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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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."