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....
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.
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.
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.
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,
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
It's kind of sad (from the aspect that Hollywood makes lots of crap), but many oscar winners and oscar nominees start out as indie films. There are many more that never make the mainstream distribution channels and are only shown in 'art houses'. Just keep in mind, indie doesn't mean good either. Many of the best written movies are indies, but many of the worst movies I've seen are also independent.
Find coupons in Greeley
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.
Their security feature was making it multiple gigabytes, which neatly stops most people from mailing it. Now, P2P networking, on the other hand, still working on that one. But email is definately out as a pirate method. So is hand-transcribing to papyrus, and nailing to the back of a squirrel.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
$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.
Now. http://www.fsf.org/
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
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.