MovieLink 2004's Top Film Download Service, So Far

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MovieLink 2004's Top Film Download Service, So Far

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Sunday September 26, 2004 @07:01PM from the of-the-legal-variety-that-is dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The NPD Group has released some research on the fledgling pay digital movie download services. Numbers for the first half of this year show MovieLink as number one with a third of total users followed by MovieFlix with 13% of the market. It's a very small market though, with purchases equalling only 0.3% of the total movie market (and nowhere near the numbers of those trading on the free P2P services). Also of note, 80% of users are male and the top films purchased are sci-fi and fantasy."

19 of 147 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Back to P2P by Xenna · 2004-09-26 19:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Movielink is not catering to Europeans.
MovieFlix doesn't seem to have any decent movies anywhere.

Back to mlDonkey and Bittorrent...

X.
1. Re:Back to P2P by chazwurth · 2004-09-26 19:09 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It is also apparently not catering to Linux or MacOS users, which is a shame, because I'd be willing to pay what they seem to be charging, at least on occasion.
  
  --
  The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --Dan Kaminsky
2. Re:Back to P2P by krymsin01 · 2004-09-26 20:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I wouldn't. Even at around US $2.00 I'm not willing to pay for something that I only have a "24hr Viewing period" for. Sure, whatever their protection mechanism is could be defeated and I could get a copy of the movie to watch indefinately (think wargames playing 24hrs a day), but I could have just as easily gone to alt.binaries.movies.* or a bittorrent tracker site and just downloaded the same movie.
  
  --
  stuff
download movie services still lacking by Doppler00 · 2004-09-26 19:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

In general, I find that online renting of movies still lacking. They charge you more per download than if you were to go to a store to rent it. Second the view period is usually only 24 hours. And if these two factors are not enough to turn you away from a pay to rent service, the video quality is severly lacking compared to the DVD version (I have a 3mbps internet connection, a 2GB version of a movie shouldn't be a problem).

There are also the questions of compatibility. Do you need special software for Windows? Will it play on a Mac, Linux? Probably not. I think this sums of the situation quite nicely:

Sorry, but in order to enjoy the Movielink service you must use Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher, which supports certain technologies we utilize for downloading movies. Click here to get the latest version of Internet Explorer.

They are probably using some weird activeX components to launch a movie playing applicaiton.
1. Re:download movie services still lacking by NanoGator · 2004-09-26 20:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  " They charge you more per download than if you were to go to a store to rent it."
  
  Yes. And though that sucks, you're still not spending 20 minutes or so getting the movie and returning it.
  
  " Second the view period is usually only 24 hours."
  
  Yes, but it's also 'on demand'. >24 hours makes more sense when you have store hours and your own schedule to worry about.
  
  "Will it play on a Mac, Linux? Probably not. I think this sums of the situation quite nicely:"
  
  You caaaaaan't alwaaaaaaaaaays haaaaaaaaaaaave what you waaaaaaaaaant. Seriously, though, have you ever tried to serve video over the web? It's not so easy to support everybody under the sun. Let's not forget that they feel they need to lock up everything. Granted, we all have issues with that, but they're the ones making it available in the end. Frankly, I think it sucks when a company makes a game I want for the Playstation but not the GameCube I have. Can I really complain about it, though? They have to make money. (Damn I wanna play San Andreas.)
  
  "They are probably using some weird activeX components to launch a movie playing applicaiton."
  
  I'm not claiming I know how their service works, afterall I'm not a customer, but I can make a few guesses:
  
  1.) They need some sort of auto install capability.
  
  2.) If they're using WMP, it's possible that they only allow IE to access the video because MS says that's the way to do it. Otherwise, it's possible they're trying to cut down on people intercepting and re-broadcasting the movie.
  
  3.) I used another service that make the video full screen with controls right through the browser. Maybe they didn't feel comfortable enough making something like that work with all browsers.
  
  Again, I'm operating under ignorance with these guesses. However, I have been involved with a company trying to come up with a video technology for streaming on the net, and you wouldn't believe all the lock downs and simplifications the customers wanted. We HAD to support IE and all its fancy shit. We HAD to make sure plugin install was automatic. We HAD to have content lock controls. Etc.
  
  Frankly, I'm a little surprised that some of the "but it only runs on Windows" complaints aren't addressed with either a dual-boot machine or a cheapy 500mhz machine running Windows. I'm sorry the Linux users out there can't do everything they wantbecause of an inconsiderate decision by a company providing a service, but life's like that all over the place.
  
  --
  "Derp de derp."
Nor do they cater to Non-IE users... by kcb93x · 2004-09-26 19:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

...hence the following message upon visiting their site with Firefox 1.0PR:

"Sorry, but in order to enjoy the Movielink service you must use Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher, which supports certain technologies we utilize for downloading movies. Click here to get the latest version of Internet Explorer.

We do not anticipate supporting Mozilla or Netscape in the near future."

No thanks, I'll take my movies non-DRM'd to death, thank you.

*follows X back to Shareaza and Bittorrent*

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
1. Re:Nor do they cater to Non-IE users... by evilviper · 2004-09-26 19:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'll take my movies non-DRM'd to death, thank you.
  
  So you don't have any DVDs at all, huh?
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
2. Re:Nor do they cater to Non-IE users... by BeerCat · 2004-09-26 22:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  more like "no intrusive DRM"
  
  Like music on iTMS, as long as it doesn't get in the way of what most people want to do (in this case, watch a film they've bought when they want to), then DRM is the necessary eveil that allows it to be sold at all.
  
  Provided your use of DVD content is not simply to rip it to computer (whether or not you intend to post it as a torrent), then the DRM doesn't get in the way.
  
  --
  "She's furniture with a pulse"
Movie Link's "Watch now or up to 30 days later" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-26 19:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

On MovieLink's site, they say "Watch now or up to 30 days later" while describing the benifits of their service. How do they accomplish this time limit? Does anyone know?
Re:That shit is stupid. by forkboy · 2004-09-26 19:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Netflix has specialized videos that Blockbuster won't carry....pr0n and import anime, for instance.

The first company to offer both movie and console game rentals for the same monthly price combined gets my business, for sure.

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Re:Internet Explorer Only by Wm_K · 2004-09-26 20:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Thanks for your interest in Movielink, the leading source for movies delivered directly over the internet. We want you to enjoy our powerful movie download experience, but it is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States."

Why don't they just say "Sorry, but we only support Internet Explorer on Windows in the United States. We don't plan on supporting anything or anyone else".
articles based only on press releases suck by Artifex · 2004-09-26 20:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course, NPD released this information to drive industry interest in its services, so there's no hard data really given. This isn't a "study" by any means. Notice how there's no mention of methodology, like whether the survey was multiple choice only or whether participants could write in other names for companies offering VOD, like Greencine. It also doesn't state whether this survey was done independently or whether it was sponsored by one of the two listed companies, as many NPD surveys seem to be.

--
Get off my launchpad!
800 mb of fun! by mrshowtime · 2004-09-26 20:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

This service is great for someone who is in college and if their college has a really good connection and they also have access to that connection "privately" as most sysadmins will not allow anything as huge as the 800mb+ files to cross their system. I have a pretty fast, stable, cable modem, and it would take me several hours to download one movie, so it's not really a "gimme" yet. Once bandwidth gets cheaper and more readily available, you will see these services offered directly from your cable company. Most of the movies offerred you can just get off of PPV anyway.

--
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
Don't know about Zontar, but by rsilvergun · 2004-09-26 20:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Mantango's suppose to be a classic. It's actually a Toho monster movie(one of the few non-Kaiju flicks). I imagine the dub leaves something to be desired though. They probably tried too hard to Americanize the thing...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Re:Surprisingly good quality by DennyK · 2004-09-26 21:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Thanks for the link! A $5 online movie rental is a bit much, but a 99-cent rental, I like. And I really like their fast servers. I'm getting almost 2Mbps (on my 3Mbps DSL connection). My first movie should be done in about half an hour. Not bad at all...

What strikes me as odd about the offer, though, is that it's supposedly for RealNetworks "customers", which I am not, but it still let me get a movie for 99 cents. Wonder if they're planning to implement tighter security or verification for this offer instead of just a different URL in the future? Sure hope not...an occasional $1 movie ain't worth signing up for (and paying for!) RealNetworks crap...
Re:whoda guessed by 91degrees · 2004-09-26 22:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I suspect they didn't include porn distributors in their list. Since they've been offering downloads for years now, I'd be surprised if they weren't actually number one.

But this does lead to the question - what format do they offer porn in? Is that all DRM'ed, or are we in the poisition where an industry that is meant to be exploitative and completely lacking in morality actually trusts its customers?
video on demand by Wm_K · 2004-09-26 22:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

The South-Koreans have a nice service as well vod.naver.com. The service is very cheap compared to those mentioned above, only about 2000 won for new movies (which is about $1,50). The quality is near DVD and is distributed by a p2p like network, on which i usually get speeds above 150KB. Besides lots of Korean movies (sometimes with English subtitles) they also have a gazillion American movies.
I'm worried about their bottom line... by killbill! · 2004-09-26 23:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Apple had to serve hundreds of millions of songs before economies of scale started kicking in, before they could even make a small profit.

Now replace 4 MB songs with 600 MB movies. Even if MPAA fees were less outrageously high than RIAA fees, how can they expect to turn a profit?
If they want to be a serious competition to Blockbuster, they'll have to have a pretty large product range. This means storing and serving petabytes of movies: huge costs - even when storage and bandwidth costs going down - which I'm pretty sure they can't cover charging $5 a movie.

The RIAA wanted to replace p2p flows through unidirectional flows (e.g. iTMS to customer only) in order to keep tight control of what is being downloaded on the net. However, this is materially impossible for movies. The only cost-effective way of distributing large files is over p2p.
Please take the two seconds to submit feedback!! by krunk7 · 2004-09-27 01:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
If you received the "We do not plan on supporting (Mozilla|OSx) or (Firefox|Linux) in the near future" message be sure to take the couple of minutes to submit feedback so the company is aware of the business they lost.
Mine went like this:
- I am a linux and osx user.
  You just lost my business.