license, you may download the movie within 30 days and view it for 24 hours.
If you buy a license and do not actually download the movie, tough noogies -- you don't get a refund. They're treating this like movie tickets -- you buy a ticket for the 7:30 performance on Friday, and it's up to you to be there. Their position will probably be that you got what you paid for -- *permission* to download and view within set time frames. You had the permission. That you did not use it is your fault.
They say that they are not selling the movie, only a license to view it. I don't know how that stacks up legally against "fair use" or other considerations. You will probably not see any statement anywhere by the XXAA that acknowledges "fair use" in any way -- if they could get away with selling CDs, DVDs and videotapes that would only play *once*, they would probably go for it and insist that you only paid for a license to watch or listen *once* (see the fine print on the inside of the package -- you may require a microscope to view the product license).
All in all, this service seems geared to people who:
1. run a recent version of Windows with the latest DRM-enabled software installed, and
2. don't know or don't care about the loss of rights or other ramifications of DRM, and
3. live in a country where the law can be used to enforce restrictions on user activities by content providers, and
4. use their PC as the primary means of viewing movies (with or without some PC-to-TV conversion).
Seems to me that the last one kind of cuts out most of the mainstream movie viewers. None of *my* friends and co-workers watch movies on their PCs. I can safely say that the ability to download and watch a movie on the PC would have absolutely *no* appeal to any of them -- most of them have spent significant money on large-screen TVs and/or stereo systems, but have never hooked the PC into the system for watching movies.
I think that this service will actually appeal to only a very limited audience.
Maybe I'm out of touch with all those Moms & Dads out there who have 21-inch LCD screens or 35-inch monitors and who download movies over their OC3 connection so they can watch them minutes after they make their decision -- you know, just enough time delay to make some popcorn and gather the kids together. Anyway, to me it seems likely that the audience will be very small and the amount of money that these guys will actually get will be far less than the cost of providing the service.
Watch for this service to bomb after the (XXAA equivalent of) venture capital is used up.
Then watch for the failure to be spun to their advantage.
TyZone
Look at this way. There are only three reasons for a site to be IE and Windows only, or even IE only. The first is lack of resources for development. Houston ISD fits this category. The second is incompetent web development. Companies like Cingular and some credit services fit this category. The third is an explicit decision that certain customers are not important, or to keep certain customers out.
The movie industry had resources. The project should make enough money to justify competent programmers. Everyone watches movies, and success depends on popular appeal, so there is no basis to say a certain group of customers is unimportant. That leaves explicitly keeping certain customers out.
Who is being punished? The Linux and BSD users, who broke and published DVD encryption, and are a major thorn in the sides of the movie industry. Apple Mac users, who buy their computers to 'Edit, Rip, Burn,' or, in the eyes of the movie industry, pirates who wish to steal content and force the movie industry into starvation.
As such, I think we take this as an attack on the npn-MS systems. The movie industry does not like non-MS, and they will not play with them, at least until a time when the movie industry can set all the rules. It is the movie industries right to do this, but it is blackmail.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I'm among those who suspect this will only lead to a faster shift away from the fortunes of video copyright holders and I think that's a Good Thing(TM)
I don't really know the wording of copyright law in all its many jurisdictions, but I do know that the original intent was to grant an exclusive right to profit from publication and that copyright was certainly not intended from the beginning to limit the free exchange of information which is how it is being re-constructed with all this language twisting and convenient redefinition of terms like piracy and theft.
Apparently MovieLink wasn't first to the scene. intertainer had been doing something similar but felt they were being shut out by unfair competition -- Sony, AOL-Time-Warner apparently favored MovieLink.
Clever! Thanks for the insight. I guess they decided it best to make the concession rather than lose subscribers altogether.
I am quite convinced that "they" have every intention and hope for this service to fail. If (when) it fails, it gives them just another reason to say "see, we told you LEGAL online movie distribution doesn't work--people want to STEAL, not BUY!"
If they truly wanted this to succeed, they would have made it genuinely attractive and competitive with DVD. They would have admitted to themselves that the obvious downsides to this service are the excruciatingly long download times and the need to watch the movie on the PC (or to have a HTPC), so they would have tried to offset those disadvantages by making rental temptingly cheap and offering longer rental times. They would maybe rent the movies for $1.99 and let you watch them for a week or more. And why on earth not? They're not limited by a restricted number of media that they need to circulate amongst a large clientele, unlike your video store. And they have only (relatively) minor adminstration costs, and except for the download bandwidth, no recurring maintenance costs per film (rewinding/applying security tag/reshelving etc.)
But if this succeeded, it would gradually erode the very lucrative video store business, and it would open the general consumer's eyes even more to the possibilities of digital media. Worse, it would force Hollywood to face the fact that their old business model is dying.
No, I honestly think they're either using this to prove that people aren't interested in acquiring online movies legally, or possibly as a half-hearted safe bet just in case this "online thing" should turn out to be more than just a fad.