Slashdot Mirror
Download-to-own Films Coming Soon
riflemann writes "CNN is reporting that Universal Pictures will soon launch a service whereby films can be downloaded legally to own, i.e. non time-limited digital downloads. Currently most legally downloaded movies are time limited. Buyers will also receive a DVD version in the post. Is the movie industry finally listening? And how will they define 'own?'"
Universal Pictures is doing this?
...and the MPAA hasn't responded yet? It's taking the MPAA this long to respond to a dangerous "piracy" issue?
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
That's way to expensive. These guys still don't get it. Designed to fail.
cheers
"Security measures will make it impossible to e-mail the film to somebody else."
What else will they prevent us from doing?
I wonder will they enforce region encoding on these DVDs or will they be zone free....
Jeez, where are you from?
How will they define own?
Ownership agreement:
You will not make backup copies of your files.
You will not have your files on more than one computer.
You may not share the files under any circumstance.
You may not playback the movie to more than 5 people.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
$35? It won't take off until it goes below $20.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I predict at least two of those, probably 3. The second on the list (Windows only) is almost a certainty. Good luck to them, this sounds very good, but my experience tells me there are some major catches in there that we can't see yet.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
the first hacked released of Microsoft's MPEG-4 Version 2 video codec (Divx 3.11) came out in 1998. I would bet most slashdotters have downloaded at least one divx since then.
Let's face it, most downloaders aren't in it for the convenience. Whether it's an ideological beef with the MPAA, lack of funds, or just plain stinginess, most people don't want to pay for these movies. This might catch on among people who don't feel like going out to the store or waiting for it to come via online stores, but it's not going to curb illegal downloading.
I'm wondering what format the digital copies will be using... and which DRM they've crippled them with.
This service could really be huge if they implemented something vaguely similar to FairPlay in the sense that you can put it on a few other computers, and instead of putting it on your iPod, you could have a 30 day "timeout" -- if you don't connect to the internet in 30 days and reauthenticate your DRM'ed movie, you can't play it. This way it'll still work if you go on vacation or whatnot.
The big issue here is we're talking about a movie -- a multi-million dollar venue, corporations don't lightly toss around the idea of letting you put a $500 million production on five other computers for nothing. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction and not just some kind of sick ploy, like if they load it with horrible DRM that eats your soul and then afterwards (when the service rightfully bombs) they just say "eh, there's no market for this kind of service" and never try again. Anyway here's hoping.
For the past couple of years, I've been increasingly restricting the funds I contribute to the media cartels' war chests. Until they stop the lawsuit shenanigans and begin distributing media in DRM-free, non-patented formats, I will continue to do so. Besides, indie music and films are much better, so it's not like I've been missing much.
This is so obscenely overpriced at $35 per movie, hell, you could buy 2 or 3 DVDs for that price. Do the studios not realize that they are driving customers away by price-gouging? This is the same crap we heard from the music companies when vinyl records were going up to $9 and CDs came out, they were supposed to be cheaper than LPs because they were cheaper to manufacture. But music CDs are still way more than $9 (even accounting for inflation).
The media companies look at every new format as an opportunity to raise prices, even when the cost of manufacturing and distribution drops significantly.
Heh, from their FAQ:
Broadband internet connection recommended.
+9000, Duh
Trolling is a art,
"And how will they define 'own?'"
I OWN a car, I can lend it to anyone I please and I can drive it on all public roads in my country. Yes there are limitations, I can only accomodate as many people as the law allows. But if I am not allowed to lend it to anyone i like, I dont own it. So no, this does not actually satisfy my definition of OWN
I agree. I rent movies all the time and when I do, usually a few other people watch them with me. I also lend them out when I'm done with them. I might keep a film -- if it's genre inspiring (like Devil's Rejects, for example).
Typically a factory-direct model like this is CHEAPER than going through the middle man. Why would we pay MORE for it?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
My bandwidth is too valuable to waste on stuff I can just go and buy at a video store for about the same price (and considering I could be back from the video store in about 10 minutes, I'd have the movie a lot faster getting it myself too).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Seriously, I hope they pay me to download this crap... I know it sure isn't worth my money, or even watching for free, for that matter
/dev/random
my cat's fur is getting all matted. What should I do? It is impossible to brush it and she wont stay still for me to cut it
MAC encoded, special playback sw? Won't beat a capture card though.
"...and the MPAA hasn't responded yet? It's taking the MPAA this long to respond to a dangerous "piracy" issue?"
I know you're trying for a funny, but the MPAA is the representive organization for the movie industry. They aren't the movie industry itself.
I had estimated the system would work more on volume than on individual sales. Five years later, at $35 a piece, it just makes me wonder why useless minds were put behind this great idea.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Vivid is doing something similar -- I just got a note from one of their PR people -- I believe they're starting with 20 adult features, which you can purchase, download, and burn to DVD ... when I know more I'll blog it at Wired (http://blog.wired.com/sex/) and let y'all know.
They're selling a download/streaming/DVD version for a fair price for all three combined. But you're still only getting one movie. gee thanks.
Where has everyone been? The porn business has been doing this for ages, once again proving that pornographers are miles ahead of everyone and on the cutting edge of technology!
should we expect to see download-to-own software?
"Security measures will make it impossible to e-mail the film to somebody else."
Let me say: Ha! Ahhh hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Dumb movie company guys: NEVER say 'impossible' to the geek crowd - they take that as a blatant challege.
Mod first sentence as Funny.
For that Price... They are betting on "impulse" buyers. And everyone is right, it is setup to fail. Movies are not the sort of thing "You JUST MUST HAVE NOW". (Not for $35) If you consider thet latest articles on /. - The Taxation (extortion) that is proposed on bandwidth hungry sites. Shipping Costs etc etc. Yes, someone is going to comment on that the DVD/Movie industry is over priced and they could afford it. But which studio is going to come forward as say "Welp, the consumer was right, we were ripping everyone off, the new and improved price is $...." While the rest of the pack growls and attacks. (other studios) Price Structures are very difficult to change. Especially when it seems to be "a standard"
:)
To throw some oil into the water so to speak, in order to download A MOVIE... Youre talking about 2-3 hours for high quality... (your really think they'll use a fancy codec (xvid etc etc?) Thats 2 hours too long as your nearest blockbuster/walmart,bestbuy is 30 min away at the most, and you can take your family out for ice cream
Theres ALOT at stake here. They have a HUGE piracy issue at hands, the wood they are throwing onto the fire better be wet.
And no, I didn rtfa.
-- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
They have a limited selection and it's not full resolution, but the quality is actually pretty good. But it's pretty cheap. "Rentals" are even cheaper and the limitations on watching them is fairly reasonable.
At the speed of my connection (at home, not at work, and (alas) no longer at college), it'll be faster for me to wait for them to mail me the disc. On the other hand, at the price point they're offering, I may as well just buy the disc online and splurge on the second-day shipping.
Your feeble marketing skills are no match for the power of the Postal Service! You will pay the price for your lack of vision!
I'm serious about that lack of vision thing. I give them kudos for at least trying, but trying in a way that is bound to fail isn't innovation - it is just plain stupid.
Apple is widely rumored to be in negotiations with the studios to add feature films to the iTunes Store, but the major hangup seems to be that the studios are insisting on a $9.99 a month subscription to keep a constant flow of cash coming their way, with an extra $13 or so on top of the monthly fee to keep movies after the term of the subscription ends. Jobs is having none of this, insisting on a $9.99 per movie fee with no monthly charge. You pay $10 and it's yours forever, and you don't have to keep spending money every month to maintain access to your files. The iTunes Music Store has had an enormous amount of success with this compared to the subscription models offered by other services, and it is more compatible with the existing customer mentality that when you pay for a film, it becomes part of your collection forever.
The service proposed in the article is a perfect example of what we would get if the music industry got their way with iTunes music pricing. The labels are insisting they be allowed to charge more for newer, and more popular music (driving the prices of digital content closer to that of physical media) while offering "lower" prices for older content (Steve Jobs is resisting the increases). The Universal movie service will charge you $35 for new releases, and offer an "incredible" 50% discount on older films, which brings the price for the back catalog down to what you would pay for a physical DVD.
Economics dictates that they can charge whatever the market will bear, but I think the past few years has proven that the market simply will not bear what the conglomerates are demanding. They have this fantasy that if online stores offer the same products that they aren't selling enough of in brick-and-mortar stores at the same, or a higher price than the brick-and-mortar stores, that sales will increase.
The prevalence of file sharing had a lot to do with the convenience, but it was also much more a direct rebellion against the pricing schemes that the cartels had shoved down our throats for decades. iTunes killed two birds with one stone and took away the incredible premium they were demanding in retail stores, and adopted the convenience of the file sharing networks. Sales rebounded, and now they feel as if their original methodology was somehow correct and they can begin maximizing their profits by demanding more money for less product.
They are unable to accept the notion that they have been wrong all of these years, and are terrified that Apple is increasingly making them irrelevant in the marketplace. They are not producing any physical product, the overhead and media itself is being paid for out of Apple's tiny cut (they've only recently passed break-even on the store) and they are collecting a lionshare of the proceeds for doing nothing but allowing Apple to reproduce the content they did not make. It's a zero-risk, zero-investment game with high returns for them and them alone. With fewer bands (even established ones) getting any attention from the marketing departments at major labels, the day is coming when they will be cut out of the arrangement altogether and bands upload their music on their own (as they can do right now when they lack a big-label contract prohibiting such things). If you're not getting any airplay, the only thing you need is GarageBand, a tour promoter and an iTunes merchant account. The 90% take the labels claim on each sale, and the indentured servitude they put bands in for the ridiculous expenses they charge to each group just isn't getting anyone but a few main artists any kind of return.
The film studios are well-aware of the trap the music labels walked into, and want to ensure that any movie service has no room in it for the individual copyright holder and is arranged so if the movie studios are the only source for content, they get a monthly cut and there is no ability for individuals to upload their own films, as there is no way for them to tap into the monthly revenue stream going back to Hollywood.
With all of that bandwidth, waiting, compression, DRM, & $40 price tag I'd rather flip on the on-demand people and rent a movie.
This week, as more of an experiment than anything else, the iTunes Music Store began selling a downloadable version of the entire made-for-Disney-Channel movie "High School Musical" for $9.99 at iPod-video quality.
Granted, the movie is still being shown on Disney Channel now and then, but it's a bit of a big deal in that this is being offered a couple of months ahead of the DVD release, and for about half the price.
the big media companies of today are like lumbering dinos. They don't realise that they are on the edge of extiction, and are trying to do things the old way instead of evolving. The simple truth of the matter is that while content is expensive to produce, the cost of producing each additional copy of the finished product is almost nill. When it comes to files and downloads, it is at absolute zero. The problem is, the big media companies still think that they can control consumer behavior by producing a standard that the consumer must conform to in order to use a product. problem is, thats not the case anymore. maybe just as importantly, ordinary consumers are starting to realise that the cost of an extra copy really is nill, and they don't want to pay again and again for the same content just because they want to use it on another piece of hardware. If media companies want to survive and make money in the new world of digital downlaods, they are going to have to do more than simply restrct user use. Doig so only breeds rebellion in the comsumer base. They are in effect going against the flow of consumer demand, which is to make their stuff run on all their hardware. ironaically enough even as hardware manufacturers are making their stuff ever more compatable with each other, the content providers are actively engaged in fighting the comsumers ability to use their honsestly purchased content on all of their hardware. As we have seen in many other fields 9auto makers anyone) when producers start fighting consumer prefrence, they inevitably lose. if traditional media companies want to survive, they will have to drop their prices and allow people to copy and use their content on many devices. Who knows, maybe if content was fully integrated consumers would buy more of their content. it is a fact that there are many consumers who refuse to adopt technology because they feel that they are being taken for a rise by the content providers. And can you blame such people? when a company kills old standards just to sell more of the same it can only lead to consumer withdrawl. Sony and its PS, PS2 (and soon PS3) has proven at least with games, that when you allow backward compatability, you gorw your market and encourage people to buy content because consumers feel more confident that they will be able to enjoy that content for many years to come. if media companies did likewise for movies and music they may be surprised to learn that their sales will actually (gasp) increase, resulting in higher profits that will offset whatever hit they take by lowering prices. more importantly, lower prices also boost consumption, so lower prices will encourage more people to buy content, which will only further amplify content use and thereby help media companies make their profit. Big media companies can make a valid, perfectly working business model that can and will make them rich in the new digital world, but only if they pull their heads out of the sand and commit to the new technology and new methods of content distribution.
Fool me once...shame on you, fool me twice...won't be fooled again (our president)
SpaceChannel.TV will be doing this too. We're rolling out next week a download site (specific to the Space Entertainment, Space Sports, and Science Fiction market) where our programs may be purchased to own. AND -- 6 to 12 months later you'll be able to RESELL your copy through our site. Videos will be encrypted, and you'll have to be online for just a few seconds for our custom video player to grab the decryption key -- after a few seconds you can go offline and continue watching the video.
We're not delivering DVDs, but perhaps we could in the future.
Another thing we're working on: videos are purchased through a credit exchange system. You can purchase credits directly, or watch ads to be given credits by our system. We collect revenue from advertisers whose ads you watch, and pass on the value to you. In the first six months, that value is passed on at par!
--
Rocky Persaud
President, IPX Entertainment
http://spacechannel.tv/
--
By the laws of supply and demand I feel they are asking for way too much. They are assuming the cost of overhead as if they had to send on trucks jewel cases and cds with printed media. But I guess wasting forty minutes downloading on painfuly slow lines is somehow worth 18 dollors.
You'd be reluctant to give up something that worked so good for so long, too.
$35 for new releases, $17.50 for older movies? What a bunch of crap. For the less popular new releases, you can buy the DVD for less than $20 and you still get the extra scenes and other junk that comes on the DVD. Why am I going to pay MORE for a lower quality version when I can go buy it cheaper and then rip it to whatever quality I want.
I suspect their argument will go something like this: "See, nobody is buying them. Selling online doesn't work because everyone is pirating it." When I saw the headline I was surprised and optimistic, but then I read the fine print and it all made perfect sense.
Oh well, the MPAA and RIAA are just putting themselves out of business. Too bad for them.
Price the movies equal to the admission of a theater ticket (thereby eliminating the theater's slice of the pie) and they will explode in growth. I don't
mind paying $8 for a movie that I can watch in comfort at home with my own food.
I think they could really make it big. But at $30 it's a no brainer...no one would use it
iTunes became big because it's fair priced. $1 is not that much and you feel good about not pirating.
I've gotten films before they were shown in theaters. One word: Newsgroups...
Don't you mean "download-to-pretend-you-own" given the certain level of DRM?
or just put a filter into the disk driver, so when the email send app tries to read it, all it can see are 0s. The type of thing sony did with its rookitm, you know....
They could also hook the windows api and block any system calls trying to open the file.
Oh, and i suspect that TFA saying "emailing" files to friends is just using a description that will be understood more easily. How many of the computer using masses would know what i meant if i said "stick the file on a private ftp server and give access to my friends". I'd loose them at FP.
yes but you don't own the films, they own you...
Get your torrents...
Except you're forgetting that ever since Reagan eliminated the laws against vertical integration, the movie studios have owned the theaters... it's their pie, too.
Security measures will make it impossible to e-mail the film to somebody else.
I think they should be giving out prizes not security measures to people who can e-mail a film.
Ahhh, the paradox of greed. Others have pointed out that the download service costs more than the DVD, yet it will save the big publishers money. Oh yeah, once enough people are using DRM'd downloads, the DVD "hole" and your local store will be closed. Sorry, but you don't have a choice about it.
Did you mention competing movie makers? The MPAA has a plan for them too. First up is all digital movie theaters that won't allow local schedule changes, much less an independent movie to be shown. Oh, someone might use an inexpensive projector and a computer to show things, but that theater will never see the "major" movies again. Second, "consumer" electronics are on their way to being so non free you won't be able to project a movie without paying an outrageous royalty or suffering a serious degradation in quality. Those outside the loop won't be able to play on the common players, just like it is with DVDs today but worse.
Free software offers a way out of the mess, as long as Microsoft does not convince enough hardware makers that Paladium/NGFU, or whatever they call it now, is the way to go.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Does this mean we're going to have people setting up their camcorders in front of their monitor?
Second Woman: Nice Purse!
Cut to a parking lot with a man getting out of his 1978 Monte Carlo. Another man sees him and approaches. Things are dirty, dark and gloomy.
Second Man: Nice car!
Flash Words: Would you copy a car? Would you copy a purse? Cut back to parking lot, things are looking brighter.
First Man: You really like it?
Second Man: Yeah, it rocks. Can I have one?
First Man: Sure, dude, it won't cost me much.
First Man takes his keys out of his pocket, pushes a button and makes a second car appear. Scene is now full color.
Flash Words: Of course you would copy a car if you could!
Cut to Street, things are looking brighter here too.
First Woman: I've got lots of these, have one.
First Woman reaches into her purse and pulls out an identical purse.
Second Woman: Cool, thanks a lot.
Both make big smiles at each other.
Flash Words: Sharing Is Good!
Cut back to parking lot. The second car shimmers oddly.
Second Man: Wow, thanks, that's really cool but it's not quite like the first one. What's up?
First Man: Oh, my car has DRM. I can only make five copies and the copies are not perfect. In fact, my own car has a limited life and I have to constantly pay to enjoy it. Sometimes it does not work at all.
Second Man: Bummer, dude, you got ripped off. Thanks anyway.
Run Words: You would not put up with restrictions on your car, would you?
Flash Words Separately: -DRM- -IS- -WRONG-
End with Words: Don't be owned. Share your culture.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
it's obviously designed to fail, since they could easily sell bare-bone, movie-only DVDs at the theatre and at Wal-Mart on the day of the movie's release. Then they could release HD deluxe editions on Blu-Ray after a couple of months.
nair
What do I own? For both music or video it averages about $5 a disc (on sale, ebay, cdbaby, Costco...)
Priced more than that? I somehow find other distractions to fill the time.
For me (and I am in the uber-top % of wage earners, per this site) it just isn't worth more than about $2-3 for a whole CD of music or $4-5 for a DVD. For others it might be less - but it is worth something. Downloading stuff for "free" isn't free - it takes time, burning it to discs cost money, and hey, you have evidence of a felony laying around now... who needs that?
I do have an iPod - But I have spent $0 at iTunes. Why? Because CDEX and my own Discs work just fine, thank you.
All my CDs and DVDs are from eBay, Costco, the "bargin bin" at Circuit City, etc. Full-retail just doesn't cut it. Even the annoying "join-now-get-X-discs-free" clubs work out to about $6/disc if you join, do the minimum, and quit.
Whatever happened to the concept of "making more profit on volume?" Media companies are missing out on a lot of sales, IMO, with their current pricing strategy.
While broke kids will always download stuff "for free", regular honest folks will buy tons of stuff at "Wal-Mart" prices - or not at all, when it comes to non-essential items like music and videos.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
true. but changed business conditions mean that change has to occur. Look at what has happened to Ford and GM, they refused to take account of changing circumstances and consumer changes, and now they are deep in the hole. media companies can run into exactly the same problems if they don't change their business models to reflect the new reality.
Fool me once...shame on you, fool me twice...won't be fooled again (our president)
And how will they define 'own?'"
Own: When the DRM rootkit is installed on your computer, you just got "pwned".
Java could localize scrolling transparent advertising "This movie was brought to you by Mr. J's Pizza--or Pizza Hut located at $ (and have his menu, method of order and topping list, online).
This may allow ISP's to get their little dirty fingers on some xtra revenue and hopefully procrastinate against the tiered system for a year or two (and think things through).
I assume their talking about a 10-12+ gig stream for the new HDTV standard. It may be benificial as well as cut back on congestion, it may be benificial to have server space (which means some kind of package deal(s) between major providers which isn't too far from today's relationships. Needs a licence management system.
I still prefer download-to-pwn. (not to be confused with even more widespread "download-and-be-pwned")
Non-time-limited, but still DRM'd downloads aren't something you own. Especially if you can't sell them on. This is still renting -- at least with DVDs I can carry them to a second hand shop when I get bored. This is just another scheme to get you to buy their stuff several times.
Let's see here... if we could get downloadable movies that you could a) make copies of, and transcode into whatever format you wish, and b) resell the license when you're done watching, THAT would be download-to-own, instead of download-to-pwn.
When TV finally gives up with its disgusting practise of spewing radiation all over the planet, and allows us to doanload and watch what we want when we want, people will start to ask why they're having to trapse to the video store and buy films. By providing a service such as this, the film industry is just taking that first step to a brighter future
i think we'll see a supermarket style war over the next few years as both sides take increasingly bigger steps to this new way of getting entertainment. its a good thing and the consumer might finally win for a change.. take that mpaa!
--AlexC
Just because I dont agree with climate change doesnt make me a troll
This has been possible for a long time already. Just crank up your favourite good ol' P2P software, download whatever movies you want, and you "own" them. (Or more like "pwn" them?) Only difference is that you pay someone money for it, and as stated in numerous postings already, you probably won't be able to play the movie on anything but your "Certified win-box authenticated against a server". Upgrade your computer and you will be "allowed to buy the movie again".
This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for higher security.
Maybe it is wrong. But it is not to you to decide, but owner of work, who owns copyrights. Exactly listen to word - copy right. He is the one who has full rights to copy. You have only mererly rights to "fair use", use song on your iPod/iRiver, computer in FLAC format, whatever. And even that not in all countries.
That's the law. Like it or not. The same law GPL and BSD is founded on.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
two..rd?
Here, have an "nd"
That's the law. Like it or not. The same law GPL and BSD is founded on.
OOOOHH! Yet another insightful, "GPL needs copyright law to function" poster. NOT!
Have you read the GPL? There is a reason RMS calls it the "copyleft" it is because the GPL is a HACK of copyright law. It uses copyrights to subvert copyrights. In the Utopia According to RMS - there would be no need for copyright laws, no need for the GPL, because no one would purchase closed, proprietary software just like today no one will purchase a car with the hood welded shut.
As for the BSD license? They so close to the public domain that they might as well be the same. BSD really doesn't need copyright even today.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I can see one application at these prices. Release the digital versions weeks or months prior to the DVD, and some people might bite.
There have been a couple of movies that did multi-format releases, with the movies hitting the big screen at the exact same time as the hit DVD. Imagine, if you will, something huge like Lord of the Rings comes out. The morning after it hits the big screen, you can download it, along with extra footage and the like. And when the full DVD comes out, they'll send it to you.
There might be a limited market for this. People don't like to wait. People with the kind of casual money to spend on things like this want the latest and greatest before anyone else gets their hands on it. This is one way to do that.
Bill Ricardi - Jigsale LLP
The Steam (or any activation based DRM scheme) definition
r act says we can change our mind any-time.
You own it as long as we say so.
And the product phones own regularly to make sure we haven't change our minds. And the EULA/TOS/insert-your-favorite-legalese-pseudocont
Of course, there's no way in hell I would ever pay that much for a DVD - supermarkets generally discount new releases to around £14, and online retailers like Play.com often go even lower. But somebody must be paying full whack for DVDs, otherwise places like HMV that do charge the full RRP would be in trouble...
Reading TFA, the deal is that with this new service you get a large (presumably DRMed-to-the-hilt) file for use on a computer, a small copy for use on mobile devices... and an actual physical DVD. So what they're saying is "If we give you a digital backup of the physical DVD, that's fine. If you make a digital backup, you're a filthy pirate!"
You must think in Russian.
That's the law. Like it or not
Irrelevant. You've missed the point. We are talking about whether the current law is right, not what it is.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Someone should film that. Spread it round on BitTorrent and such. People would link to it everywhere because at last they have a vivid way to explain what they already vaguely feel: copying is free and we shouldn't shut it out just "because".
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
You have had chance to download thousands and thousands of pornographic DVD's for ages. They are very popular, and usually unlimited downloads of non-drm earmarked files (usually wmv or xvid format) is between $10-$30/mo.
Original statement is actually wrong, there is plenty of movies to download at this very monent in the Internet - it is just all PORN, so MPAA or Universal marketroids don't keep much noise about it.
P0rn sells the Internet. P0rn has been and is pioneering Internet killer-apps (would WWW -had ever been so popular, if there wouldn't have been h00t3rz? Nope.)
Internet popularity has been and is based purely on porn and warez. Everything else is just side-productivity.
Simply no. GPL and BSD is enforsable ONLY BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT LAW (If you are broke GPL agreement, then you are in same league as any music "pirate" - you violated copyright laws). Otherwise they would be public domain and guess what - then no one would contribute or even ADMIT that it has taken your code and put into their program.
RMS can believe what he wants to, but he believes in copyright law, because it what he has said in life lecture which I attented two years ago in Riga, Latvia.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
The key to this is the DVD sent in the mail (a standard retail DVD?). You get the film delivered just that same as buying from a store or online BUT you ALSO get a copy that you can watch after 40 minutes of downloading. This is video on demand and yes that downloaded content will be DRM'd up to the gills and why not? You are still getting a "hard" copy that you can play anywhere (region coding aside), it is just the (near) instant play version that has restrictions. What is the big deal? Unless of course you want movies without having to pay for them.
BTW the article states "Security measures will make it impossible to e-mail the film to somebody else". Most mail severs would have a cow if you tried to email that size of attachment anyway. I would use Bit Torrent for sharing large files - not that I do of course!
--
This message has been brought to you by the word "Whilst" (for all you "whilst" haters - Yes, you know who you are!).
No, actually you we're talking about whether DRM was right, which, in fact, is rather foolish - excluding bullshit like the DMCA (which I believe is unconstitutional), DRM isn't a law. Indeed, DRM is like the rules at an amusement park - something enforced artificially rather than legally.
Whether or not I accept DRM has to do with how it is implemented. If the price is fair and the restrictions are fair, I don't have any problem with DRM. DVDs have DRM, but it doesn't prevent me from playing my DVDs anywhere and anytime that I want to. My DirecTV service has DRM, but I can still record programs and keep them for as long as I want.
The grandparent's example is particularly objectionable to me because it makes the same error that the RIAA so loves to make - it compares copyright with physical property. Copyright infringement is not theft, copyright doesn't create property, and physical property is not trivially copyable. Whether or not you agree with copyright (in general, I do - but I believe that it should be 28 years maximum and have greater protections for fair use), it's important to understand that DRM is just an application of encryption - one that can be circumvented. If a company wants to make their work hard to copy throgh technological means, they should have the right to do so. Similarly, if I want to try to break that protection, I should have the right to do so.
world's first download-to-own movie service
OMG, many years after everyone doing just that on p2p and other networks, finaly they're talking about a legal alternative ?
Don't be suprised if it's a flop, the market is already staurated ! Even bittorent, with numerous advantages, had a hard time competiting with edonkey !
"Download-to-own has the potential to completely revolutionize the way people watch movies," PA quoted Peter Smith, president of Universal Pictures International, as saying.
Please peter, go back to your hole and stop talking about revolutions that happened in the previous century
Can anyone suggest a good method of watching downloaded video on my TV? It's in a different room to the PC, but I've already got ethernet to it (for the Tivo).
My Journal
Otherwise they would be public domain and guess what - then no one would contribute or even ADMIT that it has taken your code and put into their program.
Hey Mister! Mister! What part of "no one would purchase closed, proprietary software just like today no one will purchase a car with the hood welded shut." did you fail to understand?
RMS can believe what he wants to, but he believes in copyright law, because it what he has said in life lecture which I attented two years ago in Riga, Latvia.
When you totally miss such an obvious point written out in plain English, you cast serious doubt on your ability to understand anything RMS said in person.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Or I can just keep ripping my DVDs that I purchase for less than $35. Who wants a DRM'd movie?
Where do they get off charging $35 for a movie? DVDs cost way less to manufacture than VHS...you'd think we'd see some sort of trickle-down effect in the prices.
They've correctly identified a niche market: people who just can't wait ( = /. readers?) for the film to arrive by post or in the cinema, so will download and watch it once on their PC or portable device, and settle down to the "hard copy" version for all re-views once it's arrived.
I wouldn't count on the download version for your long-term collection, as it's likely to be tied to a specific device:
http://www.xmlbystealth.net/blog/2006/03/bbc-news- entertainment-film-fans-get.html
I hope they do.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Don't forget, the car automagically stalls on a randomly defined half of the roads, because those roads don't support DRM (or the right kind thereof).
It of course showed no signs of that on the show floor.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
.. as happened when someone tried to sell an itunes track on E-Bay, the auction getting pulled in the process. Because if you do indeed own a copy of the film then you should be able to sell the three mediums together. If not, all you're doing is licencing.
Otherwise they would be public domain and guess what - then no one would contribute or even ADMIT that it has taken your code and put into their program.
Some people would. Others would contribute. People often share their changes to free software, even when they aren't obliged to. Some people would make a copy and do what? Sell it? If there's no copyright, I could sell it too.
You can still enjoy the Jessica Simpson Pizza Hut and 35 other commercials that they've inserted into the middle of the video while disabling the fastforward features.
Here's how the MPAA defines "own": We own your ass ... bend over.
But.. wait, that way you could watch the film with two or three friends... just for $8! Thieves I say, thieves!. And that's the point of view of media companies.
If you don't support DRM or the direction these media corporations are taking, don't purchase their products. At the same time, don't download their stuff illegally, as you are just giving them a reason to cop out of bad marketing and poor production for losses or limited gains. I can't wait to see these media giants fall, and for the little people to come back out and start making small production movies. There is no reason (not speaking economically) that one person should make $40 million per movie role. Most common people won't hit $2 million overall earnings in our life times.
Cheesy Movie Night
The question burning in my mind, and I'm sure yours, is "What DRM is used on this?"
I'm very disappointed that CNN would run an article like this - devoid of the single salient point most everyone is focused on. It's not like CNN just regurgitates press releases for quick profit, is it? They're not in the pocket of big media & the film studios, are they?
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
I was reading an interview with RMS (or was it Linus? I forget) a little while back, and an interesting point was raised.
DRM is just a tool. We disagree with DRM on movies and music, sure. But would you disagree with DRM on a personal journal or diary?
Some uses of DRM seem intuitively acceptable. It's just a question of where to draw the line.
it really irks me to see that they are willing to spend the money to set something like this up, just to watch it fall. They are just building they're own funeral pyres. someday soon the *AA is going to realize that if "consumers" (I hate the term) don't want your product they're not going to buy it. You can't demand people spend their money on you, but that is precisly what the *AA is doing. They are demanding we spend money on movies and music and "entainment" media that we obviosly don't want.
*AA:
Clearly customers are wrong, they don't understand. They want theese things it's just that piracy has given them an alternative to paying for it.
That is incorrect, People will only pay for what they feel is a reasonable value on a product. It's not that we're pirating your material, it's that we don't want it in the first place. Make content worth spending money on, and you might actually sell something.
He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
Does the $35 also include the trailors, or is that $5 extra?
"...it may be benificial to have server space.."
at the ISP level to alievate network congestion (inserted at the local network level).
Still can't buy the entire Star Wars collection on an encrypted USB key, eh?
I see two problems right away:
Firstly, the price is too high. I'm accustomed to paying about EUR 5 to EUR 15 for a no-frills DVD. $ 35 is way too high for a download which I assume will consist of just the movie without any extras.
Secondly, I think we can be sure that these downloads will be encumbered with some kind of draconian DRM schema. I'm willing to bet they'll be encrypted WMV's, meaning that you will be able to play them only using Microsoft Media Player on a Windows PC, or a portable device which supports encrypted WMV's (can't be too many of those). And it would mean having to be online so the player can check your licence, which could be revoked by Universal at any time!
I'll only be interested if the price is dropped, and I can play the movie on any of my operating systems and portable devices (and without having to be online, or worry about my access being revoked at some point).
why is this service coming to the UK first and not the US?
This is clearly a service that US customers want.
is there bad blood between the MPAA and netflix?
They're using their grammar skills there.
You are actually doing the pragmatic thing. the **AA's don't worry about boycotts. They know full well that in the end, people will go back to the movies and CDs. It is a cultural problem, and you are not going to change a culture because of price gouging, or by yelling 'boycott' because of price gouging. So, until those of us that hate the **AAs start working within the system, no change will happen. Libraries are legal. You have started your own private library, and I commend you. I think I just might start my own community movie library.
The article states: "Universal's research showed that 12- to 18-year-olds in particular are keen to watch films on their laptops or portable devices."
It doesn't seem like their researchers looked into the average income of that age group. Do they really think they will pay $17.50 - 35 for this?
re: Is the movie industry finally listening? And how will they define 'own?'"
My guess what they define as own is, in practice:
- movie will be tied to a proprietary spyware-infested media player on one machine
- Converting file to place on your iPod, PocketPC/Smartphone, Palm, or VideoCD for your rackmount DVD player etc. is DoublePlusUnGood.
- First right of sale? What's that? Sure, you can resell the movie you purchased when you no longer want it; just resell your entire computer.
- Backups? If your hard drive shits the bed, don't worry, you will have to repurchase the movies because the registration incorporated the HDD serial number into the hash, so restoring your backup won't work.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Bittorrent? Pshaw! It would do fantastic business on YouTube!
> But it is not to you to decide, but owner of work, who owns copyrights.
Wrong! We can make the laws however we wish, and I would certainly advocate legalization here.
Moreover, the GPL wishes to subvert copyright law. If there was no such thing as copyright, it would be better, not worse.
I will pay to download my first file, just as soon as there is a system where you can pay to download files that you can do whatever the hell you want with.
I suspect there is a large untapped market of people like myself who would pay in a system that lacks bullshit and has download speed and reliability superior to P2P and torrents.
The service makes no sense. I've got to download a DRMed version of the movie, so that I can't copy it (or burn it to a DVD). Then they send me a DVD version, which anyone can decrypt and pirate. Why don't they just let me download the movie and burn my own DVD? Why don't they just use a service like EZTakes Movie Downloads? EZTakes lets you buy downloads that you can burn directly to DVDs that will play in standard DVD players.
$18 for older films? That's like the $80 they used to charge if you lost a VHS tape that you rented from Blockbuster. Hopefully capitalism will step in and give them a bargain bin so that I don't have to pay $18 for Monty Python's Holy Grail or Wierd Science...