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. "
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
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
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.
Severely limiting their audience to 90+% of all users on the internet? Obviously a usage of the word "severely" I'm not previously familiar with.
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."
I think that blocking Mac users is far more stupid. I mean, they are content on shelling out some $100 a year for .mac, I think that testing such a service would be a no brainer.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
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?
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 ?
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.
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."
"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!"
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
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.
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.
<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."
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:
Netflix advertises via spam - as such I would avoid doing business with them.
Google'd evidence
www.eFax.com are spammers
Ah.. But "all users on the internet" are not the eligible pool of useres for their service.
The movie downloads are
It would be interesting to know the distribution of OS users among broadband users. I'd be shocked if The non-windows percentage was enormously higher, but wouldn't be shocked if it was somewhat higher (broadband is still a faily geeky luxury)
Next:
Finally: willing to watch on the computer or able to connect the computer to the TV? Sorry, I just don't see Ma and Pa Knownothing who bought their Windows XP box to get that newfangled e-mail thingie as being willing to put up with watching on the computer.
Face it. The only audience that this service can target is geeks. (Perhaps they don't realize this) The OS/browser distribution in the general population will not save them from failure.
The failure of this service will have nothing to do with technology. They missed basic business principles. (such as: know your customer)
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?
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
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?
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?
"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.
- 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.
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.