Slashdot Mirror
Universal to Offer its Movies Online
JoseAugusto writes "From IMDB: 'Universal expects to be able to offer movies online by the end of the year or early next year, company chairman and CEO Bob Wright said Tuesday. Speaking at a conference on piracy in London, Wright described the studio's entry into online movie services as 'something we have to do.' However, he cautioned, the studio's entry into the Internet sphere must be accompanied by fail-safe methods to prevent the films from being copied and redistributed. 'These movies are so expensive, we have to be careful,' he said.'"
Wow, the post is the entire article! So, this isn't much to go on. Sounds mostly like PR with a shot across the bow they intend to make it as consumer unfriendly as possible. (Consider "These movies are so expensive, we have to be careful" -- doesn't sound like ability to take advantage of inexpensive delivery cuts the consumer any slack.)
I still wonder:
This is spin. Whatever it is, I'm not looking forward to it.
Well then, maybe they should make more films that rely on plot and qualities other than expensive special effects.
--
How will they handle overseas distribution? How will they handle inter-state taxes?
They say they will be online by the end of the year, but that is less than 3 months away. There are so many problems with actually distributing original content online that I highly doubt any movie company will be able to successfully make the jump.
I'd love to be proved wrong, but then again, I'd love to have a 60 inch monitor. I don't see either one happening in the next 3 months.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Because they're too fucking expensive.
Drop the price to $10 or less and I'd buy about 10x as many CDs as I do now.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Why do they care sooooooooo much about anti-piracy when you can already download any movie from most of the popular p2p networks?
Its too late! All your movies have already been pirated!
Just forget about anti-piracy and start selling those movies. You'll make much more money this way. (And its not like your gonna lose anymore than you already have from p2p networks.)
Make it consumer-unfriendly, then, when it flops, they can wave some cash under the nose of selected members of the Politburo, er, Congress, and whine more about "piracy." If they wave enough cash, they can buy all sorts of nice laws that basically insure that you don't really own the things that you buy.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
Well - the group wisdom was that the cartels should change their business model to support what the consumer wanted: Movies available for download. The loud cray was that once this was done, piracy would end as we finally had what we were clamouting for.
I suspect what we really want are free movies and that the 'downloadable' mantra was just a nice excuse.
We shall see.
Obviously online distribution and/or On Demand is going to be the rule in 5 years, not the exception. But I keep buying DVDs for the commentaries and extra material.
Is there going to be the economic incentive to provide all this extra material with online distribution?
What's going to happen to Criterion?
The movie industry still doesn't get "it". People won't buy something that is crippled. They will probably invest millions of dollars into this project, money that could be better spent on cutting the price of their products by $1-2, which would probably get them more sales and thus more profit. Really, anything over the production cost of the medium is pure profit on the better movies (that is, anything that wasn't a flop, because the theatrical release would normally already cover the cost of production of the movie itself). So, knowing that, a medium like the internet where the costs of the content itself is litterally the cost of the bandwidth used to download/stream, just about any price is greedy. Now having said that I know that is not how things work... The reason this is doomed is because people are not going to be able to use it how they want to. First off, there are too few households that do not have the capability to download a movie or even watch a video stream over the internet because no broadband access is availble. Add to that fact that people don't want to watch movies on their 17-19" 4:3 computer display if they have a 27" or larger TV, let alone a front projector or HDTV. Any DRM that is placed on the content will ensure that watching it on those displays will be very difficult unless they own a "Home Theater Personal Computer" (HTPC). Even assuming that there is a HTPC, with broadband access and everything else required, why would someone want to use your product over the more conventional methods like purchasing the DVD, or renting the DVD? With the restrictions that will be put in place to give a "secure" method, what usage will be lost to the consumer? At this point we are already well beyond the technical compitency of the average movie consumer, which means that the customer base is extremely limted, both do to technical requirements and technical know-how. You are now looking at a customer market that DO know what they are doing, and know how things work. So if your product is not as good in quality at the rental DVD that is avalible, they will simply use the higher quality product, because they actually know better then to take the PR department's word on it.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I dont feel like typing a novel here, so I'll be brief.
1 - I buy very few CDs because I think the cost is horrific; especially when I have to work around DRM just to copy the music to my (non-windows media playing) mp3 player.
2 - The CDs that I DO buy, I generally do so because I downloaded a few songs that happen to be on the CD and enjoyed them, so I went out and tracked down the album. If I download somthing and dont like it, I delete it. If I like it, I will probably buy the album. Is it wrong for me to check out the cd before I pay for it? No. If I did not download these files, I would NOT have purchased the albums.
3 - It's people like you that can't see far enough down their own noses and look objectively for the real issues at hand that are the reason the industry is in shambles. Have you ever though that your 'Neich' market may no longer be a popular one? You said yourself that nobody listens to most of what you sell; and to be totally honest, most Christian music I have listened to is god awful (no punn intended). Have you even considered that the demographics in your area may have changed? Or that the teens (who are generally the ones buying cds) are more focused on buying the newest rap-crap the industry is releasing?
Seriously; If you would take an objective look at the issues, you might see that the evil pirates are not the ones destroying your business. Times change, adapt to them or get over it and stop complaining.
And before you go on about your financial position because of your failing business, I am also a business owner and if I was in your position, blacklisting customers is the last thing I would be doing.. Your market is going so adapt your business model to go with it.
Damn, I ended up with a novel anyways... oh well.
I disagree. There are a lot of people and companies who are paying Linux vendors for the work they do. They don't need to, but they know that if they don't then those folks doing the work will just go away. If the studios are smart, they'll cut out all of the distribution costs and deliver movies at a price that people will be willing to pay. There's tons of money to be made if you charge what people feel is a fair price.
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Looking at the article, I'm thinking Windows-only, WMP or propriatary program-only, low quality, only offering renting options, at a higher price than Blockbuster.
It will be used to show that online distribution of movies does not work, in preparation for pushing another anti-P2P law through congress.
If this deal ends up to be anything like Steve Jobs' bout with the music industry, the movie industry will price their movie downloads as much as it costs to rent one at the video store ($3 to $4) for a single download. May as well spend the money to go rent the DVD for the extra features...AND THEN RIP IT TO MY COMPUTER ANYWAYS! ...
Oops...I said the loud part soft and the soft part loud...ugh.
Seems to me this sets up a perfect working relationship with Apple, if Jobs does in fact come out with a video iPod as his "one last thing" at the press release.
The movie studios do not have to go through a middleman (video store), and neither do we, and we get the movie for about the same price. Everyone wins.
;)
I fail to see how video stores becoming completely irrelevant makes them winners
1. CDs are absurdly expensive. They should be priced like newspapers or magazines and sold in little cardboard dust covers to reduce the storage/transport costs. With the economies of scale, and the reduced price incentives for pirating, you'd be making money hand over fist. Take note of the example of the commercial success of computer magazine cover disks.
2. Take note of the live music scene in pubs and bars. It's largely collapsed. Yes, that's largely because people are doing other things with their time. The rise of computer games into the mainstream (both PC and consoles) hoovers a lot of money out of wallets and purses.
3. The rise of the Internet as a new nearly-essential utility and the privatisation of other public utilities has meant increased fixed costs to all consumers. More money hoovered out of wallets before non-essential purchases are even considered.
4. All the music released today sounds like over-produced American Idol contestants and the content's watered down to the lowest common denominator. Yet, the studios make their back catalog of prior good stuff largely inaccessible.
People flocked to my store, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase records without profanity or violent lyrics.
Families don't buy music, young people aged 14-40 do. Learn your demographic.
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates.
Bound to fail for the same reasons the US War On Terrorism fails now: the security infrasture to police it will bankrupt you and for every pirate caught, another springs up in their place.
Er, No, not necessary.
Here's how it works, Bob: you make it possible for me to very easily pay you a price I like and I won't pirate it. Because, you see, it's to my advantage to pay for it.
Basically, Bob, you're a hooker: you got something I want, I got something you want, and we gotta agree on a price.
Indeed, you're one of three hookers on this block. You lucked out: the only parking spot was around the corner, so you're the first hooker that's got something to offer. There's another hooker half-way down the block: she's the "reparatory" hooker. The one at the end of the block is the "blockbusters" hooker. And past the end and across the tracks is the "torrent" hooker. All the hookers on this block are looking pretty much the same, but within that range, you're definately the tops, Bob.
Now, Bob, you seem to think you're worth about twenty-five bucks. Because by the time I pay for my ticket and my wife's, we're getting into that range.
I want you to know the reparatory hooker only wants twelve bucks. I just have to walk down to her; not long, 'cause I'm not so overwhelming horny that I just gotta get blown right this second, Bob. And the blockbusters whore, why she's just four bucks -- but she'll blow me twice and I don't have to leave my house!
The torrent whore gives free blowjobs, but she's got ragged teeth and is pretty de-rezzed. I'm not such a cheap sumbitch that I'll go to her, Bob. I do pay for my movie entertainment.
Anyway, Bob, my point is this: you're an overpriced whore. I almost always rent the DVD; when I don't, I almost always end up at the reparatory. The last mainstream cinema showing I attended was Lord of the Rings. Exceptionally few films justify the first-print, top-rate quality, IMO.
So anyway, my point is this: so long as the free whore is skanky-looking, I'm not going to pirate: I'll take whatever reasonable cheap alternative provides me a home-system-quality experience. That experience is not going to be worth more than a DVD rental.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I personally think that the parent makes a good point. I liked both Enterprise and Firefly. My problem what that I just can't live by the damn TVs schedule. I am far too busy to be tied to a certain hour each week. Further, I really only want to see the show in order. This is exactly who I was more then happy to shell over money to Netflixs to see Enterprise and Firefly. Yes, I could have easily pirated both of those shows, but if you give me an easy way to pay for them, I am will happily take it.
Now, take Battle Star Galactica (BSG). I love the show. It is the first show in a very long time that I have tried to sit down and watch every single show. The biggest problem is that some times I miss a show. Once I miss a show I can either
A) Wait for rerun and watch the shows out of order
B) Wait for the DvD to come out.
C) Just go download it so that I can watch the next show in order.
Guess which one I pick?
I would be MORE then happy to shell out $5 to simply not go through the bother of getting it via bit-torrent and all the irritation that finding a decent connection can bring. Hell, I would pay them $5 to get tracker from their website and get the double satisfaction of gettin the show easily AND contributing more money then they make on commercials per person. They could even kill me access to the video after a week or two and I wouldn't be upset.
They don't though. If I miss an episode, the only option I have is to go pirate it. If some stupid bastard would simply let me give them my money, I would.
These businesses vastly underestimate how much people will pay for convince. iTunes is a perfect example. You can get anything you can get on iTunes via pirating. Yet iTunes some how manages to do AMAZING business. Why? If given the choice between shelling out a few dollars or pirating, most people will shell out a few bucks. Will there be people who pirate anyways? Sure. Who cares about them? Think of all the other dumb bastards that are aching to give you money if you would just FSUCKING take it.
Or you can make them so affordable that it's not worth the time to pirate.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
price,speed,quality.
it's well within studio's power, they WILL make money off it, the only thing stopping them is their own stupidity.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Indeed, what's been stunning to me all this time (I live in Finland, btw) is the whole underlying logic in this:
We do not want people to (illegally) copy our trademarked works. Thus we enforce technical copy-protection schemes. But since most of these schemes are trivially broken due to their nature, we want to make breaking them illegal.
Can anyone at all explain to me why we need this extra middle step in the first place?
Now can we get Grey Ninja and Jmcmunn to both agree on what constitutes an agreeable price, and if one of them disagrees? Will he turn into a pirate? Extrapolate to the public at large and now you see why the "price it right, or I will fight" argument fails. The only acceptable way to fight is to not buy nor possess, and buy from those you deem OK.
I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from when you can't afford something, you usually don't have to do without it. Instead you can almost always buy an inferior version at an affordable price.
Can't afford an armani suit? Your local salvation army will sell you a suit for a price anyone can afford. It might not be exactly what you want but, hey, it's close.
When someone is pirating music they're doing it as an alternative, the same way the person who didn't buy the armani suit, but did buy the used suit did. The problem is that the alternative isn't legal in the case of music.
Unfortunately, unlike that suit, you can't get a "lower grade" version of the music for a price that suits. So people who want that music but have no way of affording it turn to alternatives and find themselves without any. All people, when faced with a decision like that, will consider breaking the law if it doesn't conflict with their morals. Yes, not breaking the law for the sake of not wanting to be a criminal of any sort *is* a moral (whether it is bad or good is an exercise left up to the reader). So those who both find that violating copyright is not immoral and where the basic moral of not breaking the law for the sake of not being a crminal is not present pirate the music.
So we are left with an out of balance market. Prices on the music can be artificially inflated since those who want it but refuse to pirate it will pay them. Those who are willing to purchase a lower grade version cannot, and so there is no pressure to lower the prices apart from a lack of profit. In most markets a lack of sales is a motivator to adjust prices, and sales of higher and lower grade units by your competitors can be compared to yours to influence your decision.
Since the music companies do not consider piracy a competitor, they are not willing to compare sales to piracy in a way that leads them to reprice the goods for maximum profit (which involves meeting maximum sales along with maximum margin). Once they re-evaluate their stance on piracy they will make money.
Until then, sayonara to buying music for me. 3 miuntes of happiness isn't worth $1 to me. Not when the average wage hovers around $12 - $18 an hour, pricing the maximum affordable cost of one's happiness at (formula below) 7.3 cents per minute. Properly priced music would be based on the same formula. But it isn't. At present prices every song must be listened to as many as 5 times to gain proper value.
In contrast a rental video tape must only be watched for 1 hour to provide a net positive. That's not even 1 full viewing! Many outright movie purchases can be justified with only 2 viewings, or 1 viewing along with watching special features.
$15/hour * 7 hours working daily = $105
$105 / 24 hours a day = $4.375 / hour
$4.375 / 60 minutes = $0.0729 / minute
There's also music I bought instead of downloading, didn't like, but did pay for.
Usually about half the tracks of the album they came on.
In the end, we're even.
>Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer CDs. Why is no one buying CDs? Are people not interested in music?
Bingo! I'm no longer interested in music. There's so much noise and talk and shit about "intellectual property" and "copyright" and "theft" and whatnot that I simply disentangled myself from all that crap. I read books, I play games, I sometimes listen to Virgin Radio Classic Rock. And that's about it. I don't buy CDs, download music, or care what the whole scene is harping about.
I. Just. Don't. Care. Anymore.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
I wish these people would just realize that the way to beat piracy is simply to establish channels for distributing the movies that are neither too costly nor too burdensome to the public.
What makes you think that they don't realise that?
What makes you think that this is really about beating piracy?
It's official. Most of you are morons.