Slashdot Mirror
Warner Bros. to Try File Sharing in Germany
Carl Bialik writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that Warner Bros. plans to sell TV shows and movies online in Germany via P2P. In2Movies, to launch in March, 'will feature movies dubbed into German, including "Batman Begins" and "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," for a fee that Warner says will be similar to the cost of a DVD. It will also offer television shows like "The O.C." and locally made programs and movies. Users, who will have to register for the service, will be able to keep the movie indefinitely. But instead of getting a movie from a central server, pieces of it could come from other people on the network who also bought that movie.' The president of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Group says, 'Studios can't just turn their backs and hope "P2P" is going to go away tomorrow.'"
So why would someone use this service against say The Google Video Store, or iTunes. TFA doesn't mention if the files would be cheaper, but they will still be DRM'ed so by using this service you get the movie like you normally would be you also have to sacrifice your upload.
I don't understand why anyone would want to sue this over the services that are already out.
Someone is finally waking up. I wonder how long it will take the music industry to wake up... P2P...the scent opens your eyes...
Finally, some sense in the P2P/RIAA/MPAA wars!
If this works well for Warner, I am willing to bet they will extend this program to the rest of the world, pronto. At least, I hope so.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
So, for about the same price as a DVD, you get a DRM locked copy of the file and you get to pay a good chunk of their distribution costs. What a great deal!
It will be interesting to see what kind of formats will be used, exactly how much they charge, and how much DRM they cram into the thing. If they do charge the same cost for downloading a film as the DVD version then where is the incentive to download? Surely the price should be lower to reflect the savings in materials and distribution costs.
Although it's good that the movie industry isn't completely blind, I think they're going about this the wrong way. It's definitely a good thing that customers will be able to keep their purchases forever (instead of some 'limited time' offer), but I still have trouble seeing the value for customers in a P2P environment where they have to pay the same price as a DVD.
The article mentions the videos will have security features added to them so they can't be copied. Without more details, it's impossible to say how much of a hassle this will be. What if I have two computers and want to watch the video on the other one? The article is a bit weak on the details...
...big corps start to realize that the old bussiness model is dead, and begin to use the new model at their advantage, instead of fighting the tide.
- no sig.
...but you get nothing? If there's any sort of limit on how many copies you can make, you'd best hope your computer never dies.
So let's see.... None of the usual DVD extras? One language? No hard copy? SAME PRICE?
Wow that's a bunch of ass.
I doubt the implementation will be all that well. The reason most people use P2P is for the free stuff, and sharing bandwidth is a nessesity for that. If they are paying to have it download, few people will want to have their internet slown down by uploading to another person, or sharing the file once they have paid and downloaded the file.
Just another company pretending to embrace and understand the file-sharing users, while really only saving the companies bottom line and giving no true extra benefit to the consumer. There is very little incentive for me to buy a DVD through file-sharing at the cost of an in-store and packaged DVD.
The Google Video store does NOT carry 'The OC'
I don't see much of a future for google unless they decide to carry The OC like this Warner Brothers thing does.
Sure, I'll have to watch the OC in german, but thats a small price to pay to see the best writing and acting EVAR.
No, I'm not serious.
No Bay Watch or Hasselhoff music videos??
...A trial involving a Hollywood major and file sharing?
Oh wait...
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
This may work in EU countries where most broadband users have uncapped links, but in countries like Australia (or India, but there are bigger problems in that case), where most connections have usage caps, this is not going to work. People are going to refuse to pay for the content and then pay for the data transfer.
That said, it's a nice change to see some positive developments as far as the ??AA and the internet go, and a very welcome change from banning all innovation, as they tried recently...
StrayByte.Net
If you're going to charge me the same price for a download as you are for a DVD and you're gonna strap DRM on it to boot, I might as well buy the DVD and rip it. I now have a hard and DRM freee soft copy all for the same price.
http://www.commodore69.com/
So instead of owning a DVD, a physical copy of the movie, for the same price we cut a huge amount of cost for them by buying it online, hell if they use a bittorrent type style its even better for them. I don't think they get it yet. The idea about p2p is all about distrobution, not availability. We all know the DVDs and movies are available by DVD, we can go buy them. p2p is a new distrobution method that should be more efficient and cheaper. Good try, but no thanks. You can keep your DRM locked piece of junk. Ill take your weak DRM junk and nice artwork DVD's if Im paying for it anyway.
This reminds me of grade school, where an adult against tooth decay or something would try to "speak our language."
Flossing is stupid ill! 23 Skidoo!
Are these companies stupid? Do they think we're stupid? Why ask us to pay the same price, or similar to a store purchased DVD when there's no manufacturing, packaging or physical distribution to pay for? If anything an electronic copy of a movie or song should cost less to the consumer - much less.
I can understand people paying a similar amount for a 'premium item' like a just aired TV show or something that is similar to pay-per-view like a sports game. But, expecting people to pay full price for something that comes without the same quality of packaging as a movie that can be bought in a store is rediculous.
And to top it off they're using a Bittorrent style system where their customers are the ones paying for the bandwidth! If I upload your show to another customer for you it comes out of my quota of data from my ISP for the month and costs you nothing! What's in it for me huh?
These outfits really need to figure out that an electronic product should be *LESS* not that same price or more!
Don't forget these movies are likely to be compressed to a lower quality than a regular DVD as well.
Shame about the price?
For the cost of a DVD, I'm going to want a DVD. For a file that I could lose in a hard drive crash or through an accidental erasure etc, and that's potentially going to take me a couple of days to download (even if it maxes out my 2Mbps connection) and tie up my connection (if it maxes it out), I'm going to want to spend quite a bit less. That's ignoring the fact that my house can (currently) comfortably store many more DVDs than my hard drive, and somehow I don't see it being quite as simple as just burning it to disc.
Still, that said, this is definitely a step in the right direction.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
In2Movies will use Arvato's new platform, called GNAB to deliver movies. GNAB adds security features onto the movies so they can't be pirated, makes sure the movie owners get paid each time a consumer on In2Movies buys a movie, and routes the movies through computers owned by In2Movies' users.
According to this article, GNAB is not really P2P. Any wagers as to how long it will be until GNAB is cracked?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Why would anyone want to buy from this store for the same price as the actual DVD? You have to wait a few hours (depending on your internet connection), the user is likely to only be able to play it back on their PC (so unless they have a media center PC they cant even watch it on their TV), and to add insult to injury you have to waste your upload to help cut the distibution costs of WB. All this is doing is creating a bigger profit for WB with every movie sold. I could understand it if the movie were significantly cheaper but that would require a movie studio to pass their savings onto their viewers and lets face it it'll be a cold day in hell when that happens!
I would much rather download media from a nice fat server than from a p2p network, given a choice. P2P is just the best way when most of the people sharing files don't have super bloogity-bloog severs and pipes. No p2p if I'm paying full price.
...
Why would anyone use this? I mean, the price will be about the same as a DVD, but will be a download. Why not then just go and buy the DVD? If you buy all episodes/movies you want and your hard drive suddenly desires to become a paper weight, then what? You have to re-download them all. Plus, you then have to buy blank media to burn them if burning is allowed. And if it is allowed, how does Warner Bros expect the people from just re-ripping and sharing it on another P2P network? It sounds good and like its for the people, but it sounds like Warner Bros just wants to make the same amount of money they are, but no production costs of DVDs and all that stuff.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
Finally, some sense in the P2P/RIAA/MPAA wars!
They get your money to buy the content and then they don't have to pay for the bandwidth to get it to you? How could they not try it?
All the comments about massive profit margins aside, what's the video format?
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
Same price as a DVD, no physical media and you have to hand over a piece of your upload quota?
Oh yeah, great idea. Will definitely be a roaring succes.
What I'm most excited about is Firefly Season 2. From the buzz I've been hearing, they intend on doing something really revolutionary with it: it's going to be a subscription-based show not available on any networks. If the Browncoats can fully support a show the caliber of FireFly, that's going to force the network execs to sit up and take notice.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
So let me get this straight. I make no savings because the download will be a similar price to a DVD _AND_ I have to give up some of my bandwidth so that others get the content too. On top of all this the file will be DRM laden meaning I can't actually use it for anything?
Sounds great to me, where do I sign up?
In Germany, most people have a highly asymmetric connection. DSL (which is by far the most popular version of broadband) usually comes with bandwiths like
-1000kBit/s down and 128 kBit/s up
-2000kBit/s down and 192 kBit/s up
[...]
-6000kBit/s down and 576 kBit/s up
There are offers with higher upstream bandwidth, but those tend to be more expensive.
So distribution per P2P will usually be hampered by the lack of upstream bandwith. Why should a paying customer accept that (and have his own upstream blocked for hours), unless he gets the content cheaper as compensation for his cooperation?
C - the footgun of programming languages
Since I can rent a DVD by mail for 1 unit of currency it difficult to see anything else other than an attempt to say "see tried it, didn't work". The price needs to be around half that of a retail DVD, at most.
Oh, and no intrusive DRM either.
On a related point, has anyone noticed how movie and TV are coming together into a true competitive marketplace? The gap is much smaller than it used to be.
This sucks. I read about something like this on /. previously. People fork over their bandwidth, yet they pay fall fare for content. A movie costs the same for a guy with OC12 as it does for a guy on a 9600 baud courier modem. A pricing scheme that rewards fast uploads would be a fantastic way to improve the strength of the internet - everyone would pay more for fast uprate to save money!
Malicious note - here's a chance for movie pirates to use the same guerilla tactics as the industry - poisoning commercial P2P seeds! Inject that 1 frame of shlong and make Tyler Durden proud!
Press Release:11-17-2005
NBC UNIVERSAL AND WURLD MEDIA ANNOUNCE ON DEMAND DEAL FOR MOVIE AND TV EVENT CONTENT ON PEER IMPACT SERVICE
Peer Impact becomes the first legitimate Peer to Peer to offer Video On Demand
Englewood Cliffs, NJ and Saratoga Springs, NY -November 17, 2005 - NBC Universal and Wurld Media, the creator of the legitimate Peer to Peer (P2P) service Peer Impact, today announced an agreement that will make Universal movies and NBC Universal TV events content available to Peer Impact customers on demand. This agreement marks the first ever license of major studio content to a legitimate P2P service. Titles will be available for rental for a 24-hour viewing period after purchase.
"NBC Universal has a long history of embracing technology to better serve our viewers," said Bob Wright, vice chairman of GE and chairman and CEO of NBC Universal. "This agreement is a significant step forward in our goal to capitalize on the myriad possibilities of new digital-media services, in a way that allows us to safeguard our content from illegal distribution."
"NBC Universal is committed to providing our content to consumers in a way that meets their needs," said David Zaslav, president, NBC Universal Cable. "This agreement with Wurld Media furthers that commitment by allowing consumers to view the highest-quality movies securely on their computers."
"It has been a great honor to work with the executives at NBC Universal with whom we share a common vision for the future of this consumer marketplace," said Gregory Kerber, Chairman and CEO of Wurld Media. "This monumental convergence of technology and entertainment will bring digital media into the living room of the consumer, placing on-demand entertainment at their fingertips."
Peer Impact offers its users a secure, high quality environment for rental and purchase of digital content, including music, video games, and with this announcement, for the first time, major film and television event titles. For the benefit of its users, all content is placed on the P2P network by Wurld Media - no unauthorized content can be introduced on to the network.
As with all digital content that is traded over Peer Impact, users will earn Peer Cash for their participation in distributing videos on the network and for recommending video purchases to others. Peer Impact's unique technology allows members to earn cash back for acting as "paid redistributors" of content purchased over the network. Users simply leave their computers on, and if they are selected as a source of fulfillment for purchases on the network, they receive Peer Cash that may be used toward future purchases.
On demand movies from the Universal film library include Academy-Award winning films "Ray" and "The Motorcycle Diaries; " recent titles such as "Meet the Fockers" and "The Bourne Supremacy" as well as upcoming premieres of "The Skeleton Key", "Cinderella Man" and "The Forty Year Old Virgin." Specials and stunts include "Jerry Springer: Uncensored," "5th Wheel" and "Blind Date" franchises; family-friendly programming like "Kicking & Screaming," the "Balto" series and "The Land Before Time." In addition, "Laura Sin Censura," one of the most successful Hispanic VOD offerings to date, will also be available to Peer Impact customers.
This announcement is the latest in Peer Impact's licensing and distribution arrangements. Peer Impact recently launched the first multimedia version of their service, which introduced over 1000 video games to the service and has bolstered its music catalog to include not only all major music labels but the largest independent labels as well.
# # #
About NBC Universal
NBC Universal is one of the world's leading media and entertainment companies in the development, production, and marketing of entertainment, news, and information to a global audience. Formed in May 2004 through the combining of NBC and Vivendi Universal Entertainment, NBC Universal owns and operates a valuable portfolio of news and entert
There is no pricing given anywhere in the article, you have no basis to make these assumptions.
I think the ideal price point for this would be about $9 a movie, or about 1/2 of what a DVD costs retail. It is significantly less than buying it retail, but significantly more than renting it, which it should be since you get to keep it.
(Just forget the fact that anyone can rent a DVD and copy it, because that is not legal, and remember you should be assuming that you're dealing with someone who likely wouldn't know how to rip a DVD anyways).
But, you see, they know that you will steal it, and share the movie with five other people. Thus, they not only expect you to do their distribution, but they also expect you to do their reselling. From their perspective, you're buying an implicit license to make five copies, so really, they're giving you a price which is 1/5th the price of a DVD. By sharing it with your friends, you gain back the 4/5ths of the price in goodwill accruing to you.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I couldn't find it in the article, but it seems that they are just offering the movie, no extras. One of the big things about DVDs in general, especially those "extended editions" or what have you, are the extras that come along with them.
Charging the same for the movie itself at what is most likely a lower quality and in a locked format won't make anyone use the service over buying a DVD (or continuing to download them for free.) However, it is a step in the right direction, probably spurred by iTunes' video sales.
The conspiracy theorist in my says that this is a set up- they know that by charging the same price as a DVD and putting all these hobbles on it, they won't get high sales. They can then claim that they've tried the "public" idea of taking P2P as a business model, that it failed, and then hand out another set of lawsuits.
So basically I have to pay the same price as a DVD for less features AND I have to do the work...
interesting...
now will it be true P2P (ie will I be helping to spread the file, which probably wouldnt work because of DRM)
basically, they are going to overcharge people for a DRM packed file that isnt as useful as a standard DVD then be shocked when it doesnt work...
thats my prediction.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
The actual production and distribution costs of a DVD are negligable. You can buy DVDs of movies that have gone into the public domain at dollar stores...
As you say, the quality is likely to be lower than a DVD for any sensible file sizes, and that by itself should reduce the charge.
On the other hand, this is a test market. If it doesn't sell well at full DVD cost they'll change things.
But over all I am happy to see them stepping forward. Most of the above problems, (pricing, amount to upload, burning), would take a little redirection at the corporate level and could be implimented quickly.
We really need a universal streaming format acceptable by DRM standards but open to client implimentations. Something like NTSC over IP. The server can be closed but the client should be universal so that I can get it built into my xbox media center or my windows media extender, etc. I would think that recording this would be no more of a threat than recording to a vhs tape or rca in connection.
I do security
Same price as a DVD? Wake up. Why should I pay the same for something more restricted?
Do content producers think they can do the same thing they did with CD and DVD, and just keep/raise prices with formats? You've got to add something to earn a premium.
Somehow what seems missed here is the cost of keeping my PC alive 24/7 just to give free bandwidth with no payback. If I have to buy the movie, put up with it's DRM, and give the person who charged me (at no discount) free server space, no deal! If I buy the DVD, I have the physical copy, can play it on anything I own, thanks to many who are equally sick of the abuse of the fair use act. I dont wear out harddrives, cook the CPU, and run up my electric bill with the 600W power supply. Plus the only way I would run a P2P server is if I can run it under Linux where I have *real* control of what is exposed to the wire.
Besides, unless you have a OC-3 fiber cabinet installed in your hall closet, it will take an eternity to download top-quality video via typical ADSL. Forget it if you only have a modem.
Oops, I forgot. We, in the US, have an inferior system of obsolete TELCO's who grudgingly gave us DSL just to protect their obsolete switches from meltdown due to all the modems.
-dh
Everyone is complaining about the fact that it will be "similar to the cost of a DVD." What if it will be 1/2 the cost of a DVD. Would you want to use it then. Would that make it worth the hassle of downloaded, potentially using up dl quotas, DRM, etc?
When you can illegally download nearly anything for free or goto Blockbusters and rent whatever for $5, what would you pay to be able to legally download content using P2P that will be DRMed?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
did u even read the article??
"for a fee that Warner says will be similar to the cost of a DVD"
that sure sounds like pricing to me...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
The reason people prefer P2P than buying DVD's (or CD's for music) is the friggin' overinflated prices imposed on them!
The **AA isn't willing to let go of their precious dollars. And so, they pretend to modernize themselves by offering downloads, but they don't modernize what REALLY keeps them in the jurassic age. The prices.
Well, at least the movies are dubbed. This is a good thing.
Why doesn't music get dubbed as well??
(yes, being ironic...)
Can't they afford to pay for the fucking bandwidth? A few gigs of data download should'nt cost more than a cent or two. Compared to what they plan to charge for the movie, it's nothing.
It's nice to see them trying to meet their customers halfway but really I think a few things have to happen:
1) Eliminate DRM.
2) Price the movies so cheaply that there isn't much point in stealing it. If a song is worth $1, and a TV show is worth $2, a movie shouldn't be worth more than $4 or $5 (US dollars). Make the "special features" a free optional download for people who have purchased the movie (a lot of people, myself included, will usually opt to just download the movie). Note that this could almost completely assume all of the $$$ that rental outfits are making from movies, allowing the studios to pocket profits from the vast majority of people who will just view the movie once and then discard it.
3) Work with the major PVR platforms to make it easier to buy an unencumbered $4 or $5 movie right from the menu than it is to download a pirate torrent and import it into the PVR. Don't just partner with one major commercial interest, get in bed with the OSS platforms also. Billions of dollars are at stake so spending a couple of million to have your product supported on the majority of popular PVR platforms is buying free money.
...like you can burn CDs with iTMS.
Pros:
Available online, no need to get to a store. But if getting to a store is that hard, do they have proper broadband out there in the wilds?
Possibility for instant start (downloading as you go). Much more difficult with torrent-like systems because you need them in order. Can they provide that kind of sustained speeds to most consumers anyway?
Cons:
For a DVD, you can often get it as quickly by retail stores, online sites if you don't have good broadband
You know where you can get it cheaper...
You don't get any of the packaging. Do we even get the DVD extras?
Can you take a back-up?
Can you play it on a regular DVD player?
Can you move it to other machines like you can with a DVD disc?
They want to use your upload bandwidth
Basicly, no burning is a total and complete dealbreaker for me. And I know we can't burn CSS DVDs (consumer burners can't), and we won't be allowed to burn non-CSS DVDs. And if your HDD dies? Either you must a) download countless gigabytes AGAIN, or you must burn back-ups (maybe with some activation scheme). But then there's really no advantage over regular DVDs anyway, except now you need to make your own hardcopy. There's a big difference between having a HTPC and being forced to absolutely, for all future have to use one. Bought a DVD player to have in your cabin/car (great way to make kids STFU)/son's/daughter's room? Sorry.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It is a good start but it won't really take off until they revise their idea of how it is supposed to work and how much it should cost to the end user. Downloading a DVD for a price of a real DVD doesn't make sense, because if you want to play it in a DVD player now you have to buy an expensive blank and spend time burning the thing.
It would make some sense if they at least mailed you the real DVD after you buy the right to download a copy. But that is what I would do and I think I can come up with some innovative ideas time to time.
You can't handle the truth.
You might want to read: this scifi.com article before sprouting info on this. It seems that the "company" wants to do something good, but really haven't gotten any input from Joss yet.
If online companies offered their shows with or preferably without commercials for download, like OnDemand in Cable, it'd work if their pricepoint is set well. You can see movies and television seasons for free from the library nowadays too.
God spoke to me.
Like:
*Willing to get video out on the 'net
*Dubbed for the folks who speak German
*Trying to do something technologically interesting
Don't like:
*Trying to do something technologically interesting (without understanding what they're really doing, it appears...)
*Not using their own resources for ALL distribution
*DRMing the content
*Not a price break over buying the physical DVD
*Ketchup on ice cream
A Passionate Independent Musician
If these aren't drastically compressed in some fashion you are looking at a couple gigs of data per movie. Downloading a file that is 5+ gigs over a P2P application... If you are really hell bent on staying home you could probably order the actual DVD from a website and it show up before your download finished AND still be able to surf the web while you wait instead of having your link crushed under all the other people trying to download 5G worth of data from your computer.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
The price will obviously be a key factor for the sales but P2P is indeed just a buzz word with positive and negative vibes. If they want DVD prices for there movies than its obvious why Apple isn't offering them, its ridicules. What is a fair price for an online movie in video quality (like iTunes)? I think 5 dollar is the sweet spot but i'm afraid it will end up being 10 dollar. This is to high for me, unlike digital music there is a big decline in quality and there needs to be a compensation in the price.
I am a Rogers Broadband customer. Rogers has, in the last year, set a data cap for my digital data service. Specifically, Rogers gives me 60GB per month, upload and download combined. I pay $40CDN per month for the service.
Now I finally have a way to compute the value of such things as this Warner P2P offering.
We need a little bit more data, though. Specifically, how big is a DVD quality movie? Between 600MB and 1.4GB for an MPEG encoded video of sufficient quality to (subjectively) look good on my big TV. 600MB for an animation, 1.4GB for a feature movie. Lets "split the difference" and call it 1GB.
Which means I can download 60 movies per month for $40. Each movie will cost me 67 cents to download.
But the P2P (Peer to Peer) model only works if I upload the material as well. To one (or more) clients. Note that my cap applies to uploads as well. I am going to assume a 1:1 ratio for down to uploads - which means my data pipe price is doubled. Specifically, to $1.33 per movie.
There is also a cost associated with having material on the hard disk for servicing uploads. I know the cost of on-line storage. My average price is now $2 per gigabyte (for my drives in service), and I replace drives every 2 years. Which means $1 per movie per year. If I assume data retension for a year (got to fill this in with something. and there has to be client retension to make P2P work!), this adds a buck, bringing my cost to $2.33.
Would I spend $2.33 to download a movie? Rental at BlockBuster average $3.50 (ish) per movie. One buck more. Which is then what the content is worth to me. Without DRM, unlimited personal use: the price of the DVD minus the above costs, minus a factor related to the time it takes to actually download/upload (because my Internet connection is tied up... and its a nuisance). I figure a MINIMUM of 5 bucks.
So, "Unencumbered DVD quality downloads using our P2P, at 30% under store DVD price" is the beginning of the play for me.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Here's an idea. You pay a few bucks to watch the locked copy. You know..$1-5. Then if you want to buy it, you can have them send you the DVD just like you'd buy in the store, less the price of the download. Like if you paid $4 and the DVD is $20, you pay $16 and the DVD gets sent to you.
With discounts for those that are 'seeders' like free downloads and 25% off DVDs or something.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Why $9 for a download when DVDs can be had for $5.50 and $7.50 at Wal*Mart?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Oh, wait, nevermind, it's Warner, of course they can.
If it is distributed by p2p and DRM'd, I would not pay more than $2 for a feature length movie or $1 for a short subject.
I still don't get this. Why on earth would I want to pay for a movie that I didn't get directly from them? Further why would I want to then give them free use of my computer and net connection to warehouse their product for other customers? This isn't embracing P2P its trying to get a free lunch. This would only make sense if users got some fraction of the income from each movie downloaded from their computer.
If I pay as much as I do for a DVD, I expect to get a tangible object.
Call me again when I get unlimited on-demand viewing of Warner movies for maybe $10/month (I'm willing to pay around $40/month for unlimited on-demand viewing of all studios).
The goal of gambling is generally to maximize your positive expectation (this means positive outcome. Cf. writers like David Sklansky). While I encountered this statement in a book about poker, I believe it applies pretty well to business and other aspects of life. And the cartels probably understand this more than the genie metaphor.
So if they understand their precipice of a business model, and they are trying to maximize profits (positive outcome), then why are they not trying to really "embrace" alternate distribution? My take on this is that they've done the research and concluded that they can make more money through DRM, scare tactics (lawsuits), and FUD.
DRM is really a temporary solution. It makes copying harder, so it works on the non-technical. Coupled with the DMCA, it creates an end-run around fair use rights as they can sue anyone who releases information about how to bypass the restrictions. It can't last forever, as there are those who want to copy media, and stopping human communication is not possible.
The scare tactics (lawsuits) and FUD could be considered a temporary solution, or you could compare it to any authority asserting power over the peasants. These work (at least in the US, I don't know about other places) because the average person here doesn't research or apply any logic to the corporate nightly news they watch, often owned or affiliated with the same corporations who hold massive copyright interests (ABC, NBC, CBS, WB, FOX, etc). When the lawsuits started, the average person had probably seen or read two things about file-sharing: "peer-to-peer makes copying easy" and then, a bit later "file-sharers go to court". The FUD works in basically the same way.
I believe that public opinion is really key here. Sure, there are those who buy the FUD and learn a distorted view of copyright. And there are those who favor abolishing copyright altogether. But I think that the majority of people are somewhere in the middle. These are the techies who see the ridiculousness of the propositions made by the cartels (in terms of technology), or the soccer moms who want to copy that DVD so Timmy doesn't ruin the original.
This is where we have to step in. The great thing about this point in time is that most people don't understand much about the situation. I found this out when I was home during Christmas/New Years. I consider my dad to be smarter than average, yet he thought DVD burners might be illegal (he has one in his 2-year-old iMac), and I don't think he really understood me when I didn't want to go to the movies unless there was something I really wanted to see (he asked why, I said "unethical business practices").
So what should we do? Well, we have a situation where public opinion is important and the same public does not understand the issues very well. This means those who want to tame the feudal-style trade groups (cf. Guilds) should find some way to raise awareness about these issues.
There are organizations like Free Culture and Downhill Battle who are trying to do this. They are a great resource for the many slashdot (and similar) types who complain about the copyright situation, yet maybe don't
warner borthers was taking p2p to court in germany...
The true questions:
1. What's the final price?
If it's not less than a DVD, nobody's gonna buy it.
2. What about DRM? What about burning?
If you can't burn it, nobody will buy it. Few have a media-center PC.
3. What about DVD-"Goodies"?
If it's just the movie and not the rest (as crappy as it may be), nobody will buy it. For the simple reason that you get "less".
4. What about region codes?
Will I be able to buy DVDs from other countries?
So, in short, will I get a "true", burnable DVD, and if so, why should I waste my bandwidth and wait for 2+ days instead of going to the shop 'round the corner and just buy it?
Gimme a reason to buy that, Warner! Just 'cause "it's coming from P2P" isn't one. I don't care. I want a good movie at a reasonable price. If you fly it in with a pidgeon, so be it. I don't care about the way it's transported to me, I care about the movie and how I can view it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
the content is already available for free if you look even haphazardly, a nicely compressed AVI still takes awhile to download and seed back to at least a >1.00 ratio. maybe if they included a service with bigger pipes (they want the disribution for their bloated mat'l for free from the consumer? fat chance) and intellegently sized files and then way better pricing. i dunno what they have in germany, but i have an anemic upload rate of 314 kbps with my covad supplied home adsl. i already have a shitload of stuff in my seed que waiting for it's turn back out. and i usually try to restrain myself to AVIs in the 700MB range.
Serenity now, insanity later.
"so upload bandwidth really doesn't matter as much"
You are partly correct and partly incorrect. While it may not matter for 1 user, it will matter on the macro level. For example, if you have 1000 ppl queued up to download the latest movie and they each want reasonable bandwidth (1.5Mbps), it will take 10 times that many asynchronous uploaders to satisfy the download bandwidth requirement. So the uploaders will NEVER catch up with the downloading demand -- until the download demand receeds a LOT (by ppl finishing, or cancelling, or whatever). The point being....there is X bandwidth required for downloading and only X/10 bandwidth available for uploading. [Note: I am assuming they are totally relying on P2P. I suppose they could put up their own dedicated "super" P2P servers and skew this equation]
Wash, rinse, and repeat for every "new" hit.
Asynchronous *IS* a problem with something as large scale as this. There is a certain level of expectations that have to be met with respect to the speed of the download and asynchronous P2P will not be able to meet those expectations.
Especially, if everyone throttles down after they download (and who can blame them?).
It's not really sharing if they're charging money, now is it?
If it ain't broke, it needs more features!
They are setting up a P2P system that, on the surface, seems as if it should work but will, as we can all see, ultimately fail. This is a deliberate attempt by the media companies to say "Look, see! This P2P stuff doesn't work and will destroy capitalism! It must be outlawed after all!" That's why their system is flawed...
"for a fee that Warner says will be similar to the cost of a DVD."
I take it that means the media will be included as well as compensation for bandwidth costs for hosting?
No wonder there's "piracy". Entertainment companies want the best of both worlds. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
Bah.
What is Warner Brothers? They make and *distribute* media. Movies, TV, games, whatever.
P2P is a distribution method.
What WB and others should be doing is being the newest *creators* of P2P software and networks. They should provide high speed P2P networks and base their profit strategies on that. People will *pay* for getting their downloads super fast and and error free. People will pay for parental controls and certain features. And yes, people will pay simply because they've actually provided a decent alternative that is *legal*.
While there are some people who like getting stuff for free, and some who even like being "rebels" and effectively stealing the data to prove some sort of point, the fact is that most people just want their stuff as fast as possible with as little hassle as possible. That is why people don't go to CD stores as much any more. Why would I actually drive into a store to buy an album where I only want maybe 2-3 of 20 songs and then pay 20 bucks for it when I can just download the 2-3 songs almost immediately (and for free)?
what do you expect. they want to protect their dvd revenue stream while pretending to "try" p2p so they can slam it once it fails. never mind the fact that they cut the legs out from under it at the start. charging similar price to dvd + inferior quality + drm is a good way sh*t all over your product so a consumer will stay away
devious
First of all, I'll add my 2 cents to the "same price for less... and I pay for the bandwidth?? No way!!". Done.
Now, to my point. What would make sense to me, is a model similar to the cable/satellite TV: you pay a monthly fee for downloadable music/movies/TV series. That's it. Maybe you'll need to pay an extra fee for some "special channels", much in the way you actually pay for HBO or Cinemax today; as well as an equivalent to "pay per view" for special events. For example, I would definitely pay an extra fee for an "only for DJs" channel, or "pay per download" a recent concert, or a recent blockbuster movie (given that the "standard" content is really worth the price, otherwise, it would be just pretending; they would be charging a montly fee for worthless content, and leaving all the interesting stuff in "pay per download" format).
For a "decent" monthly rate I would gladly share my bandwidth and happily download lots of music and possibly videos and movies. What is "decent"? Well, for satellite TV I pay US$30 a month; + decoder rental US$16 - this in Mexico City. Only that I'd be using my own computer and sharing my bandwidth, so there would be no hardware to buy or pay a rent for.
What's in it for us, users?
* An interesting price
* The opportunity to try new music/series/movies without the "what if I don't like it?" that stops us from buying quite often.
What's in it for corporations?
* An lowered cost of operation, as the distribution cost is largely supported by the user base
* A somehow predictable income: say "one month for US$35, one year for US$28/month", many users will go for the yearly contract. You'll KNOW what minimum income you'll get, guys!
* US$30 equals 1 song purchase a day, for the current 99 cents per song standard. From how many of your customers can you claim that?
* A COMMUNITY (see below)
BTW: This would only work with standard, fine quality, non-DRM files. mp3 (LAME, standard VBR) for audio, for example. The message is "we want to build a community with you, our dearest customers; make this deal a win-win agreement". Current message seems to be "customer: you are a potential thieve; I must be protected from you, and take legal action when needed (and hook some spyware in your computer while we do it)". I dont want to do business with people who treat me like a criminal.
) ( c[_]
You're not gonna get movies for free.
I'd say they want it to fail, so that they'll be able to show courts: "See? p2p doesn't work when it's legal! They're all evil pirates, let's shut down the technology now!"
Obviously their logic is flawed and this attempt is most likely not going to work very well for them. At least they are starting to see that the internet and computers are actually used for something other than pirating. Now all they need is to get some people that actually can understand the internet and computers to help them reassess their business model.
Nah. I've beta tested this exact style system. There are a few companies working on similar but competing ideas... and studios are aligning themselves with network providers. So, you will see more of this type of thing.
On a connection of your speed, it takes from 5-15 seconds to queue up. Then the rest of the movie is downloaded while you watch. The entire process takes minutes. Not hours, not days.
I hope they lower the prices or it won't catch on very well.
Reading people's comments made me realize something - there all jew-bagels. The idea behind being able to do such a thing is to create a legal means for getting movies off of the internet and onto the computer. Hell, these things'll even be legal for Linux users (PLU I'd assume). Yet, the idiots here want to crush this effort? Shame on them! I say that it's a grand idea, and if they allow it in the states I'll upgrade my server just so that I can assist these selfish fools in getting movies. Do they have any idea what it's like to download let's say an ISO image and not be able to aquire the last 50MB b/c there's not a single person uploading the content? I tell you the slashdot crowd needs to learn some consideration for one another, and how to aid one another and take advantage of a great chance when it occurs.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
I moved to Germany about a year and a half ago. I don't see this as being a valuable service due to the mindset of most people I know. Outwardly, Germans are all about "There are rules, you will follow the rules, or you will suffer!". But inwardly, they are all about getting something for free.
With massive unemployment, lowering wages, losing benefits, union breaking, and exporting businesses to the Eastern European countries on a daily basis, I don't see this becoming either popular or successful.
Most Germans that I know don't buy DVDs. Hell, a lot of them don't even watch TV except for the evening news.
The ones that do have broadband at home are deeply into eDonkey. If they really want something on DVD that's where they look first.
6 times 30/month = 180/month. That is a nice chunk of money. I don't doubt that a few enthusiasts are willing to pay that, but I don't see a large proportion of the users signing up for it. ;-)
SDSL might be a lot more popular if you could get 1000in/1000out at the same price as 2000in/192out. Considering your 15000bps inbound and 1000 outbound for 30/month, it is far from available everywhere. Otherwise it would be a pretty nice substitute for 1000in/1000out
C - the footgun of programming languages