Warner Bros. to Sell Movies Over BitTorrent

But! by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2006-05-09 01:08 · Score: 5, Funny

But you can allready download Warner Bros movies over bittorrent!

Oh wait, sell. Nevermind.

--
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.

Re:But! by TubeSteak · 2006-05-09 01:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

And why would the risk of a low quality DL matter?
The first torrent was bad/poor? Download a different one.

I only say this because their product has the same release date as the DVD, which means that a DVD Rip/Screener is already going to be out.

Maybe the user base just needs to be 'educated' about nomenclature & downloading the sample first.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:But! by Ilex · 2006-05-09 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Exactly!. How do they expect a DRM encumbered download which costs as much as the DVD to succeed against a superior quality free download which you can play in your standard DVD player and came out months earlier.

This is a token gesture which offers nothing of value and is designed to fail. Hollywood just wants to crow about being able to offer legal alternatives, their not at all interested in giving the consumer what they really want.
Re:But! by Psykosys · 2006-05-09 02:10 · Score: 3, Funny

It's more 31337 to buy your Warner Brothers movies off IRC.
Re:But! by grub · 2006-05-09 02:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

How do they expect a DRM encumbered download which costs as much as the DVD to succeed

I don't think they do expect it to succeed. When their half-assed attempt at legal downloads fails they'll have more FUD to spread to lawmakers about evil downloading hurting their bottom line.

At least their accountants will work out a way to write off the losses for the hardware, networking and other things required for this.

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:But! by muszek · 2006-05-09 02:40 · Score: 1

Thanks, I wanted to search for such document for a while... I guess I'm too lazy :)

Now off we go to illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses. :)
Re:But! by dubl-u · 2006-05-09 02:52 · Score: 1

This is a token gesture which offers nothing of value and is designed to fail. Hollywood just wants to crow about being able to offer legal alternatives, their not at all interested in giving the consumer what they really want.

I think you give them too much credit. They're not that smart. For years, every time they thought about the Internet they put their hands over their ears and shouted "LALALALALA". This is now their first step away from that, and it seems like a big step to them.

We here know it's a tiny step compared to the distance they have to go. But they've got time and plenty of money. Their losses to piracy are mostly imaginary, and the technical difficulties and legal menacings will keep most of their consumers consuming for long enough. Long enough, that is, for Steve Jobs, Disney's largest stockholder, to demonstrate that iTunes will work for movies.
Re:But! by B_Realll · 2006-05-09 03:12 · Score: 1

You are seriously misguided if you think the MPAA will take any more steps in the right direction after this deal flops horribly. Do you think they will blame the impending failure on the fatal combination of ridiculously high prices and stifling DRM, or on the bogeyman of pirates? People want digital downloads because
a) DVDs are too expensive - especially for the crap movies they are now making
b) for convenience of portability - we have computers, carputers, ipods, media servers etc.
They are completely ignoring both of these market forces.

--
now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Re:But! by gsslay · 2006-05-09 03:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

their not at all interested in giving the consumer what they really want.
But what is it that the consumer really wants? By your argument what the consumer really wants is the DVD for free, months before the legitimate release, with the ability to pass it on for free to as many of their friends they like.
Are you expecting the movie industry to provide that? Are you seriously saying that any industry should be expected to compete competitively in a market against their own product being given away for nothing? Because, guess what, the industry actually producing the product and trying sell it at a profit is going to lose out in that particular comparison. It is not a fair market and demands that they match this are ridiculous.
Re:But! by hackstraw · 2006-05-09 03:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't think they do expect it to succeed. When their half-assed attempt at legal downloads fails they'll have more FUD to spread to lawmakers about evil downloading hurting their bottom line.

I don't understand what is so special about movies and music. They are just data/software.

People have been downloading and _paying_ for data/software for well over 10 years now, but the movie and music people can't seem to be able to do it.

Trends I have noticed that apparently the people that are in the business have not.

1) People tend to have more variety and quantity of media today than 10-20 years ago. Its normal for people to have 100-200 CDs worth of audio content today and to have between 20-50 DVDs. 20 years ago, 100-200 LPs were only for music freaks/diehards, and video was pretty much not collected before DVDs. I'm basing this on my experience and observations, I have no hard data behind this, but it seems to be accurate in my observations.

2) Despite the increase in demand and basically an infinite supply, prices have not dropped. In my eye, if DVDs were shipped at $5/movie they would not be able to keep them on the shelves. However, movies are slightly different because their old primary cash cow was the big screen/box office takes. Its a little tough for me to speculate here about how to balance those markets because I really don't participate in the big screen version, nor was I ever much of a box office guy, so I don't know that market. However, music in my opinion and all of the people I have met online and in person is too expensive for what it is. I mean, even downloads of live concerts are about 1/2 or 1/3 of the cost to see the real thing.

3) Quality is dropping, yet for some reason demand is still high. I don't know if this is just a normal perception as one gets in his mid 30s or if this is a real trend or not, but it seems to be a common consensus that quality is not there as it once was. To me, rock music peaked in the 70s and the 60s-70s era bands were still strong in the 80s with a more polished and professional approach. There was a slight resurgence in the early 90s, but things are tapering off from there. Personally, I've been disappointed in most movies all of my life. There are anomalies, but for 1.5 to 3 hours of one piece of material, you have to keep people interested with solid character development and character constancy and, duh, the thing needs a plot too.

I simply do not understand why these markets have such a reluctance to give people what they want and stick with the times. Audio formats used to change fairly frequently, but that has stopped. 78s, LPs, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs -- MP3s are still almost a black market item even though people want them. Movies were pretty much inaccessible in people's homes (and cars I guess now) before the 70s and 80s with the video tapes. Then DVDs came out, and people really liked the form factor, pause and skipping abilities, no rewinding, better quality, extra features, etc. But it looks like the movie studio's media diversity has stopped in favor of media that is unwatchable because of DRM or whatever restrictions for making the media play.

What I see happening, are lower production quality, more grass roots music and video that is shared over the internet, and the big movie/music studios are sitting on the sidelines with their dicks in their hands.
Re:But! by swillden · 2006-05-09 03:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Its normal for people to have 100-200 CDs worth of audio content today and to have between 20-50 DVDs. 20 years ago, 100-200 LPs were only for music freaks/diehards, and video was pretty much not collected before DVDs. I'm basing this on my experience and observations, I have no hard data behind this, but it seems to be accurate in my observations.
Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, but I don't think this part is accurate. Lots of people had large VHS video collections after the videos became reasonably priced (for a few years they were $80+ per tape, so mostly it was only rental stores that bought them). I still have a few hundred VHS tapes that I haven't gotten around to chucking yet.
And looking at the LP collections of my parents, my wife's parents and their friends, I think it was also quite common to have large LP collections. I know plenty of people who still have boxes of LPs around who were never really heavily involved in music. If you buy a record once a month or so, it doesn't take that many years to amass a large collection.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:But! by hackstraw · 2006-05-09 03:48 · Score: 1

I don't think this part is accurate

Again, I have no real data here, but also I'm basing this on younger consumers that are the (I think) target audience of much of this media.

Parents have been collecting media for years, and odds are they have cut down their intake considerably. What I perceive older people doing is updating their collections to newer technology (eg, LP to CD or VHS to DVD).
Re:But! by deesine · 2006-05-09 03:53 · Score: 1

Apple's TMS doesn't seem to have a problem doing this. That's probably because the price point - $.99. If they wanted to really sell movies, they wouldn't be charging the same price as the DVD. It's a move that gives away their position, they're not really losing that much from illegal downloads, otherwise they would have priced the downloads more reasonably, in order to actually sell a lot of them.

--
damaged by dogma
Re:But! by dubl-u · 2006-05-09 03:54 · Score: 1

You are seriously misguided if you think the MPAA will take any more steps in the right direction after this deal flops horribly? Do you think they will blame the impending failure on the fatal combination of ridiculously high prices and stifling DRM, or on the bogeyman of pirates?

I think they will blame it on the pirates, but blame doesn't matter much. Both on Wall Street and Hollywood, the numbers are what matters in the end. And the numbers will get more and more compelling. I expect that it will take them another decade to get where you and I think they should get.

The studios are, IMHO, going through the five stages of grief. First comes denial, and they did that for years. The next stage is anger, and you can see that in their insane, self-defeating legal actions. Then comes bargaining. We're at the beginning of the stage, so naturally the first offer is ridiculous. After a few years they will realize that they can't turn back time, and then they'll hit depression. This will drive a number of older or less adaptable execs out of the industry. Then, finally, we'll hit acceptance, where they will start working with their new distribution channel, doing things they never could have done before.
Re:But! by TobascoKid · 2006-05-09 04:05 · Score: 1

And don't forget people who had Laserdisc. I suppose DVD killed off the "Videophile" (a term I don't think I've heard used in about 10 years).

--
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Re:But! by Bastian · 2006-05-09 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

What I think we're seeing here is the recording and music industries trying to do everything they can to make electronic distribution look unviable and only popular with pirates. The reason they would want to do this is that the only thing that keeps the big boys of the RIAA and MPAA in existence is that they control the means of production and distribution.

If selling music and movies over the internet becomes standard practise, then nobody needs them anymore. Why would I sign some ridiculous recording contract so some record producer can get fat off my work, oftentimes screwing me in the process, when I can go record the music at a studio, find my own guy to do the production work on my music. Right now, the one reason I would is that I don't have access to equipment for pressing CDs and DVDs. As soon as artists don't need people with CD and DVD pressing equipment, the recording and cinema industries will inevitably be democratized and the RIAA and MPAA fat cats will go the way of the dinosaur. So they will fight electronic distribution tooth and nail even though it is in the best interests of everybody else.
Re:But! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 04:34 · Score: 0

"To me, rock music peaked in the 70s and the 60s-70s era bands were still strong in the 80s with a more polished and professional approach. There was a slight resurgence in the early 90s, but things are tapering off from there."

This is bang on, and here's why:

The early 90's saw the launch of automated sales tracking for music, in the form of Nielsen SoundScan.

As soon as this happened, music companies started producing formulaic music designed for the widest possible appeal. In other words, uncreative, unoriginal, recycled crap.
Re:But! by B_Realll · 2006-05-09 04:40 · Score: 1

I hope you are right. The only problem is that your prediction is based on a free market. Things get murky when the government gets involved. Acts like the DMCA and using the courts to bring unsatisfied customers back in line make a self correction less likely.

I agree that something like iTMS is going to have to be the silver bullet. Once one of the biggies takes a sensible approach and makes a killing, the rest will have to follow suit. Let's just hope it can happen before the studios can buy their way with their lobbyists.

--
now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Re:But! by swillden · 2006-05-09 04:51 · Score: 1

You have to define what you mean by "younger" consumers, but I still don't think peoples' habits have changed much over the years. Very few teenagers today have CD collections in the hundreds, just as few of my friends had hundreds of cassette tapes when I was a kid, and few of my parents' friends had hundred of LPs when they were kids. In each generation, you find that music collections start small in the early teenage years and gradually grow through the mid-to-late 20s. Over that 10 to 15-year period most people who have even a passing interest in music will accumulate 100+ albums, and I don't think that has changed significantly, at least for legally-purchased music.
The reasons are simple: Music is too expensive to buy lots at once, and people don't really listen to music that way. People buy an album, listen to it heavily for a few days, then a few weeks later buy another one, repeat. The process is a bit slower at first, because kids have less money to spend, and then accelerates a bit as income rises. Throw in another half-dozen CDs per year from gifts, and your typical casual music lover acquires 10-15 albums per year, regardless of whether it's 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, or 2000. Multiply that by the 15 years between age 13 and 28, and that's over 200 albums. I don't think that pattern has changed appreciably (ignoring the Internet, which I expect to change things by increasing availability and lowering price).
VHS is a little different, because movie-watching patterns are different and because buying movies didn't really become possible until the 80s. As soon as it did, though, people began buying VHS movies in pretty much the same way they buy DVDs now.
The statement I'm disagreeing with was "People tend to have more variety and quantity of media today than 10-20 years ago." I don't actually have any numbers either, but I don't think this is true. Well, at the outer edge of your range, people didn't have so much video, but that's because in 1986 there hadn't been a decade of widespread movie-buying.
Now, it's almost certainly true that you and your peers have more media than you did 10-20 years ago. But that's because you've had time to accumulate, not because patterns have changed.
Parents have been collecting media for years, and odds are they have cut down their intake considerably.
For music, perhaps, since many peoples' tastes in music get fairly firmly set by the mid 20s and often don't change much after that. In the case of video, I think video buying correlates most strongly to movie watching, and I don't see that as being age-related.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:But! by drinkypoo · 2006-05-09 04:52 · Score: 1

Well, since we're sharing anecdotal data, my mom had a collection of over 120 VHS movies back when I had my Amiga 500, and it was still on the market, so that gives you a timeline to work with :) I catalogued 'em all for her in a flat file, the only kind of database I knew shit about back then, and printed it out on my super sexy Panasonic dot matrix printer that could pretend to be an IBM proprinter or an Epson. (This is why I forget people's names and phone numbers and all that, because I remember all this worthless computer information.) Most of them were super-cheapies, black and white, and the rest were from video clubs. If you haven't seen the original Little Shop of Horrors, I highly recommend it.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:But! by Ilex · 2006-05-09 05:17 · Score: 1

But what is it that the consumer really wants? By your argument what the consumer really wants is the DVD for free, months before the legitimate release, with the ability to pass it on for free to as many of their friends they like.

No that isn't my argument at all, that's your belief which is totally separate. What the consumer wants is a value for money product and a good quality of service. Neither of which is being offered by this farcical scheme.

People want to watch movies on their TV, portable player, have the ability to make backup copies of their media and have the convenient delivery service of near instant electronic downloads without being charged both arms and both legs. Not too much too ask for is it? Unfortunately the movie studios think it is.

Are you seriously saying that any industry should be expected to compete competitively in a market against their own product being given away for nothing? .

That's just the kind of thinking which will doom the entertainment industry.

Google, Red Hat, MySQL and a host of Open Source Software houses seem to be doing ok. You weren't brought up in Redmond by any chance? Of course those companies sell services to their customers not serve lawsuits to their consumers.
Re:But! by woobieman29 · 2006-05-09 05:28 · Score: 1

I don't think that's the argument.
I can't speak for the OP but from my perspective, since no physical media is being provided, and the distribution channel is VASTLY cheaper than pressing/shipping/stocking/inventory'ing/selling a physical DVD, there should be a significant price reduction in the cost of the movie. Furthermore, the movie is worth less to me now that very restrictive DRM is in place, making it even less attractive than a physical DVD which can be ripped. Yes I realize that ripping a DVD is illegal and that invalidates the argument somewhat, but I include this argument just in case the movie studios actually want to look at the reality of the situation.
Studios need to understand what Apple already has learned with ITunes - that if you charge a reasonable price for a media file, with DRM that is not seen to be unfair, and you make it super convenient, then people will use your pay model more often than they will pirate the same media.

--
\/\/oobie
Re:But! by shark72 · 2006-05-09 05:32 · Score: 1

"How do they expect a DRM encumbered download which costs as much as the DVD to succeed against a superior quality free download which you can play in your standard DVD player and came out months earlier."

This argument is based on the understanding that everybody pirates, or is at least comfortable with pirating.

I understand where this belief comes from. Many Slashdotters do like to download movies via BitTorrent, and they have a lot of friends who do, too. Thus, it's probably naturally to believe that everybody has the same moral compass.

I do not pirate films or MP3s. I could -- I certainly know how, and I have the bandwidth to do it -- but I'd rather not. Many (if not most) people reading this won't understand why this is the case; you might think that I'm just wasting my money, or perhaps I'm too technically inept to find pirated versions of the stuff I buy.

I won't try to explain my behavior, but it's quite clear that there are lots of different types of customer out there (this also explains why you see so many fugly cars, and hideous clothes out there). You are 100% correct that their move won't impress the "Death to DRM / Movies should be a buck and songs should be a dime / information wants to be free" Slashdot crowd, but you're not in their target market, anyway.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:But! by cashman73 · 2006-05-09 05:37 · Score: 1

A lot of teenagers in the 1980s and early 1990s used to have lots of their own, personally-recorded cassette tapes, filled mainly with music that they recorded off of the radio. Lots of them would then share these tapes by dubbing them on friends' cassette recorders and such. Not a whole lot different than the modern way of sharing via the internet; one friend buys a CD and lets their friends listen to it ... they like it, and they can use the internet to share the material.
For some reason, the RIAA still hasn't quite figured this out, or actually, they probably have, but think that this classifies as, "piracy."
Re:But! by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2006-05-09 05:53 · Score: 1

Quality is dropping, yet for some reason demand is still high. I don't know if this is just a normal perception as one gets in his mid 30s or if this is a real trend or not, but it seems to be a common consensus that quality is not there as it once was.

Movie quality is as high as it has ever been, but we don't know that for one simple reason: bad movies are forgotten, good movies are treasured.

If you go and watch MST3K, you learn just how many awful movies were produced in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Many of the movies are so laughably bad that they wouldn't even be produced today.

It's easy to forget all of the crap that the last century put out. One-dimensional characters, bad plots, and bad acting are nothing new. What is new is the quality with which these horrible movies are made - even the crappiest low-budget direct-to-DVD movie has a clear picture and sound, and usually competent visual effects.
Re:But! by Kelson · 2006-05-09 06:07 · Score: 1

In my eye, if DVDs were shipped at $5/movie they would not be able to keep them on the shelves.

Actually, there are quite a few DVDs available in the $2-10 range. Check at a supermarket or drug store -- you'll find a random collection of low-budget B-movies, old films and cartoons from the 1930s, random TV episodes, slightly more recent box office flops, etc. Often the quality is poor, since they seem to be done by small producers that just barely have enough cash to secure the rights, or big studios using their back stock but not allocating much budget since they know not many people will be interested.

These DVDs are priced so low simply because pop culture memories are short, and most movies and TV shows get forgotten. For every Fantasia or It's a Wonderful Life that people still watch 60 years later, there are hundreds of films that no one knows about (sometimes deservedly). You can't sell those at $20/pop -- you can barely sell than at $5.
Re:But! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 06:26 · Score: 0

Though I wasn't always, I have become a non-downloader.

I'm perfectly willing now buy DVDs of movies I like. I can usually find them relatively cheap (new or used) because I'm also not part of the now-now-must-have-now crowd.

However, there is no way in hell I would pay for a DRM-encumbered download that costs more than a used DVD when, in the time it takes to download the movie, I could stop by Best Buy and purchase physical media that I can play anywhere, loan to friends, and create a backup of.

I think the more noteworthy aspect of the Warner Brothers plan is that TV episodes will be available for about $1. If episodes are released when they air (or within a few days), I would be willing to pay a buck to watch commercial-free TV, even with some DRM restrictions. Of course, TFA suggests they will only sell TV episodes when the DVD collection is released, which would be as worthless as their movie plan.
Re:But! by hotdiggitydawg · 2006-05-09 06:29 · Score: 1

Quality is dropping, yet for some reason demand is still high. I don't know if this is just a normal perception as one gets in his mid 30s or if this is a real trend or not, but it seems to be a common consensus that quality is not there as it once was. To me, rock music peaked in the 70s and the 60s-70s era bands were still strong in the 80s with a more polished and professional approach. There was a slight resurgence in the early 90s, but things are tapering off from there.

I'm mid 20s and I agree with you entirely.
Re:But! by Grishnakh · 2006-05-09 07:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Right now, the one reason I would is that I don't have access to equipment for pressing CDs and DVDs.

What are you talking about? Google for "CD replication service" and you'll find lots of places that will do professional glass masters for you for dirt-cheap prices (assuming you buy CDs in lots of 1000 or more).

If you want to sell your own music, it's easy these days. Find a small recording studio and record your album, burn it onto CD-R, send this to one of these replication services along with your artwork, etc., and they'll send you 1000 complete CDs (with jewel cases, booklets, etc) for $1000. Send these to cdbaby.com and sell them for $10 each; cdbaby will give you around half the revenue. That's $4 per disc in profit. Way more than the record companies will ever give you.
Re:But! by h4rm0ny · 2006-05-09 07:34 · Score: 1

Quality is dropping ... To me, rock music peaked in the 70s

Well you might be right there. But hip-hop was still on its way. Just observing that if you have a unvarying definition of "quality" then inevitably you would view standards as falling. I'm going to hazard a guess and peg your age as in your mid- to late- forties. How did I do ?

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:But! by hackstraw · 2006-05-09 08:00 · Score: 1

Well you might be right there. But hip-hop was still on its way. Just observing that if you have a unvarying definition of "quality" then inevitably you would view standards as falling. I'm going to hazard a guess and peg your age as in your mid- to late- forties. How did I do ?

I said in the original post I was in my mid 30s.

Hip-hop is not really music. Its bubblegum or wallpaper for the ears, and its spit out and pealed off of the wall when done. Bubblegum does still sell. Wallpaper is kind of on its way out.

Proof of concept?

Besides "Baby's got back", name me one hip-hop song that is allowed to be played after 2-5 years. Its disposable. I do not see there ever being any parallel to classical, baroque, or classic rock kind of rap channels in the future.

I could be entirely wrong, but I would put money on it.
Re:But! by Blakey+Rat · 2006-05-09 08:08 · Score: 1

Quality is dropping, yet for some reason demand is still high. I don't know if this is just a normal perception as one gets in his mid 30s or if this is a real trend or not, but it seems to be a common consensus that quality is not there as it once was.

It's called "nostalgia." It's an enemy of rational thought, which explains why it's usually so prevalent in Slashdot threads dealing with music/movies/video games. How many people remember Aliens compared to the number of people who remember Solarbabies? They came out the same year.

The quality is the same as it's always been. Which means, 90% of it is crap.

--
Comment of the year
Re:But! by Glonoinha · 2006-05-09 08:36 · Score: 1

Your Panasonic printer emulated the Epson FX-80.
And some days I'm doing good to remember my own name.

As for the bittorrents from Warner Bros - if they are going to provide a legal avenue for us to get the same quality (or higher) DVD rips in .avi format (and not some DRM encrypted crap that requires 'a player') at a reasonable cost, I will buy it. If they think I'm going to pay DVD prices for a medialess download (the key here : no media creation costs, no shipping costs, no shrinkage, no markup for the reseller, no salespeople to pay, etc.) that consists of DRM encrypted crap that plays how they decide it will play on hardware (or operating systems) they approve - fuck 'em.

--
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Re:But! by hyfe · 2006-05-09 08:45 · Score: 1

Quality is dropping, yet for some reason demand is still high. I don't know if this is just a normal perception as one gets in his mid 30s or if this is a real trend or not, but it seems to be a common consensus that quality is not there as it once was. To me, rock music peaked in the 70s and the 60s-70s era bands were still strong in the 80s with a more polished and professional approach.
Well, first of all, music has always gotten worse, *this* generation of kids have always been the worst one yet, etc. We all know the drill; we judge everything else based on our own idolized past, and act all outraged and shocked when the present fails to measure up.
Secondly, while I whole-heartedly concur that the current crop of mainstream R&B / pop isn't even usable for scaring cats, and that the American rock(++) scene is seriously fucked up; there is still alot of good new music out there. While I'm really in no position to comment American music, as for some obscene reason (just as with movies) you only seem to export the crap stuff; There are myriads of really bloody European bands doing interesting stuff.. and I'm sure if you only look there's plenty of stuff over at your side of the pond too... The only trick is to NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE use MTV, RADIO or any CORPORATE CONTROLLED DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL EVER.
Listen to the good shit; ignore the shit they're trying to push.
I mean, what would you be thinking about the movie industry if all you got to see was the last Ashton Kutcher and/or Random-Scientology-Maniac-Whose-Name-I-Ought-To-Re member movies?

--
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
Re:But! by Yartrebo · 2006-05-09 09:29 · Score: 1

"3) Quality is dropping, yet for some reason demand is still high. I don't know if this is just a normal perception as one gets in his mid 30s or if this is a real trend or not, but it seems to be a common consensus that quality is not there as it once was. To me, rock music peaked in the 70s and the 60s-70s era bands were still strong in the 80s with a more polished and professional approach. There was a slight resurgence in the early 90s, but things are tapering off from there. Personally, I've been disappointed in most movies all of my life. There are anomalies, but for 1.5 to 3 hours of one piece of material, you have to keep people interested with solid character development and character constancy and, duh, the thing needs a plot too."

Lower quality can be expected to lead to more sales for the industry, because people are contented for less time. It's like selling smaller sized packages of food.

As far as quality changing with time, I think it's remained about the same. Each year has about half a good movie on average, with "The Incredibles", preceded by "Lilo and Stitch" being the two most recent ones I liked.
Re:But! by senatorpjt · 2006-05-09 10:03 · Score: 1

I still listen to Straight Outta Compton frequently.
Re:But! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 12:52 · Score: 0

Fuck em! I'm going to vote those DMCA, copyright extension, corporate whores out of office anyway.
It cost me roughly two dollars to rent a movie anywhere, for less than $20.00 I can get a stack of 100 DVD-R disks, and in about an hours time I've a DRM free movie I can watch as often as I want.
Now sell me a DRM free, burnable movie at bargain bin prices and you might actually make some money. Guess what you can now bypass your entire current distribution network and all the profits are now yours.
There will be no more PPV, HBO, STARS, CINEMAX, ENCORE, Theatres, Video Rental stores on every other corner, nobody bitchin about advertisments, no manufacturing, warehousing, cover art design costs etc.
Oh shit, now I've got to get up out of the recliner to put in another disk :-( Honey, we've got this movie burnt to disk, why the hell are we watching these goofy commercials about a sinus medicine with side affects that included nose bleeds.
Oh I can play this DRM encrusted movie on my laptop, but not in my Sony DVD player and view it on my huge 250 lb. Sony widescreen TV that the local gangster rap crack heads can't steal, because you actually have to take apart the front door and have four hulking morons to take it. Fuckin idiot Japs, that's similar to the Toyota Camry, when you put it in park every fuckin door unlocks allowing the local crack heads to hop in and carjack it.
Re:But! by gsslay · 2006-05-09 23:34 · Score: 1

What the consumer wants is a value for money product and a good quality of service. Neither of which is being offered by this farcical scheme.
In which case the market will determine this, as it always does. But it can't determine this as long as people are prepared to unfairly compare the legitimate product against the pirated. This normalizes the use of the pirated, making it ok to 'steal' a movie rather than pay for it. How many times do you see the argument put forward here that it's ok to file share stuff, because the bad old industry won't provide it at a fair price?
People want to watch movies on their TV, portable player, have the ability to make backup copies of their media and have the convenient delivery service of near instant electronic downloads without being charged both arms and both legs. Not too much too ask for is it? Unfortunately the movie studios think it is
No, not too much to ask. But as experience shows, as soon as people are given this they'll go further and start ripping the industry off by taking stuff for free. Not because they're being unfairly charged by the industry, but because they can. And then when the industry objects they're told tough luck, technology has moved on, time to update your business practices. The fact is; people like something for nothing. And as long as they're supplied with a half way plausable excuse to justify it, they'll do it.
Google, Red Hat, MySQL and a host of Open Source Software houses seem to be doing ok
Totally, totally diffent products and markets. How much money do you think can be made providing support for viewing a movie? ("Confused with a plot? Phone Movie-Doctor helpline now. We will identify the problem and patch in the latest script so you'll be back enjoying your blockbuster in no time!") How far do you think Hollywood would get trying to support itself with adverts? You willing to sit through an advert break in the middle of the film you bought? How many good films have you ever seen made by two dozen volunteers who've never met?
I think this displays the mindset on Slashdot, champion of open source. Because software can be produced this way, they think everything else can.
Re:But! by h4rm0ny · 2006-05-10 05:44 · Score: 1

Hip-hop is not really music. Its bubblegum or wallpaper for the ears, and its spit out and pealed off of the wall when done.

Well congratulations on being able to define exactly what is and isn't music. Rock music (your preference) was once condemned as nothing but noise. Jazz was derided before that. I like a lot of rock music. I also like hip-hop and other genres. I think you have proved my point with this. I said that if you limit your definition of music to a particular style then you will inevitably think that standards are declining. That is because there is only so much you can do in a particular ruleset (genre) before it becomes derivative and self-referential. Music grows and changes and will continue to do so.

Besides "Baby's got back", name me one hip-hop song that is allowed to be played after 2-5 years.

Allowed to be played? As in by the same stations that are frantically trying to sell whatever latest artist the big labels have signed? I often listen to music older than a couple of years, its quality has nothing to do with the radio play-list.

I do not see there ever being any parallel to classical, baroque, or classic rock kind of rap channels in the future.

But then you detest the music, so you wouldn't see it as likely. But as I and others get older and begin to fossilize, I dare say there will be a radio station that I can seek solace in with some classic Eminem and remind myself of "real music".

-H.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:But! by hackstraw · 2006-05-10 06:14 · Score: 1

Allowed to be played? As in by the same stations that are frantically trying to sell whatever latest artist the big labels have signed? I often listen to music older than a couple of years, its quality has nothing to do with the radio play-list.

No, I mean allowed by the fans. Typically, if its 2+ years old, its viewed as, well, old. Its an observation, not a judgment.

Same with sex or music or whatever, what you do on your own time behind closed doors does not affect me. I don't care. There is music I like that my friends or whatever don't, but we can at least agree on something. Its not that big of a deal. I'm not going to have a good time listening to something that everybody else hates regardless of how much I may care for it. Same goes with timing. If its early in the night, I'm not going to play some mellow, laid back song, something more upbeat. Later in the night, the mellow laid back song might work.

But then you detest the music, so you wouldn't see it as likely. But as I and others get older and begin to fossilize, I dare say there will be a radio station that I can seek solace in with some classic Eminem and remind myself of "real music".

Time will tell. I even like some of Eminem's older stuff. Much better than most other music in that genre. Pretty intense actually. But 10 years from now, I don't see people listening to Eminem any more than they do "Ice Ice Baby" aside for amusement.

Again, I don't care what people listen to. Different strokes for different folks, but I am making an argument that I believe hip-hop and whatnot is something that will not stand the test of time. I could be entirely wrong, time will tell. Hey, I can chill and nod my head to that blowjob song too :) I just get bored of the repetition after 10 or 20 minutes. Its definitely talented, especially on the production side, I just find it boring.
Re:But! by h4rm0ny · 2006-05-11 05:41 · Score: 1

No, I mean allowed by the fans. Typically, if its 2+ years old, its viewed as, well, old.

You speak with great authority. I can only speak for myself and those I know with certainty, but I like older music as well as newly released music. Given our respective musical tastes, I think I'd have a better handle on the scene that you do. You seem to be implying that those who like hip-hop are only doing so because when it is new. I'd like a little more credit here, please.

I'll say one thing though. If people who enjoy hip-hop do listen to a lot more modern music than they do the older stuff (and consistant high sales of Tupak et al suggest otherwise), then you should also consider that a lot more high-quality hip-hop is coming out than there is high-quality rock, classical or gregorian chanting. We're spoilt for choice, is all.

Now as you like classical, may I point you in the direction of this gentleman, who I consider to be highly talented and I am going through a phase of listening to his work a lot. Alas, he is new and therefore unlikely to achieve lasting popularity. Classical music is fixed in the minds of many as Mozart, Beethoven and the rest of the club. By your criteria therefore, he'd not be considered "quality music." I think you'll agree this is not the case, however.

And if you like his work despite it being new, I'd like you to get hold of this which I hope you will like despite it being old. Also available on iTunes. I particularly recommend Favourite Things from Nu Flow, but it's all good.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:But! by KitFox · 2006-05-13 01:24 · Score: 1

"How do they expect a DRM encumbered download which costs as much as the DVD to succeed against a superior quality free download which you can play in your standard DVD player and came out months earlier."
This argument is based on the understanding that everybody pirates, or is at least comfortable with pirating.
The proper question to actually ask, in that case, might be:
"How do they expect a DRM encumbered download which costs as much as the DVD to succeed against a superior quality physical DVD purchase that you can play in your standard DVD player and comes out at exactly the same time?"
However, the actual case is different from both of these. There are basically three major groups of "Consumers" in this situation. 1: People who Will Buy the DVD. 2: People who Will Not buy the DVD but will Pirate it for free because they want to watch it anyway. 3: People who Want to watch it, but Will Not buy the DVD, and Will Not Pirate it.
Now, they really don't have to worry about group 1. They -COULD- try to target Group 3 in an attempt to garner new audience and sales. However, by the statement from TFA: They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film. , it appears that they are trying to target Group 2.
As such, keeping in mind that they are apparently trying to ignore people who already buy DVD's, not trying to entice new consumers, and specifically are tryign to convince people who would otherwise pirate the product to get it this way instead... Well, the original quoted question of the parent's parent is accurate: "Why buy this junk for just as much as the DVD I don't want to buy when I can get it for free, higher quality, unencumbered by DRM, and sooner?"
The only way they are going to get the pirate crew to stop pirating is if they offer a better alternative with a better value vs cost ratio. If a pirate thinks it's worth $1.50 to get a guarenteed good item with a few concessions on how it can be used, rather than try downloading 4 copies looking for a decent quality copy, then they will pay the $1.50. For $1.50, that might be worth it. For $20, with seriously-restrictive rights, it's not. Save their $20, keep their abilities to play it somewhere else, and deal with 4 downloads to find a decent quality item.

--
@Whee

one machine by moro_666 · 2006-05-09 01:09 · Score: 2, Funny

cracks against playing in one machine coming in 3...2...1...

--

I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.

Re:one machine by stunt_penguin · 2006-05-09 01:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Words taken right out of my mouth 1....2....3.....4..... seconds ago

--
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Re:one machine by blueZhift · 2006-05-09 02:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Sigh...Every time I see one of these stories, they always have to offer up digital content with some kind of poison pill that turns off many of the people they are trying to sell to. Have they not learned anything from the success of iTMS? If I can get legally download a movie at a competitive price and burn it to my own DVD to play in the living room, which is all I want, then I'm cool. But this "one machine" crap just makes me go WTF! As long as pirates offer an easier to use and more flexible product, it will be difficult to establish legal movie downloads as the first choice.

--
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started

Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by TripMaster+Monkey · 2006-05-09 01:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

From TFA:

Pricing for a feature film will be about the same as the DVD release. Warner added that whether a TV show or feature film, it will only play on the initial computer used to make the download. The downloads will not therefore work on other PCs or standard DVD players.

So let me get this straight...I can download a feature film, but can only play it on the system I downloaded it to, while for the same price I could have a DVD that I can play anywhere I wish. Hmm.

Also the issue of extra content (out-takes, deleted scenes, yadda yadda yadda) is not addressed. The article says I can download a 'feature film', but it mentions nothing regarding the bonus features (personally, I despise the bonus features, but I know many people who purchase DVDs with the bonus features specifically in mind). Even if the extra content is included (making for a hefty download), that still doesn't justify the price tag, seeing how the download is locked to one machine.

This doesn't really sound like Warner Bros. "believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film"...it sounds more like:

Warner Bros. wants to appear as if they are supporting movie downloads,
while,
Warner Bros.' actual objective is to discourage the adoption of downloadable content as a standard.

Thanks for nothing, Warner Bros..

Why aren't they trying the $1.50 experiment here in the U.S.? Apparently, we're not pirating enough.

--
____

~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Carthag · 2006-05-09 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm wondering how they will go about using bittorrent and DRM at the same time, effectively. Bittorrent's strength lies in many people having the exact same file, so if the DRM is added post-download, it would be trivial to intercept the data before the lockdown and use it as such. If the DRM is added before the download, I am having difficulties seeing how BT can be used to any significant advantage.

Encapsulating the movie in an encrypted executable that phones home for authorization? Ugh.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by vally_manea · 2006-05-09 01:19 · Score: 1

Most likely it will require a player that will phone home. Doesn't iTunes work exactly in the same way?
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by tehwebguy · 2006-05-09 01:25 · Score: 1

not to mention, if nobody is seeding it all you paid for is a headache!

--
-- lol pwned
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Kjella · 2006-05-09 01:29 · Score: 1

Oh, I imagine exactly the same way you press identical DVDs, but instead of 100s of manufacturer codes, you'll get your personal decryption key directly from WB, and then the bulk data via BitTorrent. Of course, this could get interesting if the keys are broken, since you then have legal uploaders which don't know if the downloader is a paying customer or has a warezed key...

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by qortra · 2006-05-09 01:34 · Score: 1

Look at Fairplay DRM. From what I understand, the assumption is that every AAC audio stream for a particular song is encrypted with the same master key. The user specific part comes in when an AAC player uses the "User Key" to decrypt the "Master key" (both stored in the MP4 container in the case of AAC) in realtime.

I assume that Warner Bros' scheme will just distributed the master-key-encrypted video streams with Bittorrent and either offload the encrypted master keys to some kind of insideous local DRM database on your computer, or simply append it (or prepend it) to the file after the download completes.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by gid13 · 2006-05-09 01:40 · Score: 1

The big problem I see is the same one I've seen with legal music downloads: The end product is at least in some ways worse than the one you can get for free from emule or torrent sites. Specifically, if I buy mp3s of the new Tool album from iTunes, I have to figure out payment, I have to either keep the mp3s in their limits or jump through hoops, and I don't even think you can play the tracks in a non-iTunes player (I don't actually know, to be honest). On the other hand, if I just download it from a p2p program, I can do whatever I want with it. iTunes has the advantages of keeping the quality constant and avoiding litigation, but that's about it. All the same stuff applies here, except I'm fairly certain that the limit of one computer is more stringent (read: worse) than iTunes. I don't know, call me crazy, but if I'm paying for something, I'd rather it be at least as convenient as what I can download for free.

And that's ASIDE from wanting to bring down the horrible bastards that are the record industry. :)
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Kadin2048 · 2006-05-09 01:47 · Score: 5, Informative

iTunes doesn't use Bittorrent for distribution of it's content. It uses regular HTTP transfers (I think) from a lot of servers placed strategically around the country/world (by Akamai). The Akamai servers have the unencrypted files, and then encrypt them for a particular user when you go to buy/download one. The result is that the file I download with my iTunes userid is different from the file that you download, with your iTunes userid. This would keep us from using Bittorrent to download the files -- they're not the same.

What the GP was referring to is that Bittorrent relies on the files being the same (or at least having a lot of identical chunks) -- and if the files are the same, then they aren't being encrypted/DRMed in transit, like iTunes' are. Thus, it ought to be fairly trivial to intercept the data before it gets DRMed all to hell on your computer and locked down. At least theoretically ... it'll be interesting to see how they deal with this.

The other option is to send an encrypted file, for which there is only one key, but then once one person recovers the key, they can share it with everyone else who's downloaded the file and you lose a lot of security.

Basically it just doesn't seem like Bittorrent in general is really conducive to transmitting DRMed content, at least in the way that most companies are implementing DRM right now.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by IAmTheDave · 2006-05-09 01:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

not to mention, if nobody is seeding it all you paid for is a headache!
This brings up an even more interesting point. So let me get this straight - WB will charge DVD prices for a less-than-DVD quality download crippled with DRM - and will use other people's computers to serve the bits.

Wow - lower quality, same price point, crippled DRM, and they don't even pick up the cost of hosting.

I'm sold - how do I get my computer to act as a server for them? Because I've always wanted my $45/m for internet to be used at the will of media companies to avoid the hosting fees associated with "allowing" users to download DRM crippled overly-expensive movie releases. Huzzah!

--
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by leuk_he · 2006-05-09 01:58 · Score: 1

Circumventing the DRM will (is) illegal. So who do a legal download and then make it illegal by circumventing the DRM? After all you connected to their tracker. So they have your ip. Not the wistest method to get free movies if you ask me.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Znork · 2006-05-09 02:06 · Score: 1

"The big problem I see is the same one I've seen with legal music downloads"

There are a few who actually are useable; Canadian label Nettwerk for example sells real un-DRM'ed mp3's. Painless, fast, works like a charm under Linux, no hoops to jump through.

Wish there were more like them.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Flunitrazepam · 2006-05-09 02:10 · Score: 1

My thoughts as well.

However, you can't expect a multi billion dollar company to change its spots overnight. I think they are testing the waters with this move. Unfortunately, if the majority of movie fans come to the same conclusion you've elucidated, no one will use the service... leading the WB execs to believe there is no money to be made in legit P2P/ BT distribution.

Huge companies have a huge amount to lose. This is why I see the inevitable move to this distribution method first becoming useful from the hands of a smaller, less risk adverse company.

--
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Bacon+Bits · 2006-05-09 02:15 · Score: 1

I am having difficulties seeing how BT can be used to any significant advantage.
It'a easy. The market they're trying to appeal to with this is the same market that is already downloading movies. It's the same reason they started selling movies on VHS. People were recording movies off TV onto VHS. That's your market, and they've already invested in your distribution technology. So they have zero cost to begin using your product. Or, with BT, you don't have to develop a new P2P protocol and then convince everyone to install and learn to use your client. You've already got 100% penetration of your client.

--
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by spun · 2006-05-09 02:18 · Score: 1

How do you get use your personal decryption key to decrypt the file that is identical to the one you just used bittorrent to download off of dozens of other people's computers?

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by nstlgc · 2006-05-09 02:18 · Score: 1

Even if the extra content is included (making for a hefty download), that still doesn't justify the price tag, seeing how the download is locked to one machine.

Add to that the fact that they don't have any packaging/distribution costs, and the cost of the bandwidth is also limited thanks to the nature of BitTorrent.

On a side note, will this mean I'm going to download a bunch of movies which suddently run out of seeders when I'm at 99% ?

--
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by sootman · 2006-05-09 02:19 · Score: 1

The Akamai servers have the unencrypted files, and then encrypt them for a particular user when you go to buy/download one. The result is that the file I download with my iTunes userid is different from the file that you download, with your iTunes userid.

Wrong. The iTunes client applies DRM once the song is downloaded.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by TobascoKid · 2006-05-09 02:21 · Score: 1

But if Warner Bros is going to use the so called "super distribution" model (which is where a single encrypted file can be unencrypted by different people) then the person downloading the legal file from WB doesn't have to circumvent the DRM - all he has to is give the file to his friend (and WB will be none the wiser about this), and if his friend has an illegal key then his friend can do the circumventing. His friend could even upload the exact same drm'd file to pirate trackers, and as long as the pirates had the illegal key then they could all use the "legit" file.

The security would hinge on how hard it is to break the keys.

--
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by ch-chuck · 2006-05-09 02:26 · Score: 1

It just occured to me that an ongoing pattern in technological improvements, going back a long way, is seen by business as something that should be of advantage to them only, and consumers should have to keep paying the old 'pre-improvement' way. That is, something is created that lowers the cost or production or distribution - the business types want to keep the extra change generated, naturally, and force consumers to keep paying as they always have. Anyway, all these ideas floated by media companies always have the stench of a business deal - we'll give you seomthing, but we're going to demand something in return so that YOU end up with a net-zero result and the business gets to pocket the profits. Anyway it's encouraging to see enlightened consumers react to the charade of marketing, even though there's a big enough contingent of sheeple out there who'll buy whatever comes down the pike. That should be enough cliche's for one post.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by HuguesT · 2006-05-09 02:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Not since iTunes 6.x, and it is no longer possible to purchase songs from the iTMS using earlier versions of the software. The software the old /. article talks about doesn't work anymore (that is, you can't download songs from the iTMS with it anymore).

See what DVD Jon says about the situation.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by TobascoKid · 2006-05-09 02:36 · Score: 1

You use your personal decryption key to decrypt the results from the "phoning home" process - those results contain the key to unlock the movie.

It does asssume that the key to unlocking the movie isn't found.

--
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by wezelboy · 2006-05-09 02:45 · Score: 1

If Warner Brothers is willing to pay me $40 a month for the bittorrent bandwidth I might consider using their service. Otherwise, screw it. There's this company called Netflix...

I can't believe how stupid movie and record execs are.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by dsgitl · 2006-05-09 02:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, and you've identified the exact problems with this scheme. You'd benefit more from going out and buying the damn thing, while WB benefits more from you fronting their distribution costs. Incredible.

I didn't read the article, but will these downloads work on my Mac? I'm guessing not, but WB might surprise me.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by leuk_he · 2006-05-09 02:55 · Score: 1

. His friend could even upload the exact same drm'd file to pirate trackers, and as long as the pirates had the illegal key then they could all use the "legit" file.

Those pirates already have the unprotected version of the movie long before warner releases the DVD. Why would they bother to distribute the DRM/watermarked file? Every one here knows that DRM is always breakable since it is inteded to be displayed anyways. But the whole point here is why? Free content? there are already easier ways. legality? no, breaking the DRM will get the dogs after just like publishing the deccs code.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by crossmr · 2006-05-09 03:19 · Score: 1

Apparently, we're not pirating enough

I'm doing what I can, but I've already worn out 3 DVD burners this year. I'm just about to take a shipment over to my buddy at the flea market.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 03:23 · Score: 0

CDs: 1411kbps at ~$1.50 a song
iTunes tracks: 128kbps at $0.99 a song

iTunes users are already paying 2/3rds the price for less than 1/10 the quality. Of course Warner thinks this will work.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 03:24 · Score: 0

I doubt they would package the movie as an executable. It's far more likely that they would use the Windows Media DRM scheme where the file is encrypted one way for everyone. Then, when you go to play it, Windows Media Player directs you to a site to pay for access to the movie. After you do that, Window Media Player will be able to download a license specifically for your computer. This license won't work on other computers if you did try to transfer it.

As for breaking it, to my knowledge, there's never been any successful crack for windows media drm. There have been successful circumvention by pulling the keys out of memory, but those holes have been patched.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Dyolf+Knip · 2006-05-09 03:26 · Score: 1

Oh this just gets better and better. So not only do I have a highly broken version of the movie that is lower in quality and costs as much as the mostly-unbroken DVD, but the movie won't play without an internet connection.

If they tried to sell a DVD player that had to be plugged into the phone line before it would play anything, and that phone requirement added _nothing_ to the movie, they would not sell a single one. Whether it was intended to be one from the start, this is a really stupid idea.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by swillden · 2006-05-09 03:42 · Score: 1

The security would hinge on how hard it is to break the keys.
Except that it would not be necessary to break the keys, in the normal sense of the word. All that would be required is for one legitimate user to recover the decryption key from the playback process.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by TobascoKid · 2006-05-09 03:47 · Score: 1

but the movie won't play without an internet connection

It might only need to phone home once and cache the key, but yeah, you wouldn't be able to watch the movie without an internet connection at all (but how do you download the film with out an internet connection :-)

If they tried to sell a DVD player that had to be plugged into the phone line before it would play anything, and that phone requirement added _nothing_ to the movie, they would not sell a single one.

Didn't they try that one already? I though that was how DiVX (the DVD player, not the codec) worked - cheap DVDs that needed to phone home before they would play.

--
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by TobascoKid · 2006-05-09 03:57 · Score: 1

But the whole point here is why?

Mostly in order to confuse any enforcement officials - as long as the broken/recovered keys are kept seperate, then it would be hard to say that the copy is illegitimate. Yes, it's unlikely people would bother - my point was that once a key is broken/recovered, the DRM becomes worthless and you could trade the DRM'd file if you wanted to.

--
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Somegeek · 2006-05-09 05:00 · Score: 1

Quoted Dyolf: "but the movie won't play without an internet connection."

There are a lot of things wrong with this idea, but that isn't one of them. You had to have a broadband connection to get the movie in the first place and the format only allows the movie to be played on a computer... Where exactly is the limitation there?

--
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 05:27 · Score: 0

how do I get my computer to act as a server for them?

Reward system. Something like: upload X amount of data, get Y% discount on your next purchase.
Of course, that will never happen. But it would work IMHO.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by spamking · 2006-05-09 06:02 · Score: 1

Heh. I think you've sold me on it. Where can I sign up?
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Chelloveck · 2006-05-09 07:44 · Score: 1

There are a lot of things wrong with this idea, but that isn't one of them. You had to have a broadband connection to get the movie in the first place and the format only allows the movie to be played on a computer... Where exactly is the limitation there?

The limitation is that travellers would be unable to download a movie to their laptops and watch it in the car/plane/train later. It's easy to imagine situations like this where you'd have access to broadband for the download, but not at the time of playback.
I agree with a lot of others here that the combination of price + DRM restrictions will kill it. Lower either and it might fly. People might pay a couple bucks to download a heavily restricted movie; they might pay full price to download something they can burn to an ordinary DVD-R. I can't imagine anyone paying full price to download something so limited.

--
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 09:38 · Score: 0

There's really not so much of a problem to distribute an encrypted file and essentially sell the key to decrypt it separately. Obviously everyone will have the same key, but apparently at least part of the movie industry considered it to be sufficient to obfuscate this key with a few layers of encryption and stick this in some nondescript, hidden directory, as was done with the doomed wmv HD DVDs. (someone please post the keys to decrypt Step Into Liquid, it's just too annoying having to find an open proxy to be allowed to watch a legally bought film)
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by AnyoneEB · 2006-05-09 10:20 · Score: 1

Yeah, and they didn't sell much of those DiVX things, did they?

--
Centralization breaks the internet.
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by GWBasic · 2006-05-09 12:48 · Score: 1

Believe it or not, I'd actually consider their system if, and only if, they also mailed me a normal DVD... Then again, even at BitTorrent speeds, I might as well drive to BestBuy just so I don't have to jump through their DRM hoops.

--
No, I will not work for your startup
Re:Thanks, Warner Bros....I *guess*... by steve_bryan · 2006-05-09 15:43 · Score: 1

The Akamai servers have the unencrypted files, and then encrypt them for a particular user when you go to buy/download one.

This sort of thing might change over time but the last time I checked identical unlocked files were being sent to the consumer and the DRM was being applied by iTunes to the file it received. I believe there was even a hack out there to disable this application of DRM. This is separate from the tools from Jon Johansen that remove iTMS DRM after the fact. In a sense the DRM used by iTunes is fairly innocuous. The unfortunate part is that you can only by music that has been compressed using lossy compression from iTMS.

I agree with your analysis that using the bittorrent protocol relies almost crucially on all copies of a file being identical. The original small torrent file that contains all the hash values might be the most important reason why bittorrent is so remarkably robust and it is coupled to the idea that all copies of the target file are identical. On the other hand it is sort of a cool problem to think about.

Start with a central server that seeds the various target files and generates corresponding torrent files (the small files that contain the list of hash values). But don't create just one torrent file for a given target media file. Based on a key that a client and the server agree on the server creates a custom torrent file with hash values of the target file encrypted with that key. When a client connects to another client they use Diffie Hellman to exchange key information so each has a key to encode chunks from his encrypted copy so they can be transmitted to the other in the encryption he needs. Obviously the vendor has to create a proprietary client which could almost certainly be hacked but so what? Those files are flying around the internet already in completely unencrypted form already. As long as DVDs are being sold that will continue to be true.

The nasty part of this proposal is that some server has the need to create a custom torrent file for each client that wants to download a media file. But it just has to do that once and it uses no network bandwidth. Everyone gets his own encrypted version without knowing anyone else's key because the clients only need to generate composite keys that convert from one encryption to another without ever creating a plaintext version. The custom hash values for specific encryptions insure the transfer is robust. Of course all this is all moot because they have probably committed to Microsoft's media DRM.

No. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:09 · Score: 5, Informative

The movies they're distributing will be in Windows Media Player format and won't play on Linux or Mac OS X. (Yes, there is a "Windows Media Player" for Mac but it doesn't support DRMed content.)

I'll stick with The Pirate Bay for my cross-platform movie needs. Warner Bros. should set up a PayPal tip jar so that I can send them a few bucks if I think their movie was good.

Re:No. by TripMaster+Monkey · 2006-05-09 01:15 · Score: 0, Redundant

Mplayer will play Windows Media Player format in Linux, although like the Mac Windows Media Player, DRMed content is not supported.

--
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:20 · Score: 0

Mac Windows Media Player will play Windows Media Player format in OS X, although like Mplayer for linux, DRMed content is not supported.

(That added absolutely nothing to what the GP was saying, but neither did your post)
Re:No. by Ilgaz · 2006-05-09 04:00 · Score: 1

For months: There is NO windows player for OS X.

There is much better than Microsoft coded flip4mac 3rd party Quicktime Codec which is sponsored by Microsoft and became freeware.

It does not count as windows media player for OS X.

Read webmasters: If you want true multiplatform, go with Quicktime or Real (for DRM). Count wmedia for OS X as DEAD. Or use Macromedia(Adobe) Flash DRM.

(some have problem understanding it, especially Warner Bros.)
Re:No. by Trelane · 2006-05-09 04:44 · Score: 1

Read webmasters: If you want true multiplatform, go with Quicktime
Linux can read DRM'ed quicktime?! How?

--

--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Re:No. by Ilgaz · 2006-05-09 05:42 · Score: 1

If they really wanted, Apple would do it as they try to make money from Quicktime.

http://heroinewarrior.com/download.php3

See it is already possible.

The thing with windows media is: They don't really care. There is windows monopoly out there and they don't feel the urge to support anything other than windows. It includes OS X too.
Re:No. by Ilgaz · 2006-05-09 06:23 · Score: 1

Sorry for replying again. I am a bit sleepless and for some reason I confused Real format/framework with Quicktime.

Again, if one huge project like this (WB movies) needs quicktime, I don't think Apple's QT division will think a second.

The multiplatform DRM is currently Real networks/Helix one.

Sorry for confusion.
Re:No. by Grishnakh · 2006-05-09 07:34 · Score: 1

His was just a useful bit of info in case there's anyone who still doesn't know how to play WMP video on Linux.

Good idea in Theory by Kranfer · 2006-05-09 01:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

I like the idea of being able to download DVDs legally from the studios directly. However, I would NEVER pay the same price as the normal DVD and only be able to play the movie on one machine. If I could burn it to DVD, and be able to enjoy it on my big screen LCD TV, this would be a service I would use as opposed to going to say Bestbuy or Walmart to purchase the DVD. I always thought that the Internet was supposed to supply convinence, not another thing that will cause me to NOT want to use the service because the movie could only be played on my computer. What is with that? I think the movies should be about $10 and be able to be burned once to a DVD Disc so that people can enjoy them elsewhere and not on a PC. Just my thoughts.

--
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad

Re:Good idea in Theory by toad3k · 2006-05-09 01:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

You'd think it would cost the same as a movie rental. About 3 bucks.
Re:Good idea in Theory by Crayon+Kid · 2006-05-09 01:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the movies should be about $10 and be able to be burned once to a DVD Disc so that people can enjoy them elsewhere and not on a PC.

You and mostly anybody else, but tell that to the Holywood execs. It's a simple problem, except they don't want to see it as such: they're competing with movies in 2 CD format, distributed for almost free, which only cost the downloader the Internet bandwidth and can be used however they please. How do you beat that? Hint: NOT with a 4+ GB download that plays on only one computer and is priced the same as a full DVD.

So what's the big advantage? Don't say the legal aspect. If that was really an issue, we wouldn't be talking about this. I suppose it would be nice to feel 100% legal, but under our conditions, not theirs.

So what they should do is sell downgraded versions about 1 or 1.5 GB big, without any restrictions, for at most 10 bucks. That and the legal bit would be worth it and make a good offer, but I reckon it's gonna be a while until we see that become the norm. Oh well, joke's on them. Any year that passes without such services is a year they don't collect from them. Let's see if they can match this would-be income with the money they get from lawsuits. No? Didn't think so either.

--
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Re:Good idea in Theory by kyofunikushimi · 2006-05-09 02:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, "They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie".

Regular DVD price for a movie you can play on ONE machine? They're underestimating the importance of being able to watch it where-ever you want. For a few bucks more I could order the real thing online. With next-day shipping.

--
oo
Re:Good idea in Theory by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 04:05 · Score: 0

Of course, they'd be delighted if you bought the real thing on line. In fact, that may be the whole point. The money ends up in their pockets one way or the other.

You're Competing with Piracy! by eldavojohn · 2006-05-09 01:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

First off, I wish Warner Brothers would get it through their head that if they are to compete with piracy, they have to price the movies as such.

If they price them as much as the hardcopies, who's going to buy them? Nobody. Your pirates are trying to escape high prices & your regular DVD buyers are going to balk at the offer for the fact that they could order a nice shiny cased DVD off amazon for the same price.

I highly doubt anyone will use this service if they keep the prices on par with the DVDs. If they offer them at even half price, then you might see some movement from both sides (pirates and DVD buyers) to that middle ground and hopefully recoup some of your losses from the pirates.

Offer downloads so cheap that you run the pirates out of business but leave quality lacking so true fans will always buy the DVDs.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by rhsanborn · 2006-05-09 01:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't work in the movie industry, but I'm willing to bet that pricing these at anything below current DVD prices won't increase revenue.

I can't imagine that people who pirate movie represent a large portion of the buying public. They don't like paying and they know they don't have to. I don't think you will see a ton of pirates stopping that and purchasing downloads.

Instead, I think you would see people who already buy DVD's buying these downloads. So, to cut the cost of the product would only take people who are already paying a high price for the product, and giving them a lower cost alternative.

Studios make most of their money from DVD sales. It is in their interest to keep the price high. The cost of media and packaging isn't really that high. At least not high enough to justify a significant price break.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by spammeister · 2006-05-09 01:18 · Score: 1

Offer downloads so cheap that you run the pirates out of business but leave quality lacking so true fans will always buy the DVDs.

So basically the movie will have the title credits and the end credits. Small files though.

--
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by Hrshgn · 2006-05-09 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

But people who buy DVDs today might download MORE movies if prices were lower. I only buy movies of which i'm sure that i'll watch them more than once. If prices were lower, i would also take the risk and download an unknown movie. hrshgn
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by Scudsucker · 2006-05-09 01:28 · Score: 1

I don't work in the movie industry, but I'm willing to bet that pricing these at anything below current DVD prices won't increase revenue.

Oh, I doubt that. They wont have to pay for manufacturing, distribution with be a fraction of the cost (they aren't even paying for all the bandwidth), and the middleman with all this B&M employees will be out of the picture. This will be a stream of almost pure profit. Also, the more they drop the price, the more it will be an impulse buy, like the $5.50 bargin bin at your local Wal-Mart.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by kfg · 2006-05-09 01:29 · Score: 1

First off, I wish Warner Brothers would get it through their head that if they are to compete with piracy, they have to price the movies as such.

Perhaps they have actually acquired a clue, but they clearly haven't unwrapped it yet.

Offer downloads so cheap that you run the pirates out of business but leave quality lacking so true fans will always buy the DVDs.

You keep your clue nice and shiney.

KFG
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:36 · Score: 0

I can't imagine that people who pirate movie represent a large portion of the buying public. They don't like paying and they know they don't have to.

or they live in a country that only imports/gets the crappy movies?
and the "imports" are expensive as hell?

or these "pirates" just don't like to bring a bunch of dvd's around when travelling. partly because it takes up space, but mostly because it uses a lot of battery on the laptop to play dvds. much easier and better with xvids

i _WANT_ to pay for movies (at least the ones i download/see), but i'm not given any options. except to order them from some other country (and if i order from the us, i'm not legally allowed to play them (i'm region 2))

stop fucking the consumers around, please.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by vadim_t · 2006-05-09 01:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nonsense.

Kids, unemployed people maybe. Adults much less so. At some point you realize: "Hmm, I can either pay for this with 15 minutes of work, or spend 2 hours looking for a crack that might be loaded with spyware. Then I'll probably have to spend a day to reinstall Windows."

If you don't have money, you just "pay" with your time instead. Give me MP3 at $0.1 per song and pirating will be completely pointless. Movies I'd be willing to buy at about $5, with no DRM, as a DVD image.

Personally, I don't buy DVDs. Why? Expensive, insane industry, forced ads in content I'm paying for, DRM interfaces... like hell I will pay for that. Remove all that insanity, offer it with an easy to access system that works from Linux, and I'll happily start buying.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by nfarrell · 2006-05-09 01:39 · Score: 1

You're forgetting about distribution costs, packaging costs, 'shrinkage' (theft) costs plus all the administrative overhead of moving boxes of DVDs around the world.

Sure, I agree pirates aren't going to start paying for what they can - and do - get for free. But I bet that the cost of physically selling DVDs is about 30% of their retail price. The other 70% might be royalties and WB profit.

So WB could sell a $15 DVD for around $10 without even decreasing their profit margin. Even bandwidth costs wouldn't be much, given they want to use bittorrent.

The biggest drawback I can see from WB's perspective is once you have people BT'ing their movies legitimately, they then get impatient with waiting for the DVD release date and get the 'bad quality rips' instead.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by redoverlord · 2006-05-09 02:06 · Score: 0

I worked for BMG and Polygram some years ago. At some time the prices were like 5% for the support (cd, case, paperwork) and 95% was for "intellectual property" So its true that the support does not cost them much. But then, the value of the "intellectual property" were different for my region - africa and indian ocean - around 60% of what you would pay in europe and US. This has changed (globalisation????) so now some buy one audio cd or movie on dvd, then make copies then its re distributed. I prefer to buy a pirated copy at USD 3 for a movie on dvd with a choice of languages but stripped from the addons (directors cut etc which i dont watch anyway) and have no hassle of virus/burn then go the tv and dvd player. We even have home delivery for these as well as rentals and the rental shop offers copies if i liked the film Now to download one movie takes me around 4 days non stop and i pay my dsl (512) at around 60 USD per month. So Warner or any of the majors can keep their offer to themselves. Well they can even try to do some tests with their employees and see how many downloads there will be...
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by shawb · 2006-05-09 02:07 · Score: 1

The cost of media and packaging isn't all that high, but the cost of middlemen is. Picture the costs involved in getting a DVD from the press to the customer in the store: shipping, distributors, warehouses, shipping again, loading/unloading, stocking shelves, paying the lease/taxes on the store property, cashiers, purchasers, managers, janitors, insurance, lights, heating/cooling, sick days, training, the physical shelves the product sits on, security, breakage and shrinkage etc etc etc all add up to a significant amount of money that woulnd't be necessary with a bittorrent style download. There you would cancel out all of those, in addition to the actual publication of the DVD, and only require some bandwith to make up for a lack of seeds, a small handfull of programmers and wrench monkeys to set up and maintain the whole thing, some server storage, an online billing mechanism, electricity to run the whole thing and some fancy network security. I would expect overall cost before the customer recieves the product to be drastically lower with a P2P system than traditional brick and mortar store + physical medium. Even online retailers such as Amazon incur many of the costs that a brick and mortar store will in delivering physical media, although they are generally a lot less... employers on the clock are more likely to be working than simply waiting for customers, cleaning, over/understocking is not as significant of a problem, etc.

--
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by Hollyfeld · 2006-05-09 02:22 · Score: 1

rhsanborn wrote:
I don't work in the movie industry, but I'm willing to bet that pricing these at anything below current DVD prices won't increase revenue.

Not so. First, no manufacturing costs for direct download - This works out to be somewhere in the neigborhood of $0.50 to $0.75 per unit (Obviously, they will still make some # of DVD's, at least for the foreseeable future, and the manufacturing price will go up by a penny or two per unit, but let's assume that shakes out in the wash, since we're talking in generalities here)Second, no storage and distribution costs - Shipping, warehouse space, picking and packing all cost money - prolly around $0.50 per unit, on average. Third, no middleman and no retailer. Most studios use a distributor to push out product to retailers, rather than selling direct - the DVD you bought at Tower for $18.99, they bought from the distributor for $12.00, and the distributor bought it from the studio for $9.00 (notice that already you could be selling downloads around half of the retail price and be making more money) Fourth, payment is instant - studios now wait months after the DVD release date, which is usually a couple of months after actual production, to recoup cash from a sale (think about the NPV of $10 million in six months - not massive profit, but nothing to sneeze at either) Fifth, less risk of non-salable goods/rebates - through distributors, studios reimburse retailers for unsold merchandise, in full if the goods are returned, or in part if they have to be sold off in the bargain bin. There's more that I could nit-pick about, but that's enough to give you an idea of the cost savings associated with direct download movies - there are prolly some additional costs to be incurred, especially with finding the right balance of DVD's to produce, keeping distributors/retailers from going into open revolt for some period of time (they're going the way of the dodo, anyhow, just a matter of time), and there won't be excessive hosting costs if distribution is via bittorrent, but it ought to be pretty obvious that selling low quality, DRM encrusted, non-portable, non-transferable media via download to people for twice as mouch money as they're getting now is either a shameless cash grab or a move to drive people away from this newfangled downloading technology - we all know the XXAA's hate change....
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by Lahiru · 2006-05-09 02:44 · Score: 1
"The cost of media and packaging isn't really that high. At least not high enough to justify a significant price break."

Hang on a sec, you're saying that the cost of manufacturing DVDs...
- Manufacturing -> This entails all costs associated with manufacturing - raw materials, labour, utilities (electricity) - for the discs, packaging, and other materials (e.g. booklets)
- Shipping (from the factories to retailers all over the world
- Warehousing
...is not that different to the cost of hosting digital files on servers? Is this true? In any case, if they are using BitTorrent the cost of hosting will be borne by the customers of the service, meaning there will be virtually no cost borne by the studio in distributing these files. And what about the markup that is added by the retailer for physical DVDs, which is also inapplicable in this scenario? Shouldn't all of these things be deducted from the price of the digital download?

So, despite being presented with a ridiculously cut down product that can only be played on one computer, that must be downloaded and distributed by the customer using his or her own bandwidth, that doesn't come with any special features (seemingly), and that costs the studio less to produce and distribute than a physical product, the customer is expected to pay nearly the same amount as for a regular DVD?
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by PurPaBOO · 2006-05-09 02:55 · Score: 1

Exactly. They're jokers.

They should just do like we've been asking for years, and make DVDs (and CDs) £4.99 a pop.

--
If it weren't for the rocks in its bed, the stream would have no songs.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by j-turkey · 2006-05-09 03:21 · Score: 1

Kids, unemployed people maybe. Adults much less so. At some point you realize: "Hmm, I can either pay for this with 15 minutes of work, or spend 2 hours looking for a crack that might be loaded with spyware. Then I'll probably have to spend a day to reinstall Windows."

As an employeed adult, I do not entirely agree. What cracks have you needed to download to play a movie file, and which of them contained spyware? Sun's JVM, Azureus, and VLC seem to do the trick for nearly everything (and maybe WinRAR). IMO, the spyware claim is about as valid as the issues that Warner cites about movie files containing viruses. It's pretty FUD'dy.

If we're going to bring up FUD'dy issues, recent events show that it is more likely that the content owners' software (such as a player) would automatically install some kind of rootkit. I'm not really cynical enough to believe that all DRM contains Sony-like rootkits, but it seems more likely than a spyware or virus infestation from a media file.

--

-Turkey
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by hackstraw · 2006-05-09 03:43 · Score: 1

No, they are not competing with piracy, they are competing in a free market.

Online software downloads and content like slashdot seem to work, and broadcast radio/TV, and subscriber based cable/satellite audio and video seems to still work, but for some reason they cannot make a viable way to get flexible media to us at a user-acceptable method.

Personally, I prefer to get my media via "official" channels because downloads are too unreliable in terms of quality and dead torrents or failed downloads or whatnot. But the quality and price of their offerings still make the "pirated" methods a preferred method of acquiring media.

What kills me is that they even own many distribution channels. Time-Warner is a part of an online service that requires montly payments, right? I think its called AOL-Time-Warner. But they can seem to package free information and sell it to people, but they can't seem to get people to pay for pay material?

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by glesga_kiss · 2006-05-09 03:49 · Score: 1

I can't imagine that people who pirate movie represent a large portion of the buying public. They don't like paying and they know they don't have to. I don't think you will see a ton of pirates stopping that and purchasing downloads.
Well, studies on music and p2p have found that most people who download music from p2p actually buy more music than the non-downloaders. It's a bit counter-intuative, but it seems to be a consistent trend. Whether it will hold for movies is interesting as you can't "preview" a movie like you might an album; to be honest that's what trailers are for.
There will always be those whom I call "archivers". They download and download without never listening/watching the content. They will never buy it. However, it would seem that they are a very small minority and for the most part p2p users are regular people who just dip in now and again.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by vadim_t · 2006-05-09 04:03 · Score: 1

Right, I hadn't had my coffee yet. I was thinking about software for some reason.

The general point still stands though. There are very few people who pirate because they're not going to buy it for any price. They pirate because it's the easiest option for them. Either because they lack the money (but would buy for a cheaper price if they could), or because the pirate provides better service (no DRM, easy downloads, etc).
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by Tim+C · 2006-05-09 04:50 · Score: 1

At some point you realize: "Hmm, I can either pay for this with 15 minutes of work, or spend 2 hours looking for a crack that might be loaded with spyware. Then I'll probably have to spend a day to reinstall Windows."

I have it on good authority (from a friend, of course...) that most cracks are easy to be had and perfectly safe to use.

Oh, and very few people earn enough in 15 minutes to buy a game or DVD (not that DVDs require cracks).

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by MrCopilot · 2006-05-09 05:16 · Score: 1

I can't imagine that people who pirate movie represent a large portion of the buying public. They don't like paying and they know they don't have to. I don't think you will see a ton of pirates stopping that and purchasing downloads.
I call bullshit.
Napster to iTunes, Can you "imagine" how many "pirates" made the switch? If the studios distribute it over the web they will make more than if they don't. If it costs the same or lower they will get a significant switchover from illegal to legal customers.
This WB scheme isn't the best plan. But neither were all the studio created music sites. Studios need a third party distributor, just like they needed Blockbuster and Suncoast Video and Walmart and on the web iTunes.
I have the feeling this will work out about the same. Whether iTunes music is priced correctly is another issue entirely. Mp3s should be cheaper than albulms (But they aren't). Downloadable Video should be priced lower than DVDs. Then again DVDs should be cheaper than Videotapes (but they aren't).
I think the old saying Information wants to be free sums up how we all "Feel". Problem is, that the Producers/Distributors don't give a flying fsck what information wants, it was created to suit their needs not the other way around.

--
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by owlstead · 2006-05-09 05:23 · Score: 1

I buy more movies on DVD already, now that they have brought down the price to 5..15 euro's here in the Netherlands. So far, only movies I would like to watch a second time at least. New movies are first downloaded in DivX format (no need for DVD quality just yet) and if I like them or want to see the special effects, I buy the DVD. Although it would be much more easy to actually find the movies for the right price using the computer, there is no way I am going to buy them with such restrictive measures. And what's the point, anyone can grab the DVD and make a perfect copy (or, to be precise, a BETTER copy without restrictions, they may remove the main menu and all the extra crap as well)...
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by drinkypoo · 2006-05-09 05:25 · Score: 1

Kids, unemployed people maybe. Adults much less so. At some point you realize: "Hmm, I can either pay for this with 15 minutes of work, or spend 2 hours looking for a crack that might be loaded with spyware. Then I'll probably have to spend a day to reinstall Windows."

If you make $30 an hour - most people don't, of course - you're getting maybe $5.60 for a quarter-hour of work after taxes. In most cases that's not enough to buy a used DVD movie, and it's not enough to buy any decent game.

Also, if we're talking about software, I use cracks even for a lot of software I have licensed, mostly because I don't want to insert the CD for games. I have never been owned by a game crack, but then, I have spybot installed with registry protection, and have always had some kind of antivirus.

As for playing DVDs on Linux, that's damned easy now. Your moral objections are of course reasonable (since it's subjective anyhow.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by j-turkey · 2006-05-09 06:23 · Score: 1

They pirate because it's the easiest option for them. Either because they lack the money (but would buy for a cheaper price if they could), or because the pirate provides better service (no DRM, easy downloads, etc).

Yeah, I totally agree. It is pretty quick and easy to download via Bittorrent. It's frustrating how slowly these content owners move, and even more frustrating that when they do move, they take a funky direction (downloadable movies at the same price as DVD's).

--

-Turkey
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 06:35 · Score: 0

they've already screwed it up, its too late. even if they were to offer movies at 50 cents & no drm, i wouldnt buy it. i dont like them now, and i'll never give them another cent, even though i dont mind the money. its the principle of the thing. hopefully they get it together before more people feel the same. the longer it takes them, the more money they will lose. they are obsolete. i might change my mind if they come back with a new game plan and some decency.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by simple+english+major · 2006-05-09 08:24 · Score: 1

I disagree with your premise. I downloaded quite a bit of music from the original Napster and clones back in the day, but when iTunes came online I started buying music from them, even replacing some of my previous downloads. Their little $0.99 guilt tax is low enough that I'm willing to pay it in order to have legal copies of songs I like.

As my nickname indicates, I'm not a techie - I don't know if this makes me representative of a "large portion of the buying public." I'm not saying that I currently download movies using BT, but I will say this: if the studios would make movies available to me online legally, for a reasonable price, with good quality, and without DRM, they would make more money from my purchases than they currently do.

But I think we all know that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Re:You're Competing with Piracy! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 17:29 · Score: 0

"Personally, I don't buy DVDs. Why? Expensive, insane industry, forced ads in content I'm paying for, DRM interfaces... like hell I will pay for that. Remove all that insanity, offer it with an easy to access system that works from Linux, and I'll happily start buying"

Agreed!! Im SOOO tired of fooling with all the crapola they put between you & your movie. I remember when VCD's were out, it was just a big fat .MPG on a disc... easy peasy. The first thing i do with a new DVD is rip that bastard to DIVX & put it on a cd so i can play it without jumping though hoops.

I dont want a cutesy little menu, i dont care about extra content, and i sure as hell dont want to be FORCED to watch commercials first. Just give me a goddamned video file on a disc & let me fucking watch!

Its become less of a problem now that hollywood isnt producing anything worth watching... but thats a seperate discussion.

Are these the same people? by shreevatsa · 2006-05-09 01:11 · Score: 1

Ironically, there is also this article from Businessweek about "How undercover FBI agents nab the bootleggers who threaten the movie biz". That article goes into some really unjustified sensationalistic nonsense, seems to be mix up movies and warez, and also refers to movie piraters as "bandits".

Re:Are these the same people? by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-05-09 01:14 · Score: 1

...and also refers to movie piraters as "bandits".

Some bandits wear eyepatches...

--
This guy's the limit!

viruses and quality by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-05-09 01:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm far more concerned about getting slapped with a lawsuit than I am about getting a virus or crappy quality when I download.

--
This guy's the limit!

Re:viruses and quality by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 02:31 · Score: 0

Seriously. I can download 720p and some 1080p HD content now. I don't think quality is a concern. Can you match that, WB?
Re:viruses and quality by fiendy · 2006-05-09 05:30 · Score: 1

I'm not, I live in Canada, and our ISP's told the **AA to go F*$% themselves.

Cost of bandwidth by xiangpeng · 2006-05-09 01:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, I have to pay the same price for the movie, minus the physical media? Shouldn't WB be paying people who are helping to distribute the movie too? Users using this service will have to pay for their bandwidth AND the cost of the movie at the same price of a DVD?

Thanks WB. Wonderful business plan you got there.

--
You must defeat Sheng Long to stand a chance.

Re:Cost of bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:17 · Score: 0

I was wondering the same thing. Essentially WB is selling my bandwidth to other people.

No, I don't think I'll be letting them do that.

--
M
Re:Cost of bandwidth by zxnos · 2006-05-09 01:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

you have to pay for the vehicle and the gas to get to the store. (at least many of us). actually this is a just a ploy. when it flops because fewer people pay full price for less of a product, WB will say: see, that doesnt work, they just want to pirate... i would pay a buck or two to download a movie and watch it. not full, media in my hand price though...
personally, i have received a number of free rentals through movielink. i will never pay for the service because the cost of a rental from them is the same as if i went to my local rental store. i will stick to waiting 2 months and going to the theater 1 mile from my house which only charges a 1.50$ to see a flick... ...and downloading the occasional free movie when the offer is there.

--
always mosh clockwise
Re:Cost of bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 02:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

you have to pay for the vehicle and the gas to get to the store.

But when go to the store to pick up milk does the store then say "here, bring all these things back as well."

I personally refuse on the principle that I refuse to help anothe rliving thing unelss I am compensated, perhaps others have different ideas.
Re:Cost of bandwidth by green1 · 2006-05-09 04:38 · Score: 1

>> I refuse to help anothe rliving thing unelss I am compensated

That is an awful sentiment to have, the world is only made better when we help other people whenever possible. I am quite happy to help another lving being whenever possible HOWEVER there are a few reasons I still refuse:

- companies aren't "living things" they are legal entities that don't even exist except on paper.
- my generosity in helping others ends when they start making a profit off of my generosity, if they are making money off of me, I better get a share of it.

And that doesn't even take in to account the over-priced, under-featured comments made earlier...
Re:Cost of bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 05:23 · Score: 0

Yeah, that was a lie anyway.

I usually go out of my way to help anybody who asks a reasonable request.

Unfortunatly, many people actually live the horrible sentiment I posted above.

It makes me ashamed to be human sometimes.
Re:Cost of bandwidth by DA-MAN · 2006-05-09 06:11 · Score: 1

you have to pay for the vehicle and the gas to get to the store. (at least many of us)

Right, but your analogy is flawed. For it to make sense you'd have to deliver some groceries to a few of the people on your route home for the privilege of buying at the store. In addition, you'd not be allowed to share any food you bought with any of your family in the house, they'd have to buy their own food. And it'd all virtual food that you can't touch, but would cost the same as the more filling regular food.

Come to think of it, this analogy really sucks.

actually this is a just a ploy. when it flops because fewer people pay full price for less of a product, WB will say: see, that doesnt work, they just want to pirate.

Not necessarily. Look at the success of the iTunes music store. Same price as CD + DRM, yet still a success. If the user interface is good, who knows. I think the fact that porn companies are doing downloadable DVD 5/9 for less than the cost of the DVD itself may revolutionize the industry. Remember porn always leads the way.

--
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Re:Cost of bandwidth by sacbhale · 2006-05-09 08:51 · Score: 1

ITMs is not the same price as CD's its a different unit. A CD contains multiple songs. If you count the total it would be same price as CD. You cant do that to a Movie. That would work for DVD's with full seasons of a TV programme maybe. Where you can download one episode at the fraction of the cost of the entire DVD. But it cant be done to movies.
Re:Cost of bandwidth by DA-MAN · 2006-05-09 12:15 · Score: 1

ITMs is not the same price as CD's its a different unit. A CD contains multiple songs. If you count the total it would be same price as CD.

I didn't realize you couldn't click "Buy Album" on iTMS anymore... Thanks for the heads up.

By the way, I compare buying on iTMS to buying a cd because that's what Apple does. Users have called in to Leo Laporte's KFI Tech Guy complaining that they lost their music because they didn't backup. What were they told when they called for support? Buying from iTunes is like buying a cd, lose it and you have to buy again. Doh!

--
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum

Why should Warner Bos have my bandwidth? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:14 · Score: 0

Buggered if I'm going to donate my bandwidth to Warner Bros by using bittorrent with a movie stream they are making money out of.

Poor quality, or... by UnixRevolution · 2006-05-09 01:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Perhaps it'd be worth it to not spend 8 days downloading the Swedish version of Star Wars Ep. I like my friend did, thinking it was english.

--
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.

Re:Poor quality, or... by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-05-09 01:17 · Score: 1, Funny

Meesah think you friend is not so smart. Bork bork bork.

--
This guy's the limit!
Re:Poor quality, or... by cbiltcliffe · 2006-05-09 01:20 · Score: 0

Mey zee Furce-a be-a veet yuoo, bork, bork, bork!

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Poor quality, or... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:45 · Score: 0

Why? the dialog only detracts from the film.
Re:Poor quality, or... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 02:02 · Score: 0

You can survive a bit of Swedish subtitles. The audio is in English.

At least you didn't download a dubbed German copy...
Re:Poor quality, or... by KingGuru · 2006-05-09 03:18 · Score: 1

While your point is still valid, there is not really a "Swedish version" of Star Wars ep.1.
Here in Scandinavia we don't generally dub movies, so the audio track would still be English.
It could have been he downloaded a French, German, Spanish etc. version...

Am I an idiot??? by podRZA · 2006-05-09 01:15 · Score: 1

The article claims pirated videos can "contain viruses." Am I an idiot, or how is this possible? My understanding is that a virus can only be contained in executable code. If the torrent I am using downloads only a single avi or mpg, how can I possibly get a virus from that? I can understand a corrupt download, but a virus?

Re:Am I an idiot??? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:24 · Score: 0

Possibly, "JPEG virus": http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/27/231 9222
Re:Am I an idiot??? by aadvancedGIR · 2006-05-09 01:24 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, there are idiots who download 200kB files named big_film.mpg.exe and have the "hide known file type extension" set.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by Opportunist · 2006-05-09 01:24 · Score: 1

The same way that pirated music can contain rootkit... no wait, that was original music.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by shawb · 2006-05-09 01:25 · Score: 4, Informative

If the media player you use is unsecure, the media file could cause a buffer overrun (or even use innate scripting abilities... remember word macro viruses?) to run "arbitrary code." It's even possible to do this simply viewing a picture...

--
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Re:Am I an idiot??? by KingEomer · 2006-05-09 01:27 · Score: 1

If there is a bug (i.e. potential buffer overflow) in the player, then it is possible for somebody to taylor an image/movie/music file to exploit it.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by JustNiz · 2006-05-09 01:27 · Score: 1

No you're absolutey correct.

WB are blatantly lying in order to con non-techie types into using their service.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by certel · 2006-05-09 01:30 · Score: 1

You know as well as I do that it's just a plot to scare people from downloading movies and music on the internet. Typically, the worst thing that would come of this would be downloading a masked file that is in fact a virus. On the other hand, things like size of the file, name, release group, etc, can all be easily identified. My understanding is that the actual download medium is the worst application to receive any type of virus of malicious code.

--
[%] Cingular Ringtones
Re:Am I an idiot??? by Professor_UNIX · 2006-05-09 01:31 · Score: 5, Informative

The article claims pirated videos can "contain viruses." Am I an idiot, or how is this possible? My understanding is that a virus can only be contained in executable code.
You're not thinking like a Windows user are you? This is the platform that brought us e-mail viruses. E-MAIL VIRUSES for Christ's sake! Who would have thought 10 years ago as we were all laughing at the newbies passing around the Good Times virus hoax chain letter that Microsoft's "innovative" e-mail client Outbreak and Outbreak Express would make it entirely possible to spread very virulent e-mail viruses within a few years? You could get infected without even opening the e-mail message! Ugh. So, do you really trust your Windows PC to not be susceptible to viruses embedded in video streams? I sure don't.
Oh, and as for other platforms, I'd bet you 100 DVD-RWs that the only platform this service will support is Windows.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by user24 · 2006-05-09 01:31 · Score: 1

you can get malicious code from deliberately corrupted files playing in, eg, WMP.
But I.. um.. 'know someone'.. who'se been downloading films for years and I have^H^H^H^H^H^H he has -never- seen either a virus or malicious code in an avi file. This sounds like FUD-mongering on WB's part.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by moro_666 · 2006-05-09 01:39 · Score: 1

i second that, buffer overflows are waiting for you everywhere. decoding an mpeg-4 stream is quite complicated and an easy glitch means that anything can pop up in the memory just about anywhere.

what's even more tempting, if you manage to hack the original file distributed by WB, you'll get virus out to the users at a blasting speed and since nobody encodes it over again as it's done in the illegal movies world, there's no chance to not to be infected. and since they are forced to use the same buggy player for playback, there's no chance for them to escape it that way either.

how are they planning to do this technically anyway, last time i checked the security model of bittorrent was non-existant. if the data will still be fetched from peer hosts as it's done now, the security of the whole thing is a bliss. see the docs of bittorrent's protocol if you find this hard to believe and try to figure out some ways to exploit it. there are possibilities for that.

my bittorrent is fixed to report an upload ratio 10 times bigger than it really is, to the servers. this means around 4 extra characters into a file in the python client "10*(original value)".

--

I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by LurkerXXX · 2006-05-09 01:42 · Score: 1

No he's not. There have been viruse's that took advantage of holes in .jpg viewers and they travel as .jpg files.
Making one that exploits a hole in a common video player would be no more difficult.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by generic-man · 2006-05-09 01:43 · Score: 1

In college I saw a pirated movie in Windows Media format (ASF?) that opened Internet Explorer to a specific web page near the end. If someone crafted a file that opened an exploit page, your system will be compromised.

One solution is to disable Internet connectivity during movie playback, but that seems pretty annoying to me.

--
For more information, click here.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by nincehelser · 2006-05-09 01:53 · Score: 1

Just make an evil executable that has a name that looks like a movie.

Most people will have no idea what an avi or mpg file is. They'll just open the icon and let it run. By the time they figure out it isn't a movie, it will be too late.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by Jessta · 2006-05-09 02:26 · Score: 1

We bred these idiot users. Now we have to deal with them.
When you attempt to remove the need to learn how to use a tool be ready for people to hurt themselves with it. Imagine if people only knew as much as they do about their cars as they do about their computers.

Dangerous roads.

--
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
Re:Am I an idiot??? by animaal · 2006-05-09 02:40 · Score: 1

A movie is typically packaged as an AVI or MPG within a collection of RAR files. There can be a small "runme.exe" or somehting similar packaged alongside the movie file in the RAR archive.

So no, there isn't a virus in the movie itself, but the runme.exe that comes with it can install lots of crap malware onto your machine.
Re:Am I an idiot??? by cowwie · 2006-05-09 02:47 · Score: 1

But, most people DO only know as much about their cars as they do about their computers. You think the typical soccer mom driving along in her Chevy Yukon or Ford Exploder while talking on her cell phone and applying makeup knows how her engine works? You'd be lucky if she knew what the "check oil" light meant. Typical drivers understand how the key goes in the ignition, and what "D" and "R" on their shifter stand for. More and more kids are growing up now with no clue how to drive a straight drive, no clue how to do any standard maintenance on a car, or even how to change a flat tire. "What? Three pedals? OMG! What do I do?" Cars are nothing more than a lazy boy recliner with a funny wheel and some pedals to most people.

Idiot users outnumber us geeks the same way schmucks in SUVs outnumber those of us with a clue or even a desire for knowledge about cars.

i don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:15 · Score: 0

Why would anyone pay almost as much for a drm'd file than a dvd?

New Computers? by mizhi · 2006-05-09 01:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

What about when a person who upgrades their family computer and wants to be able to watch the movies he purchased and backed up? Is he forced to buy another copy of the movie to watch it because his old copy won't play on his new machine? Why should I pay for something that will simply be unusable in 5 years after I upgrade my computer?

Count me out. I'll just stick with DVDs: the price is the same, without the gimping of the product (region codes aside).

--
Humorless sig goes here.

Re:New Computers? by spun · 2006-05-09 02:55 · Score: 1

Anytime the question is "will he be forced to buy a new copy of X," the answer is "yes, if we can get away with it."

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:New Computers? by mizhi · 2006-05-09 03:27 · Score: 1

I would amend that to be "yes, if the market will allow us to get away with it."

--
Humorless sig goes here.

Do they know by Neurotoxic666 · 2006-05-09 01:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Kazaa's era is over?

They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film.

No we won't. Not all of us. People who already download movies illegaly now have access to forums where quality copies are available, feedbacks and comments let people judge if the movie is worth the download, some titles are posted before they're released on DVD, many languages, subs and regions can be found rather easily -- FOR FREE. Of course, there's always the crappy cam or the bad compression here and there. But it's not like you pay much for them either...

I think the industry just missed the boat. If they want "pirates" to use their service instead, they'll need to provide some insentive, which same-as-DVD release date and prices are not.

--
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.

Re:Do they know by Kaellenn · 2006-05-09 02:08 · Score: 1

I don't think they assume that all will convert; TFA even states that they want to convert about 10-15% which is a reasonable goal.

A revolution is coming; but its going to be quiet and slow. However, the new generation of people are tired of getting their content on other people's terms. Look at the popularity of TiVo. Skipping commercials isn't the issue--the issue is getting that content on THEIR terms. The ability to view your favorite programs whenever YOU choose as opposed to whenever the networks choose is what makes the service such a success. The beauty of a digital download is that I can do anything with it; watch, listen, or read whenever I choose, wherever I choose. THAT is the issue here; not simply the ability to download it.

The main issue with this is the restrictions they place on the file. Am I fully willing to pay for content? Some content--if I deem it worth paying for. One day though, the MPAA & RIAA might realize that the reason most people don't want to pay for "their products" is they simply aren't worth the amount of money we are being charged for them.

$19.95 for a DVD? Absolutely not.
$4.95 for a downloadable version?
Sure...but only if I get the same freedoms that I get with a DVD--that is, I can watch it on any DVD-equipped system in my home or anyone elses home for that matter.

I'd pay the money--if they weren't jerking me around in making me do so.

Less content; the same price, and will only play on the computer that downloaded it? I think I'm going to take a pass.
Re:Do they know by dubl-u · 2006-05-09 02:58 · Score: 1

I think the industry just missed the boat. If they want "pirates" to use their service instead, they'll need to provide some insentive, which same-as-DVD release date and prices are not.

I'd bet that they don't care about the pirates. This is a play for the iTunes crowd. A clumsy and slightly retarded play, but still a play.

Bad advertising. by kneeslasher · 2006-05-09 01:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

"...rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film."

Er, I don't know which world divorced from reality the people who came up with this statement live in, but I've (or rather, a friend has) always found that movies downloaded from p2p tend never to contain viruses and are skillfully compressed to preserve good quality.

Why do the content distributors always conflate their offerings? I am sure this pisses a lot of their potential customers off, most of whom would have the rudiments of knowledge on bitrates, DRM, etc. If they instead stated:

"Released at the same time as the DVD (or cinema) release of the film, we offer you "Ice Age 2" as a H264/AAC file of size 1GB. We know the quality is crapper than a DVD and that it comes with DRM, is not a physical object and we are saving tons on the distribution thanks to all you altruistic BitTorrent uploaders. So have it at a tenth of the price of the DVD: $2.",

then I'm sure instead of furiously downloading Ice.Age.2.XviD.DiEtY.1.of.2.avi (or whatever) as soon as the movie comes out, the producers may actually capture a slice of the market.

Re:Bad advertising. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:54 · Score: 0

"I am sure this pisses a lot of their potential customers off, most of whom would have the rudiments of knowledge on bitrates, DRM, etc"

By "potential customers," do you mean "slashdot users?" Because the normal general public doesn't know or care about this stuff.
Re:Bad advertising. by Ilex · 2006-05-09 02:57 · Score: 1

By "potential customers," do you mean "slashdot users?" Because the normal general public doesn't know or care about this stuff.

Yes the people who are going to be interested in downloading movies are going to be more confortable with technology and arn't going to be fooled by this DRM nonsense. The normal general public are still going to buy DVD's.

Maybe a few Joe Six Packs / Suzi SUV's will try to download, then get upset when they can't play it on their new High Def 50" LCD. This will be good as it will raise hostility towards DRM and the MPAA in general.

Worth it for pirates? by Rob+T+Firefly · 2006-05-09 01:21 · Score: 1

I could see this being worthwhile for pirates looking for a digital media file to easily transcode into XVid, if ripping from a DVD still takes just *that* much longer...

--
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned

It's all their fault! by GFPerez · 2006-05-09 01:21 · Score: 2, Funny

"Hey, we sell the DVD for a (*cough*) reasonable price and we offer digital downloads of our content for an (*cough*) excellent price! They pirate our movies because they want to, not because we don't offer a (*cough*) good way to get it!"

Reasonable??? by yakumo.unr · 2006-05-09 01:22 · Score: 1

Honestly, what kind of pipe are they smoking.

Trying online distribution over BT is the way to go if they don't want to come crashing down, BUT what is reasonable about paying the same price for something so crippled, compared to something that isn't, + a nice hard copy, + nice packaging.

especially when this crippled version is costing them next to nothing to distribute.

next thing you know they'll want more money to re download it if your file gets damaged later. and your BOUND to have to pay again if you upgrade/replace your PC so their DRM fails.

whatever DRM system they use will probably not be supported 1-2 years later (new DRM brand Y, no backwards compatability) , and you'll have to think about buying it again then too.

Re:Reasonable??? by hnile_jablko · 2006-05-09 02:24 · Score: 1

Trying online distribution over BT is the way to go if they don't want to come crashing down,BUT what is reasonable about paying the same price for something so crippled, compared to something that isn't, + a nice hard copy, + nice packaging..
I know this is entirely off topic, but when I read this I thought immediately of BT as British Telecom. With that in mind, dealing with BT(the british variety) daily at work and at home, my esoteric experience made me wonder about your sanity when British Telecom is the over priced and crippled product. Sorry for topic drift.. i just need to vent. Please move about your business.

Oops! by Onuma · 2006-05-09 01:22 · Score: 1

They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film.

They are wrong.

--
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?

Re:Oops! by GFPerez · 2006-05-09 01:26 · Score: 1

Sincerely, I don't get. When viruses started to come embedded in a .AVI/.MPG/whatever file?

Destined for Failure by Xesdeeni · 2006-05-09 01:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

The whole using Bittorrent to distribute anything for a profit should be axed by users until they get a cut. No media, no home theater, single machine, no bandwidth, no storage, but the full DVD price!? Yeah, that'll fly.

Xesdeeni

Wonder if the consumers will see through it? by FhnuZoag · 2006-05-09 01:24 · Score: 1

So WB wants to introduce something that cuts costs for them immensely (they aren't even paying for bandwidth, if I'm understanding this correctly), and then decides not to pass this saving onto the consumer. Together with more dubious DRMing, how is this going to terminate the piracy networks? You might as well ask people to buy DVDs and rip them for personal use. (if that isn't illegal yet)

I think it's fairly clear who they are aiming for with this: They are not trying to compete with piracy - no matter what they say in the press releases. Rather, they think it is more profitable for them to simply ignore the computer-literate current filesharers, and market directly towards the new and relatively tech-iliterate users. The pricing point is set to compete with DVDs, and the idea is that people unaware of DRM and so on can be sold on the convenience aspects, and would not dig deeply enough to find the free downloads available elsewhere. The companies can then reap the savings, and everyone is happy and rootkitted.

Re:Wonder if the consumers will see through it? by aadvancedGIR · 2006-05-09 01:38 · Score: 0

If I were (more) computer illiterate, the choice will be even more simple:
*Get the box from the store. Easy, and I'm already going there at least once a week for food and other stuff.
or
*Discover I can download from the net, ask someone to install a torrent client on my PC, fight my fear of pirates and give my credit card number over the internet, wait hours for the downlaod to complete because there will be no-one to seed except WB itself, waste a blank DVD trying to brun it. Another one? No f***ing way!
Re:Wonder if the consumers will see through it? by tinkerghost · 2006-05-09 02:05 · Score: 1

You might as well ask people to buy DVDs and rip them for personal use. (if that isn't illegal yet)
Check out 321 & 123 Copy DVD. Both have been taken to court. If you include a CSS decryption codec in the software for copying DVD's, it's a violation of DCMA - even though the actual copying of the DVD for personal use is legal and validated under 'fair use'.
Nice manuever there - yes, it's legal to make a copy for personal use, but it's not legal to make the software to make the copy. So they get to say that they are not restricting your 'fair use' right to the material, while functionally doing exactly that. I really do admire lawyers, I can barely think 2 diametrically opposed thoughts at the same time, these guys not only think them, they can say them both simultaniously also.

BT as a distribution method by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:26 · Score: 0

Is completly bullshit.

I out and out refuse to pay both the cost of the good I am purchasing as well as the cost of the bandwith. If WB wants me to upload to other users then I will be ahppy to do so when they start to pay my connection costs.

Many ISP's charge extra for more then n GB of data transfer per month. Am I supposed to absorb this cost?

When I pay for something that I am goign to download, be it pr0n, music, movies or what have you, I expect the provider to supply me with a fast download stream and service that is not dependant of how many other users want to see Ashley Blue take on 7 dudes at a time.

ISPs by Detritus · 2006-05-09 01:27 · Score: 1

Ignoring the other issues, what would the big ISPs do if this caught on? I've read numerous reports of people getting harassed by their ISPs for making use of their "unlimited" Internet access. Plus, this competes with their video-on-demand service.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

No, just uneducated. by cbiltcliffe · 2006-05-09 01:28 · Score: 3, Informative

Considering Windows Media Player interprets scripts embedded in video files, they can contain executable code. Then there's always the possibility of buffer overflows within the player code that handles the data part, which turns your data into executable code, and there are probably dozens of other things I haven't thought of off the top of my head, too.

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......

Re:No, just uneducated. by patio11 · 2006-05-09 02:13 · Score: 1

Then there's always "piratedmovie_highquality_rippebyhaxors.mov.exe". Hey, if it works for exploiting folks through email, it will work for exploiting them through p2p networks, via inattentiveness, long file names which make people ignore the extension, or operating systems which are set to hide known extensions by default.

--
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.

Uh, no thanks. by sdo1 · 2006-05-09 01:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Warner added that whether a TV show or feature film, it will only play on the initial computer used to make the download. The downloads will not therefore work on other PCs or standard DVD players.

A small step in the right direction, but no thanks. I'd gladly buy an un-DRM'd file that I can burn to DVD and shrink to put on my ipod.

I require AMP (that's Absolute Media Portability). Can I play it on my non-network connected TV in the bedroom? Can my kids watch it in the car? Can I loan it to my friend? If the answer to any of those is "No", then I'm really not interested. If "Yes", then I'll be VERY interested.

It seems incredibly stupid to me for media companies to waste money on physical distribution when they could be distributing bits. But I requite that I can do the same thing with those bits that I can do with physical media.

-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

Re:Uh, no thanks. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:55 · Score: 0

Remember CSS - they never wanted to let you do any of that with the physical media either. DVD got *really* popular before it was DeCSS'd, which meant they were stuck with it.

They desperately want to supplant DVD with something with new 'uncrackable' DRM.

Since the new HD formats don't really add much value to the typical 'consumer' (unlike DVD as compared to VHS - no rewinding, smaller player, less susceptible to wear and damage, much better quality), it is going to take a LONG time before DVD goes away.

...and they would be right. by camt · 2006-05-09 01:29 · Score: 1

They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film.

And they would be right. However, regarding "reasonable": I do not think it means what they think it means.

This makes no sense by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2006-05-09 01:29 · Score: 1

How can you bittorrent a file that will only play on one machine? Why would people volunteer to share bandwidth and hosting of a file that will not play on THEIR machine? Won't all machines involved in the bittorrent hosting need/want to be able to playback the file? Why should WB expect us to help bear the costs in bandwidth and storage if they're not going to discount the sale to reflect the reduced delivery costs?

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

Re:This makes no sense by yakumo.unr · 2006-05-09 01:37 · Score: 1

yeah, I hadn't paused to think about that, that's a VERY valid point. unless the drm key was stored in just a few file parts, and the rest can be shared? but then I beleive that would be soooooooo easy to crack it would be unworkable. mod parent up!
Re:This makes no sense by Kadin2048 · 2006-05-09 01:59 · Score: 1

This is also being discussed further up in the thread. There seem to be two ways such a system might work (that come to my mind):

1) The file will be transferred unencrypted, and then locked-down on the receiving end by WB's software using a user-specific key. This is stupid, since it's pretty trivial to capture the file in transmission and then you'd have a totally unencrypted copy. Or create a BT client that pretends to be WB's DRM-adding client, but really just writes the file to disk instead. Or, run WB's client inside a virtual machine that actually saves everything that the program writes to memory, to disk, so that you'd get the file before it was encrypted.

2) The file will be encrypted, using a key that doesn't change between users. This is also stupid, since when one user recovers the key, they can then share that key with others, unlocking the file.

I think their strategy has to be something like 1+2+FUD. Their playback software will add user-specific DRM, but the file itself will also be encrypted with a common (per-file) key, and they'll also go out of their way to make the format and software obscure and hard to reverse-engineer.

But anyway, as you, the GP, and others have pointed out, anything using Bittorrent to transfer DRMed content has to be flawed -- even moreso than DRM in general is flawed.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:This makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 02:11 · Score: 0

Doesn't BT require a tracker to keep track of the seeds? It would be trivial to have separate tracking per file and deny access to unregistered IPs
Re:This makes no sense by khedron+the+jester · 2006-05-09 04:19 · Score: 0

DHT. Allows you to get a list of peers when the tracker is down, I believe.

Tell me why I should buy it by Opportunist · 2006-05-09 01:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

1. It costs the same as a DVD.

Getting a DVD requires:
1. Going to the DVD store (10-20 minutes and about a buck for gas)
2. Looking for the DVD I want (5 minutes or 50, depends on whether you enjoy browsing)
3. Grabbing the DVD and paying for it (5 minutes and whatever the thing costs).

Getting the torrent:
1. Going on their webpage, looking for the movie, going through the payment routine etc (15 minutes, a credit card and the amount of dough they want for it)
2. Waiting for 10 hours to DL the thing (plus cost for bandwidth if you're not on a flat, which is quite rare here).

So it takes longer, costs the same (with the difference that I'll need some kind of CC) to get something that I can ONLY play on the machine I DLed on, and if I should decide to kill said machine it's gone, and I can't watch it on the DVD player hooked to the large screen, no, I gotta watch it on the smaller PC screen without good sound and other gizmos...

Again, WB, why should I buy it that way?

Or is it just another attempt to "prove" that nobody would "buy stuff" over torrent and that torrent should be shut down 'cause it's only a pirate tool?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Tell me why I should buy it by cdrudge · 2006-05-09 01:44 · Score: 1

2. Waiting for 10 hours to DL the thing (plus cost for bandwidth if you're not on a flat, which is quite rare here).
Depends on what your and their bandwidth supports. My FiOS connection could download a 4.9GB DVD in under an hour. Presuming that all the bells and whistles didn't come with it and you just got the video and AC3 audio stream, download times are even less.

Most of my movies that I've ripped from my DVDs are in the 1-1.5GB range with AC3 audio. A 3mbit connection is fast enough to download and watch in real time if the file format supported it.
Re:Tell me why I should buy it by Opportunist · 2006-05-09 01:50 · Score: 1

Good in theory, but over here providers started to throttle non-HTTP traffic (which of course they DOOOOONT do, noooooway). It's interesting to see a SCP session putter along at 5kbps to someone hanging on the same provider as you, when he's supposed to have an upload speed of 256kb and that's supposedly the bottleneck in the connection...

It might work in some areas of the world, but most will just laugh at this offer.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Tell me why I should buy it by Achromatic1978 · 2006-05-09 02:20 · Score: 1

My FiOS connection could download a 4.9GB DVD in under an hour.
Just as an aside, I downloaded the Fedora Core 5 DVD ISO, 4.4GB, in 41 minutes, over my cable modem (connected to a wireless router, and over 802.11g. Wee.
Re:Tell me why I should buy it by Frozen+Void · 2006-05-09 04:44 · Score: 1

Routing BT through freenet seems more viable as speed advantage of "unlimited Internet" doesn't stand to his name anymore. I feel only alternative are home FTP servers.
Re:Tell me why I should buy it by mmmiiikkkeee · 2006-05-09 15:43 · Score: 0

"Waiting for 10 hours to DL the thing (plus cost for bandwidth if you're not on a flat, which is quite rare here)."

well thats not exactly true.... u can do other things while a file dls..... but u cant do much while ur driving to teh store to buy a movie.... some people dont like to leave there house too....but other then that i agree with ur point... and this service is nto for me(and i cont think of many people it will be for)

No use to me. by MartinG · 2006-05-09 01:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is no use to me. What I want is simple:

My preferred movie characterastics (in order of priority)

1) No (or easily circumventable) DRM.
2) Legal.
3) High quality.
4) Cheap.

This matches 2 and 3, but misses my number 1 priority.

The best match so far is a DVD, since its easy to bypass the DRM in order to copy the movies onto my home built media devices. Other times I end up downloading the odd movie which fulfils 1, 4, and often 3 as well.

Currently for many downloading is the best option by far, which is unfortunate because of its questionable legality. If only the industry would lower the price and remove the DRM it would match all four for me and I would be jumping at it. I think they are just too scared and/or greedy to do that though.

--
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu

Re:No use to me. by cryfreedomlove · 2006-05-09 02:14 · Score: 1

MartinG,

What you want is already within your grasp. Why don't you just make a movie that millions of people want to see and then release it in the model that you just laid out? In that world, everyone is making voluntary choices. You released your film your way and Warner Bros releases their film their way. The consumers are free to weigh all of these factors when making their choice.

Go for it. What's stopping you?
Re:No use to me. by MartinG · 2006-05-09 02:37 · Score: 1

I'm already trying to do that in other areas (software) and time doesn't permit me to do everything.

Besides, everyone is already making voluntary choices and I'm already weighing all of the factors (as outlined in my OP)

I was just laying out how those choices could be mutually beneficial, that's all. I won't buy movies with DRM (that actually works) in the same way I won't buy CDs with DRM. Most CDs don't have DRM and they sell just fine. If it's one of those crippled CDs with DRM on that I can't use on my PC and mp3 player, I'll just download instead and risk being litigated against as a result. That's another weighed up choice I have made.

--
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu

So Let's Just Think About This A Moment... by pandrijeczko · 2006-05-09 01:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Warner Brothers want *me* to pay *them* to download a DRM-enabled movie via BitTorrent.

And presumably whilst I'm downloading that movie via BitTorrent, I am also using some of the bandwidth I *pay* to rent from my ISP to *upload* part of the same movie to *other* users who are downloading the movie but have *paid* Warner Brothers for the privelige.

Okay, so maybe I'm missing something and there's a possible explanation for this:

1. The author of the article has omitted to mention that Warner Brothers will pay me with cash or stock options as the result of my contributing my resources to their film distribution network.

2. Warner Brothers are on mind-expanding drugs.

3. I am on mind-expanding drugs.

4. According to some ancient Incan calendar system, yesterday was March 31st making today April Fool's Day.

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.

Re:So Let's Just Think About This A Moment... by codefool · 2006-05-09 01:56 · Score: 1

Every point you've made is valid, but, at least this is a step in the right direction. Of course, who would pay the DVD price for a download version with DRM, when the costs of doing so is so much higher (bandwidth costs, computing costs, time). When the market complains that they want the service/product but with some adjustments (lower price, multiple runs), then the business model should change. If not, it will die. Such is economics.

--
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
Re:So Let's Just Think About This A Moment... by Skythe · 2006-05-09 02:21 · Score: 1

They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film.

Whoever came up with this notion must be rather insane. I don't really know anyone who knows or cares about the legal reprercussions of illegally downloading. Heck, getting caught illegally downloading would be analogous to winning the lotto. Only, some sort of crazy illegal anti-lottery where winning earns you a permanent deportation to soviet russia.
If companies like Warner want to win the heart of consumers, they should be concentrating on things like ease-of-use and easy payment. Pretty sure my grandma would have trouble figuring out how to download a BT client, finding a site to download .torrent files, installing and opening the client and finally downloading the file. Conversely, i don't have a credit card, nor do i live in America, and so downloading an mp3 is even easier than organising a direct deposit transaction online over ebay. It would be far easier for me to download a hypothetical BT movie than use one of the upcoming movie-pay-download services. It shouldn't be that hard. If the movie industry can bridge gaps like these so that they are easier for the consumer, then maybe they can win into the hearts of the average joe and the 17 year old without a credit card. I think it would be rather challenging for movie companies to win over the upcoming computer-generation from their downloading, but there is a significant niche market (example: my computer illiterate parents) that they could potentially buy into.
Re:So Let's Just Think About This A Moment... by Tim+C · 2006-05-09 04:46 · Score: 1

Well of course, the justification will be that you are in fact being paid in kind, by the reduction in price of the movie.

Of course, while the overall bandwidth costs for a centralised movie download service would be significant, cost per movie would not...

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:So Let's Just Think About This A Moment... by shark72 · 2006-05-09 05:36 · Score: 1

It's much simpler than that: you're just not in their target market.

I'm guessing you have no problem with either (a) just helping yourself to a pirated copy of the same movie, or (b) driving to the store, or (c) just rending the DVD from Netflix. That's perfectly fine -- but not everybody is like you. Maybe they have an issue with piracy, their nearest DVD store sucks or is too far away, or they like to have films on demand, and not gated by when a particular DVD makes its way to them via mail.

There's room for both types of people -- and many more -- in this world.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:So Let's Just Think About This A Moment... by Kuvter · 2006-05-09 07:19 · Score: 1

I could only see this working if you got a fraction of the profits when another customer used your copy/bandwidth to DL the movie. If that was the case and you had enough people DL it from you, you now effectively get the movie for free.

--
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
Re:So Let's Just Think About This A Moment... by pandrijeczko · 2006-05-09 19:09 · Score: 1

I have NEVER downloaded a pirate copy of any movie and have used BitTorrent for about a day before I realised what a slow, overrated piece of crap it actually is. Wrong on one count.
I am not a member of any movie rental company, haven't been for the past 10 years or so and have no intentions of being a member. That's simply because I refuse to pay good money for cable and satellite TV just to have Sky throw adverts at me every 10 minutes or so. Consequently, the money I don't spend on rentals or TV allows me to buy a lot more DVDs - I buy them as cheaply as possible, keep the good ones in my collection and sell on the ones I don't want to keep on eBay. That's my system but if people like movie rentals then that's fine by me. So wrong on two counts.
If you'd have read my post correctly in the first place, you'd have seen I was actually asking the question "Why should I hand over my bandwidth on my broadband connection simply to fill Warner Brothers coffers?"
As far as I'm concerned, the RIAA and the MPAA are the devil, the price-fixing movie and record companies are the devil's assistants and software/music/film pirates are the scum of the earth for giving the rest of them the excuse to limit my personal freedoms in using the products I legally buy in any way I see fit.
I just happen to be a discerning customer, that's all - I check before I buy anything and if I consider an item to be overpriced, I don't buy it, it's that simple. However, at the same time I have a legal collection of over 500 DVDs and 800 CDs - and that's no lie.
So if people want to download movies then great, go for it! But please remember the billions of profit the movie industry combined makes in a year and ask yourself whether you want to pay for a downloaded movie *AND* pay for your broadband connection only to have it become part of Warner Brother's movie distribution network.

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Re:So Let's Just Think About This A Moment... by pandrijeczko · 2006-05-09 19:14 · Score: 1

It's much simpler than that: you're just not in their target market.
Target market = bunch of suckers.
And you're right - I'm no sucker.

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.

Yes, yes you are ... by everphilski · 2006-05-09 01:34 · Score: 1

I guess... Here is a link. WMV files can contain scripting for podcasts and stuff, and can be abused. That's the the easy way. If you were hardcore you'd make a video file that would perform a buffer overflow and infect your target that way...

Windows Only, Again by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 01:35 · Score: 0

So, Windows only, just like CinemaNow and MovieLink. Grand; this is Microsoft's dream come true. They gave Hollywood the strong DRM they wanted, and Hollywood responded. If people actually have a good response to these services, that presents a problem for Mac and Linux users.

I'm far from an expert on antitrust law, but if Windows becomes a defacto platform for downloaded movies, does that mean they'll be required to allow third parties to implement their DRM algorithms?

The current experiment doesn't much concern me, because just buying a DVD is much better value. But if prices drop to the point where customers take notice, Microsoft wins again.

Wonder if this is part of a legal strategy? by Txiasaeia · 2006-05-09 01:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wonder if this is part of a legal strategy on Warner's part. They offer movie downloads at the same price as retail DVDs. Then, after a few months, they start to sue pirates who "illegally" download Warner films: "My client offered digital downloads, your honour, but the defendent continued to illegally download bootleg copies of Harry Potter 4. Since he had the choice to legally purchase and download this film, he should definitely be found guilty."

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.

Re:Wonder if this is part of a legal strategy? by xmorg · 2006-05-09 01:55 · Score: 1

That may be true, but this is something that they should have done a long time ago. The industries are slow at innovation, they want to just keep doing things the same way and get a constant, easy stream of money.

I think I would pay for it provided...
- I actually get a fast kps, with lots of peers.
- the file is encoded in a *GOOD* format that is playable ins something other than windows media player.
- DRM alert!!!! See above, if I cant play it on a player of choice, or back it up on a personal DVD, then you might as well buy a DVD.
Re:Wonder if this is part of a legal strategy? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2006-05-09 04:04 · Score: 1

That was my first though too, but when you think about it, it's not necessary. The laws currently support any suit they want to bring, as long as they can prove someone illegally downloaded. Why go through the time and expense of this charade, when they can already make their case?

Re: by Vexorian · 2006-05-09 01:39 · Score: 1

even if the costs are the same between buying the DVD and downloading it. Downloading it would save you the shipping costs and time which can be really high for some countries

--

Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"

What they should do by g0bshiTe · 2006-05-09 01:39 · Score: 1

is to buy stock in a hd manufacturer and lower the prices on thier downloads, this way they could make up the difference via the harddrive shares from all the space people will need from 4 gig movie files.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!

who will seed? by a_greer2005 · 2006-05-09 01:42 · Score: 1

If it costs me the same as a DVD, I sure as holy hell will not seed it! make it $5 and I may seed for a few hours.

Wow. The clue meter is reading zero. by WidescreenFreak · 2006-05-09 01:49 · Score: 1

Okay, some of these have already been covered, but there are a few others of my own to throw in.

Which version? Widescreen or pan-and-scan ... sorry ... "full screen"? Most likely pan-and-scan ... sorry ... "full screen". No freakin' thanks.
DD 5.1? Probably not.
Extras? Behind the scenes? Highly doubtful.
Separate audio tracks for director's and cast commentaries? Not.
Subtitles for those who need them? Nope.
Portable to other players? Ah. DRM. Nevermind.
Burn your own DVD from the image? Not until a hack, huh?
DVD resolution? Possibly, but I'm not holding my breath.

So ... I'm getting a fraction of a DVD's normal content most likely in pan-and-scan ... sorry .. "full screen" without DD 5.1, behind-the-scenes, or separate audio tracks for the cost of a regular DVD that I can then watch in every player that I own. And exactly how is this a better alternative to a DVD?

--
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.

Geez, why even bother.... by billybob · 2006-05-09 01:49 · Score: 1

What a joke, I don't see them selling a single freaking copy with that kind of plan. If they want to offer a serious alternative to illegal downloading, there need to be very compelling reasons... instead they choose to price them the same as DVD's, but you can do WAY less with them, and you can't get them any earlier than normal DVD release date. Wow, sure to a hit guys! Way to be on top of the times!

They need to remember they're competing with FREE. If the downloads were $5 max, or if you were able to burn them to a DVD and they would play in any player, either of those might give them a decent chance. As is, this is a sure failure.

--
Joseph?

What about non-Windows OSes? by Jotii · 2006-05-09 01:50 · Score: 1

XINE and other movie players for *NIX seem to have problems with certain codecs and DRM. Will they really release movies playable on all OSes?

--
[sig]

Re:What about non-Windows OSes? by Ilgaz · 2006-05-09 02:53 · Score: 1

If they don't use Real Networks or Quicktime frameworks and use Windows Media, it will be naturally "anti non windows". Yes, includes OS X (Mac) since windows media for OS X is _DEAD_., there is excellently coded telestream, flip4mac 3rd party tool (qt codec set) but there won't be a new version of windows media player for OS X. Period.

I am afraid they will use windows media since that pathetic, dead start crap costing billions to Microsoft loves to get popularity like that. Being "only option" you know.

Dear MSFT media division: Invent something. Everyone out there are inventing something. They try hard to get chosen by customer/media company by their features. Not by inking "exclusive" "only format" deals with dotcoms and media companies.

They are right of course by Walles · 2006-05-09 01:52 · Score: 1

Of course "movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film".

But since Warner's opinion about what "reasonable" means may or may not match the market's opinion, the statement is pointless. But correct.

--
Installed the Bubblemon yet?

Studio's Fear Factor by Super+Dave+Osbourne · 2006-05-09 01:52 · Score: 1

The inclusion of a 'sample.avi' in bittorrent packages, with checksum verification and the torrent sites that 'Hose' or 'Nuke' packages that are poor quality or contain virus along with all the people who DL/Seed these files, pretty much guarentee a level of quality that will be equal or surpass that of any Film Studio releases. Someone doesn't have to DL the entire package, just the sample, see the .nfo files, and determine if they want to DL the entire .torrent package. I find it funny that nobody even mentioned the possibility of prosecution as a result of using BitTorrent for illegal or shoddy quality DL/Seeding. It seems anonimity on BitTorrent is pretty much a foregone conclusion, and the studios are in deep deep kaka regarding their play-it-like-an-osterich approach to new tech and distribution channels. BT is wonderful, convenient and the studios had better get on with their reality check sooner than later.

This is certainly not secure by Jotii · 2006-05-09 01:53 · Score: 1

Is there any way to stop users from redirecting the out-stream and saving the movie in another file?

--
[sig]

Linking forums, quality releases by eimikion · 2006-05-09 01:55 · Score: 1

You should try downloading only files published on popular torrent or ed2k sites. With proper hash identifier and its reviews from people who downloaded it already, there is no chance to download fake or corrupt files.

For torrents, try http://thepiratebay.org/
For ed2k, try http://www.osloskop.net/ or http://superesel.de/

Gahhhhhhhhhh! by Utini · 2006-05-09 01:57 · Score: 1

Another day, another bad idea from the greedy morons in "power". Here is my quick and easy solution to eliminate piracy once and for all: LOWER YOUR PRICES!!! It really would be THAT simple.

No by Rinisari · 2006-05-09 01:57 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but if they expect you to pay USD ~$15, they'd better have the servers and bandwidth for direct downloads. BitTorrent is supposed to save money so that people can publish things ultra-cheaply, not make me have to leech off my peers to get what I want.

--
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM

Let's see... by CharonX · 2006-05-09 01:57 · Score: 1

You can only play it on one PC - unlike the DVD which you can play wherever you want.
You cannot sell it after you have seen it - unlike the DVD which can, or give away as a gift, etc.
You have to "share" you bandwith, so with a slow upload it can take hours or days to finish - instead of a quick drive to the next shop
You have to pay the same amount of money - for less product (see above)

WHY would I buy it then? If I want to be honest, I get more if I just skip all the hassle and buy the DVD, if I don't care, I'll still grab it from one of the countless torrent sites...

--
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++

looks like a classic example... by spacemanspiff18 · 2006-05-09 01:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sometimes the most effective way to oppose is to publicly support in a format in which is likely to fail. You see this in all kind of political arenas. Seems like WB is just adding another example to the list.

Quality of service: it's not iTunes by goombah99 · 2006-05-09 02:02 · Score: 1

I know you were joking but you have a serious point. iTunes succeeded because of the quality of service. You could easily find massive (massive!) numbers of songs, with precise documentation, preview them at high quality, and then buy and download them in a snap without a single surpise. Outside of concentrated areas like univeristies, The filesharing community could not match that quality of service. The reason for this is probably due to two things first the catalog is so large, and the immatrutity of the bit torrent like networks at the time.

With movies and the more mature bit torrent this all changes. First there are not that many profitable movies out at any given time. Older movies don't retain their value like older songs do so the catalog of interest to the studios at any given time is smaller and more vulnerable. Because the number of movies of interest to viewers is so concentrated it makes it very easy to have a critical mass of bit torrent.

By critical mass I mean a community of peers sufficient to saturate your inbound or outbound transfer rates. Once you saturate those, then the studios themselves cannot compete on the basis of "ease of download" since they cannot possibly offer a superior network. COntrast this to audio recorndings where it was quite difficult to get a high download rate or even locate peers for every song of interest.

Moreover, right now the quality of movies being sent out is pretty much near maximal. That is when MPEG2 movies are being sent they generally sent as 4 gig movies due to the desire to place them on single layer DVD. The demand for 9 gig movies is almost non existant, not because of the donwload speed but because of this stoarage issue. The Studio's will face the same constraint so it's hard to see how they can offer any better quality than ripped movies can.

thus unlike itunes. It's hard to understand how the movie studio's will have an edge here.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

You forgot by bigmouth_strikes · 2006-05-09 02:03 · Score: 1

4. Going back home

Seriously, it is easy to see the convenience in not having to go to the DVD store and still have a copy of the movie in a fairly short time. You can actually carry on with your regular life while the movie is downloading, while going to the store practially wastes an hour of your time.

I say it's a terrific idea, even at the price. Illegal downloaders would probably not pay for legal downloads even if prices were 1/2 of DVDs. Lower than that, the studios don't make much money plus they set a dangerous precedent for upcoming DVD downloads.

--
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true

Re:You forgot by y0bailey · 2006-05-09 03:06 · Score: 1

Are you telling me you don't pass 1000 stores that sell the DVD you want on your way to work or to the grocery store or to get gas? Unless you are a hermit I don't see that happening. I really hope this and all DRM riddled crap burns in flames. I have yet to purchase a DRM infested anything in my entire life. Personally I like putting my purchased DVD's on my MCE computer in my room, and leaving a copy on the shelf to watch in my living room. (I still can't figure out if this is techincally "illegal," but I don't give a shit). Take away my ability to do that, take away one DVD sale.
Re:You forgot by bigmouth_strikes · 2006-05-09 05:23 · Score: 1

> Are you telling me you don't pass 1000 stores that sell the DVD you want on your way to work or to the grocery store or to get gas?

I don't pass a single store let alone 1000 on my way to work, that have movies I'm prepared to pay for. Same goes for the gas station and the grocery store. I'm a bit particular about what I watch, and my selection does rarely include major MPAA member releases.

--
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true

Too little too late. by Blimey85 · 2006-05-09 02:03 · Score: 1

If the movie studios would have ran with this tech a few years ago, they might not be trying to play catch up today. What they are now competing with is a free service, albeit an illegal service but that's not stopping most of us, that provides movies not long after they are in theaters. Sometimes the quality is great and most often it's pretty lousy but it's good enough in most cases that I no longer have much incentive to shell out my hard earned cash to see the film in a theater.

If the studios want my money, they need to give me a high quality version within maybe two weeks of the film hitting theaters. Make it the same day and I'll be willing to pay just a bit more. I would pay $20 to download a dvd rip quality copy of the film from a fast server within a couple weeks of the films release. But that's not what they are offering. They are making us wait until the dvd release date and then trying to sell us something that is less useful than the dvd for the same amount of money. If I buy the dvd I can watch the film and then loan it to friends and family. With this since it can only be used on one computer, it's rather useless beyond the initial viewing. I can't even then copy it to my laptop to take with me on business trips.

This "experiment" will ultimately fail and the studios will think it's because we aren't willing to pay anything. Yes we are willing to pay but $9.50 per head at a theater and then ripping us off on snacks and beverages is just too much. Make it $5 or $6 a head and cut food prices in half and I'd damn near live at the theater watching a lot of movies.

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?

Re:Too little too late. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 02:29 · Score: 0

I don't understand the logic that while $8 is too much to pay to see a movie, it's worth risking a several hundred thousand dollar lawsuit to download it for free.

Also, the studios are not making money on snacks at the theatres. The theatre owners are. In fact, that's probably where they rake in most of their profits. Wear a big coat and bring your own if you can't sit for 2-3 hours without food or drink.
Re:Too little too late. by catprog · 2006-05-09 03:16 · Score: 1

well if the fine was a million and only one out of 125,000 people were caught then the same amount of money would be spent. But you settle out of court for 60,000 (i think thats the current rate) so the ratio is only 12,500 people.

--
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st

Peer Impact by microbrewer · 2006-05-09 02:07 · Score: 1

Wurld Media's Peer Impact has the bussiness model that you guys are asking for .

If you re-distribute content on the Peer impact network you recive a system credit for your contributed upload bandwidth .Peer Impact will soon have Movies and Video from NBC\Universal for rent and sale . Peer Impact sells games and music from the major lables and indies .They currently only support Windows but may in the future a web based client of thier service .

http://www.peerimpact.com/

I'll stick with USENET, thanks by oDDmON+oUT · 2006-05-09 02:07 · Score: 1

At least until they legislate *that* out of existence.

--
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.

Re:I'll stick with USENET, thanks by bmalia · 2006-05-09 02:35 · Score: 1

[mind control]There is no usenet.[/mind control]

--
There's no place like ~/

This helps the fight for Net Neutrality by tlabetti · 2006-05-09 02:10 · Score: 1

As much as you might want federal regulations to be put in place to ensure Net Neutrality, moves like this by content companies may do more than 100 savetheinternet.com's combined.

Would a telco restrict bandwidth for bittorent if the content providers start using bittorrent for real distribution? I don't think they would want to butt heads with Warner because that might jeopardize the telco's access to Warner's content; which the telco will need for their IPTV cable service.

So moves like this may well protect bittorent traffic from falling victim Tiered Access plans.

I still think a good way to address Net Neutrality is to raise the question during your local town hall hearings on granting AT&T or Verizon a local cable franchise. I'm doing that in my town: http://www.redbanktv.org/ and I encourage you to do so in your town.

GOOD!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 02:11 · Score: 0

I don't feel compelled to buy current DVD offerings and DRM is simply unacceptable, I probably would be annoyed at being marginalized if hollywood was producing films that were worth watching.

Look at this way; we are being deprived of the ability to suffer both hollywood movies and DRM. That's a win-win in my book :-)

maybe it would be like mobile phone DRM by TobascoKid · 2006-05-09 02:11 · Score: 1

I was reading up on DRM for mobile phones, and one of the use cases involved the ability for users to send downloaded DRM'd content to other users, so that when user A sends a file to user B, user B's phone contacts the the rights owner and get's a key. It's called "Super Distribution"

So it could work like that - but I always thought that the only way that was in any way secure was that phones are fairly locked down compared to a PC.

Details of mobile phone drm can be found here

--
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.

Re:maybe it would be like mobile phone DRM by Kadin2048 · 2006-05-09 04:44 · Score: 1

Makes sense, but you're right, that only works on a locked-down platform: otherwise why couldn't user A just send user B both the encrypted file and the key? That way user B wouldn't have to call the rights-controller in order to get the key (which has to be the same as the one user A has), and nobody ever knows that the transfer occured.

I'm sure such a system is exactly what WB or Vivendi would like to have -- they don't have to do any work besides supply the key in trade for money (not even much bandwidth) -- and I'm sure we'll see more crap like that once the Trusted Computing model becomes reality. I don't think that it's practical right now on a PC-based system, though.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

media for dummies by cvos · 2006-05-09 02:13 · Score: 1

brilliant. charge people for content and use their resources for distribution. cost=$0 It allows Hollywood to simultaneously sue and co-opt network resources of their consumers. this has become the case of foot in mouth disease and having your cake and eating it too.

--
I'm just here for the sigs

Insights into how? Was "one machine" by fair_n_hite_451 · 2006-05-09 02:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

As I'm currently pricing out the "every couple of years" computer upgrade, it's on my mind to wonder how they might enforce this?

It would really bite if I lost the ability to play content I'd actually purchased over BT just because I upgraded to a newer box.
The article is deathly light on any sort of details on how the technical aspects of that kind of content protection might be done.

And yes, before everyone chimes in, I KNOW that they'd like me to buy it every time I upgraded my PC ... but that's not what I'm wondering here.

--
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."

Competency test by operagost · 2006-05-09 02:18 · Score: 1

They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses

Anyone dumb enough to EXECUTE a video file shouldn't be playing with P2P software.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

== Cost of full price DVDs by leenoble_uk · 2006-05-09 02:19 · Score: 1

I don't understand people who pay full price for DVDs. You either have too much money or too little sense. If you're just prepared to wait a couple of months then half price deals will be the norm, a few months after that you'll find all sorts of 4 for £20 deals or you can scrabble around in the bargain bin. The price of a movie is no reflection on the quality, in fact very often the converse is true as the drones tend not to buy intelligent films anyway. Any download price would have to compete with bargain bin prices to be even remotely viable in my eyes.

If everyone refused to pay the initial high prices for DVDs then the price would have to come down.

Re:== Cost of full price DVDs by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 05:02 · Score: 0

ACs started modded out of sight but... ...that works fine for average movies. The problem arises when you want something special or out of the mainstream. For instance, the coming original Star Wars set that'll only be out for a couple months or anime or special editions (real special editions, not release day hyping). Then you're kindof fucked, you either pay now or do without.

I'd love for anime to come down in price but I think the overall quality is a very fair tradeoff. Yes, you only get 2-5 episodes per disc but they're better encoded, single sided, less invasive DRM, no forced previews, and come in full sized plastic cases. I'm sick of the damaged-out-of-the-box, double sided, thin/snapped cased "collector edition" DVDs with 19 episodes that'd embarass VCD pirates and make the 2600 look Hi-Def that every other major studio keeps dumping on our shelves.

New idea for WB by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 02:20 · Score: 0

Warner Bros should become a freakin rls group. And release their material according to the TDX rules... then we could all nuke their releases.

I mean how stupid do you have to be to buy one of their online movies???
As a pirate, I personally wouldn't have seen 85% of the movies I have downloaded, if I had to pay for them. And on the other hand, I am not interested in helping the movie companies out in any way! If there is a movie I like,a nd wanna support by buying it, it's because of the director, and not the movie company!

HAIL TO THE SCENE - WE WILL NEVER DIE!

crap junk trash get lost by l3v1 · 2006-05-09 02:20 · Score: 1

the pricing is set to be about the same as the DVD, even though the download will only become available at the same time as the DVD

Now come on... I always knew some really short minded people have to drive MPAA and the like, but now I have to change my opinion since these guys seem to be even more behind.

At the same time as DVD ? At the same price ?

Why the hell would I buy a digital resctiction managed copy when I can buy the real disk at the same price ? No way, sir, no way.

Such download-selling solutions would be good only if
- the downloadable videos/movies are ahead of disk releases (not a day, but months),
- the downloadables are not released on disks anymore,
- the downloadables are different versions in content than those on the disks, or have more content (more extras, etc.),
- the doanloadables are different in definition/resolution/encoding than the disk versions,
- the downloadables are different in DRestrictionM than the disk versions.

No other way would I care.

--
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

Not sure thats its token by bensch128 · 2006-05-09 02:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hummm, I'm not sure that its a token gesture.

If the studios offerred the movies at $1.50 and it only played on WMP, I'm sure 80-90% of computer users would be satisfied with the deal. People get their cheap entertainment without spending hours online trying to find a good/downloadable version.

Cheers,
Ben

PS. Hell, I'd go for it if it played on linux. Finding downloadable stuff on bittorrent is a real pain in the ass nowadays.

Re:Not sure thats its token by c6gunner · 2006-05-09 02:29 · Score: 1

Except they're NOT offering it for $1.50 and are instead charging pretty much the price of a regular DVD. Therefore it IS just a token gesture. People who download movies online don't do it because they're allergic to physical DVD media - they do it because the damn things are massively overpriced.
Re:Not sure thats its token by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 03:47 · Score: 0

I NEVER pay more than £10 for a DVD-Video, and I've had some as cheap as £3.99. Same for CD-Audio. The truth of the matter is that both audio and video now cost less IN REAL TERMS than they ever have for better TECHNICAL quality. Sell-through VHS movies used to cost over £10 15 years ago, and CDs cost even more 25 years ago.

We've never had it so good, and that's ignoring the TONS of content available for free with a little effort via P2P. If Warner made 1080P movie content available online for £10 per movie, I'd be all over it - AS LONG AS THE QUALITY WAS GOOD.
Re:Not sure thats its token by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 10:26 · Score: 0

> Finding downloadable stuff on bittorrent is a real pain in the ass nowadays.\

What?

1) thepiratebay.org
2) isohunt.com

Huge tv show collections in single files, all latest movies before they are even out in cinema in the UK, a lot of audio encoded losslessly. It's never been easier!
Re:Not sure thats its token by skiddie · 2006-05-09 10:53 · Score: 1

People who download movies online don't do it because they're allergic to physical DVD media - they do it because the damn things are massively overpriced.
I don't know about that-- I download movies for a mixture of the two reasons-- firstly, buying movies would be extremely expensive (so I would cut back on consumption), but that's a different matter. I just don't have any need at all for physical media. I have a TV, but it's smaller than my computer monitor and it has no inputs other than the cable (ie, no VHS or DVD player). The DVD player on my computer is not in great shape (it has crapped out on me in the middle of a few movies-- I never have finished the Godfather for that reason) and I see no reason to involve an additional mechanical component to the movie-watching process if there doesn't need to be one. Additionally of course, when I leave my desktop behind and travel with my laptop, why should I have to choose which movies to bring with me if I can carry them all on the laptop?
To sum up, I have bandwidth and hard-drive space, but I don't have physical space to keep media or the means to effectively watch it. As I see it, the cost of bandwidth and hard-drive space is only going down, and so more and more people will be in my situation.
For me, illegally downloading provides a far superior product than legally purchasing movies-- even when cost is no consideration. Until the movie studios realize that (and it sounds like they may soon) why should I buy a movie?
Re:Not sure thats its token by bensch128 · 2006-05-11 02:57 · Score: 1

I still have problems:
1) if Im trying to find rare stuff (The Prisoner, Specific TV episodes, Gundam stardust memories), the search sites mostly suck. Sure, they're better then nothing but they still mostly suck. I'd pay money for access to rare stuff.
Maybe $2-5/episido.
2) Even if I find the stuff I want, it's a pain in the ass to get it (several days to download a 1GB movie) and then sometimes it's even the wrong thing. Like a movie mismarked and turns out to be crappy porn instead of a hollywood flick.

What really pisses me off is getting a huge movie almost downloaded and then it's impossible to get recoonected to the peers. It's like they're suddenly all gone. I suspect a honeypot scheme by the MPAA where bt peers offer premium downloads and then drop you as soon you've downloaded 50-70% of the files. Another one is not being able to contact the peers at all.

i think it's easy to dl stuff on bt but its even easier to mess with the protocol and mess up the peers.
Cheers,
Ben

I can think of a few reasons by Comboman · 2006-05-09 02:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why would anyone pay almost as much for a drm'd file than a dvd?

I can think of a few reasons (unfortunately Warner Bros does not appear to be implementing any of them):

The DRMed file is released before the DVD
The DRMed file is in a high resolution format
The cost of the download is refunded if you decide to buy the physical DVD
You get a rebate for seeding the file to others
The DRMed file contains additional content not available on DVD

There's lots of things they could do to add value to the downloaded file (even with DRM) but the whole scheme seems to be set up with the intention to fail so they can say "we tried, but people just want to steal from us".

--
Support Right To Repair Legislation.

Play on one machine.... by Thrymm · 2006-05-09 02:38 · Score: 1

Playing on one machine, for the same price as a dvd? I think I will pass.... We all have to reformat from time to time, and sometimes forget to back up data or miss some important info... Unless the utilities out there that can convert the files into dvd format arent hindered so that I can burn it to a dvd, then buying the movie off bittorent isnt for me. I can buy a dvd in the store and play it on any player and not just mine alone.

Let the people who like to buy buy DVDS by Twillerror · 2006-05-09 02:41 · Score: 1

I'm a huge fan of the DVD and CD. I don't buy as much as I used to, mostly because the movies as of late have been sucking wind. It is funny for someone like me who is a proffesional developer and has been playing with computers since I was 12 would be so against them as a distribution model for content, but I am.

People are going to pirate, no point in trying to stop it. But most of us want the to buy, for many reasons. We also want to be treated fairly. This is when the masses start to pirate. Why should I pay full price for an 80's CD that has already sold 20 million copies. Computer games go down in price as they age, why don't CDs. Funny enough DVDs have become cheaper then CDs and the bargain bin at best buy always has someone buying that 7.99 copy of Duece Bigalow.

What I want is a set top box that I can place my DVD into once and have it play it over and over. If it breaks, I buy another, dust off the DVD, put it back in and have it play once more. I don't care about art work or some fancy menu, I just want to pull up my movies whenever I want them in real time.

Now comes in the problem of NetFlix movies and borrowing the friends. There is no real way to stop this from being ripped, but why should they care. They got their fee from netflix, they know the demographic of the person who watched the film, and they might get someone to rent another one of their movies from that actor or such.

And Netflix does allow the user to buy the DVD. To me Netflix is the new cinema, and the industry should get behind it. I wouldn't mind paying an extra 1 or 2 dollars on top of my Netflix fee for a movie that is brand new. If the industry does want to sell dvds early, just sell them for a bit more. Sell a brand new dvd for the 25.99 price, and then drop it to 199.99 6 months later. This might seem like a lot of money to throw away, but remember that a ticket to a movie is around 10 bucks and popcorn, gas, sometimes parking, etc. Last time I went I ended up spending over 2

People often want their Tivos to burn to DVD and such. Even though I think it'd be great, I think it is not the best model. We need to work together here to make this market work. One thing we can give up are machine that copy things. Can someone hack the Tivo harddrive anyways, yes, let them, if the authorities comes in your house for some other reason and catches you, go to jail or pay a modest fine. Jail time seems extreme, but a 10,000 dollar fine you have to pay over a period of time will make people think twice. We need a reasonable system so that it can be enforced in the courts.

We have this for music, the MP3 player. The problem with music these days are the CDs are overpriced, and the music is garbage unless your a 15 year old girl. Yes there are still good bands out there, but most of the time I just want to listen to it a few times. Napster is doing a pretty good job of this, is it rippable easily, yep, but I'm not doing that. What I'd like from Itunes and others stores is to send you your music on a burned CD every month or when it changes. Then we can buy online, download, and have a hard copy backup in the future.

Hopefully the entertainment industry can come together on this one. I feel bad for the cinemas, but I think like bowling alleys we will just have less of them, and they'll give you a copy of the DVD when you leave.

I won't pay the same price for an inferior product by maillemaker · 2006-05-09 02:41 · Score: 1

I will not pay the same price as a regular DVD for an inferior product. First of all, the downloaded version should cost less because there is no physical item to be manufactured. Second of all, it should be functionally equivalent to a DVD. Instead, it is functionally inferior to a DVD, thus it should, again, cost less than a DVD.

Steve

--
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.

Studios will be much better off with bittorrent by PurPaBOO · 2006-05-09 02:41 · Score: 1

I do work in the movie industry, and I think the studios will be MUCH better off with the BT distribution.

Here's my estimated cost and profit comparision. Sorry for the dodgy layout and utter lack of punctuation Slashdot keeps rejecting my nice layout with the old Lameness filter. Lameassed lameass filter.

Costs for 15 dollar DVD

Intial cost of movie 0 00 already paid for, and covered by profits theatre releases
Packaging/Artwork 0 50 per disc
Replication 0 50 per disc
Distribution 4 00 per disc
Marketing 1 00 per disc
Royalties 1 50 per disc
Total 7 50 per disc

Profit 7 50 per disc
Margin is 50 percent

Costs for 15 dollar bittorrent movie
Torrent site 0 05 per movie
Bandwidth 1 00 per movie
Total 1 05 per disc

Profit 13 95 per disc
Margin is 93 percent

It's fairly obvious why the studios want BT

--
If it weren't for the rocks in its bed, the stream would have no songs.

Note to the MPAA: by Ryan+Amos · 2006-05-09 02:43 · Score: 1

Other Hollywood studios are now likely to launch similar services. They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film.

And they're right! Holy fucking shit, the movie industry might actually get it. As long as they don't fuck it all up by heaping mountains of DRM on top of it, they could have a gold mine on their hands. This is what we've been asking for for the past decade.

When iTunes came out, everyone said "This is what we've been asking for all along." It was wildly successful. Do the same with movies and it will be successful as well. People have already shown a willingness to download movies P2P, and I think they would be willing to pay a little money to make sure they get a clean, good looking file (no more camjobs!)

dedicated download computer? by morie · 2006-05-09 02:43 · Score: 1

I use a dedicated (silent) download computer in my network for filesharing/bittorrent. It has no screen at all.

Thanks WB, for having me play it only on that one. I think I'll pass.

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)

Plastic doesn't cost already by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 02:44 · Score: 0

Whatever digital download fanatics say, DVD plastic doesn't cost too much. I am telling as a guy downloading (paid) "Postal 2" Mac version from deliver2mac.com now.

The problem with "same price as DVD" is: Sound.

They have no shame and they sell a stereo download same as dolby digital 5.1 DVD. That is not fair.

I really don't care if people are lazy to plug 5.1 speakers to their already 5.1 sound card (90% of mmedia pcs), I expect a 5.1 sound on material I paid to download.

It is not the format. Wmedia, Real, Quicktime supports 5.1 and even 7.1 channels

If sound problem is non existent (They offer torrent, no bandwidth problem!), I am all OK for this. It is NOT STUPID. Giving half of the price of the movie to post and packaging of a plastic while you have broadband idling? It _is_ stupid.

This was mentioned back in January by Robmonster · 2006-05-09 02:45 · Score: 1

Its was on The Register and blogged http://www.boringbutgood.com/blog/archive/2006/01/ time_warner_to.html back in January...

--
I have no sig yet I must scream.

How it can work by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 02:45 · Score: 0

It will probably use the mechanism built into WMP:

- The file is DRMed before being distributed

- User downloads DRMed file from BitTorrent

- When the user plays the file, WMP reads the DRM header, which has a URL to get a licence

- WMP goes to the URL, which contains a username/password form; user logs in, and receives a licence

Magic, the authorised user can play the content.

How is it cryptographically possible ? by stud9920 · 2006-05-09 02:46 · Score: 1

* Playable on one single PC
* Downloaded via a distributed P2P system

Aren't these requirements incompatible ?

Re:How is it cryptographically possible ? by MrP-(at+work) · 2006-05-09 04:07 · Score: 1

perhaps the drm is added once its downloaded? (isnt that what itunes does?) of course then you wouldnt be able to seed it.. hmm.. unless theres just 1 small part with the drm and that part always comes from the server while the rest is from peers?

--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

drive-in by jasonhamilton · 2006-05-09 02:53 · Score: 1

Thats exactly why I always head to the drive in theater. Sure it's a pain when someone nearby smokes, or people drive around the lot with their lights on... but it costs $5 a person, and I can bring food with me (usually mcdonalds or burgerking from across the street).

Or I can head to the theater, pay $8.50 per person, and $5 for a soda... and some jackass will sit there talking on their cell phone during the entire movie. blah. In my car I roll up my window and turn up the volume :)

--
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!

Re:drive-in by Blimey85 · 2006-05-09 03:29 · Score: 1

I've only been to a drive-in once several years ago when I lived in South Dakota. I now live in Northern Cali and I'm not sure where any drive-ins are around here... none within 50 miles that I know of. I'll have to do a search online and see if I can find one though. My wife has never been and to me it's one of those thigns that you should do at least once in your life. And you make an excellent point about the economy of the drive-in.

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?

Hey look everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 02:56 · Score: 0

I say it's a terrific idea, even at the price.

It's a WB employee!

This is an attack, not a compromise by phorm · 2006-05-09 02:59 · Score: 0, Troll

Let's see, so for about the same price you:

- Don't get the DVD
- Don't see it any sooner than normal
- Use up bandwidth to download
- Can't play on a different machine, or format-shift

Seems to me that people aren't going to go for this, but it would give WB the ammunition thereafter to say "see, we tried to make our movies available online, but people still prefer to pirate them"

Re:This is an attack, not a compromise by trongey · 2006-05-09 04:56 · Score: 1

Looks like some WB suit has mod points on /. today. Who else would have modded the parent as a troll?

--
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.

How It Works by Brown · 2006-05-09 03:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

It will use the DRM mechanism built into Windows Media Player:

The file is DRMed before being distributed
User downloads DRMed file from BitTorrent, using a modified client. This is the clever bit; it will use a distribution network of dedicated caches created and run by CacheLogic - see a press-release on a trial of this technology, which act as 'super-peers', greatly increasing download speeds and reliability. This also cuts the amount of upload bandwidth for users.
When the user plays the file, WMP reads the DRM header, which has a URL to get a licence
WMP goes to the URL, which contains a username/password form; user logs in, and receives a licence, for that computer. This also allows the distributer to manage/bill users.

Magic, the authorised user can play the content on his computer, but it can't be copied (or rather it can - but won't be playable without an account!). (I previousply posted some of this before logging in, just to make it clear I'm not pinching it)

Re:How It Works by Ilgaz · 2006-05-09 03:55 · Score: 1

Just like I guessed, windows media. I hope it is WB pocketing money or getting sponsored by MS Wmedia division, not the guy responsible for it.

I hate the "tags" feature of Slashdot but now I agree, they are really stupid (look to tags).

They just guaranteed they won't be able to get into devices market (Linux) and OS X, the most rich, educated, paying for content userbase on the planet.

I don't hide behind tags: WB , you are really stupid and you deserve every kind of piracy on planet.
Re:How It Works by StikyPad · 2006-05-09 16:44 · Score: 1

Well I'm not too concerned with the DRM. DRM is more the icing on the bad idea cake and I don't see how it can be very robust if all copies are identical. The meat and potatoes of the problem is charging people to use their own bandwidth to distribute someone else's product, and charging the same price as a tangible copy which has higher distribution costs and perhaps more features -- a nice cover at least, and usable as a coaster once you've ripped the movie to your HTPC. I see the stick for discouraging illegal filesharing, in the form of lawsuits, but where's the carrot for using this new legitimate system? Also I'm very hungry, as you probably gathered from all the food metaphors.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Not sold on the idea by Zerbey · 2006-05-09 03:15 · Score: 1

I won't buy movies online for the same reason I don't like iTunes, the DRM crap. When I buy a regular CD or DVD I basically have an ISO image that I can do whatever I please with, if I'm purchasing it online I want the same thing without having to go through the hassle of breaking their silly protection. No, this isn't about wanting to pirate movies it's about choice.

Few important points to highlight most missed... by JollyFinn · 2006-05-09 03:17 · Score: 1

The cost of a television show could be as low as a dollar.

Thats something I could be willing to pay, provided it runs on my computer.
Advertisement free Television programs that I can watch anytime I wan't and without owning a TV nor paying monthly fees. With only costs is small fee on per item basis. Now if they would support linux and downloads would be fast enough for me and interface to get it would be convenient enough I'd definitely like this.

Also the article doesn't state that featured films cost EXACLY same as DVD but close to DVD pricing. So it could be couple of bucks cheaper than DVD and I'd probably *NOT* buy it except for very specific reasons like wanting to enjoy a specific movie with guests and I'm too busy for searching the physical DVD.

Still if it doesn't run on x86-64 linux or is limited to US only offer, I'm not able to use this service.

--
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.

Video Quality by Danathar · 2006-05-09 03:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

The key to drawing many bittorrent users is video Quality. If they can get a Hi-Def version of the show online that they can't get via TV then there is a reason to get it from the studio.

A 45 min episode of LOST in 720p Xvid Hi-Def looks GREAT. H.264 would be nice but most computers just can't hack it yet.

Designed to fail, with a darker purpose. by debest · 2006-05-09 03:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

I like the idea of being able to download DVDs legally from the studios directly. However, I would NEVER pay the same price as the normal DVD and only be able to play the movie on one machine.

That's because they want this initiative to fail. It is explicitly designed to fail, miserably.

Distribution of digital files over the Internet is enemy of the content industry. Their entire business model is built upon keeping the supply of their product scarce. The Internet is frightening to them (and always will be) because scarcity of easily-reproducable data is impossible to maintain on a free Internet. The business model that works for the industry is physical media, purchased one at a time. This way control is maintained. The media industry will never stop trying to prevent the free movement of all data on the Internet, because any data could be their data!

This is a smokescreen, nothing more. The movie studios want to be able to go before congress during the future hearings for ever-more restrictive copyright initiatives, saying "We tried to offer legal online distribution: no one would pay for it! Piracy continues unabated! We need to regulate the Internet! NOW!"

Then they will be able to go back to printing physical copies and stomping on the occasional soul who tries to share a file. In the process, they would like to see ISPs be forbidden to provide customers with actual Internet connections: they would like them to be crippled to prevent anyone from providing any content at all. We should good little consumers and buy what they provide: how dare we be allowed to actually contribute anything! Why, that might make the content industry irrelevant. Horrors!

--
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!

Screw that by NVP_Radical_Dreamer · 2006-05-09 03:28 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight. I'm paying the same price for a non-portable, digitally restricted file that is going to use MY hard drive to store, take forever to download, use MY connection to upload to others, while at the same time not giving me any of the box art and saving the big studio money on distrobution costs?

SIGN ME UP!

--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

- Winston Churchill

Not Impressed by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 03:31 · Score: 0

They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film.

Possible virus vs. assured limited use of the file. Let's not mention that viruses are pretty damn easy to detect, so they're not as big a threat as they're made out to be. Especially for those bittorrent communities that police their files or the files they link to. Contrarily, while I'm certain someone somewhere will figure out how to remove the limitations on the official files (for I don't know what possible reason...oh yeah! FAIR USE!), that brings other dangers, such as lawsuits and DMCA violation charges. So the real choice they want us to think of here is: possible lawsuit vs. possible lawsuit with the added bonus of possible charges of violating the DMCA. Brilliant!

Poor quality copy vs. umm... Well, just exactly how do they plan to make their "high quality copy" movies available at a reasonable file size? I'm not going to spend 2 days downloading a movie over bittorrent. If it takes more than 8 hours, I'll just go to the local video store, instead. Assuming I want to buy it in the first place.

And that brings me to some comments meant specificaly for the Motion Pictures Assholes Association: [Lewis Black Mode]If I'm paying the same... for a movie over bittorrent... as I would if I walked into the local video-shit store... it better fucking well be the same quality as the DVD! And it better have the same shitty extras, too! If I want to see outtakes from Debbie's Dallas Dildo, I want to watch it in all it's glisteny glory. In fact, it should be better than the fucking DVD! Why should you save money when I'm the one distributing your movies? You should be paying me! [/Lewis Black Mode]

Pay retail for crippleware? Hell no! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · 2006-05-09 03:32 · Score: 1

the pricing is set to be about the same as the DVD, even though the download will only become available at the same time as the DVD release, and can only play on one machine (the one that does the downloading)

Let's analyse this offer: WB expects me to use my resources to help them distribute films on a torrent, pay as much for a film as I would for a real, pre-burned DVD from Walmart (which means WB cuts out the retail middleman and pockets even more money), get the film the same time as Walmart, and have a product that I can't take to a friend's house to play, can't take on the road to play, only plays on the download computer, and if the DRM scheme or that computer dies, probably can't play at all.

Not only no, but HELL NO!

Prediction: They will do this for a while, notice a lack of users, and declare to the world that "legal downloads don't work".

Other Aspects.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 03:37 · Score: 0

Ok, set aside the lame pricing and the simultaneous release of the DVD, and let's look at another aspect of this deal. Now bit torrent is another step closer to being a "legitimate" thing. It will slightly shed its stigma of being a tool/technology for pirating and illegal distribution of copyrighted content. Now maybe some ISP's will stop throttling bit torrent traffic.

How this scheme should really work by sweetnjguy29 · 2006-05-09 03:38 · Score: 1

1) WB sets up its own private tracker
2) WB charges a subscription fee to access the tracker
3) WB uses private keys for each individual user to prevent piracy
4) ???
5) Profit!

I remember reading about this a month ago by emorphien · 2006-05-09 03:39 · Score: 1

I remember seeing an article about them (and others) selling movies for download about a month ago on a home theater forum (AVSforum I believe). The idea is sound, I'm sure a lot of people would like to download movies. But after you see the pricing and read the restrictions you have to wonder what use there is.

The RIAA has complained repeatedly about money lost due to piracy, but how much have they lost due to poor planning and product development? Now the same situation is repeating in the MPAA. Same ****, different horse. If they never learn they're not going to successfully compete with "free" downloading.

The article I saw stated that you couldn't necessarily burn them to a DVD and play them on just any TV, but that you'd essentially have to watch them on your computer or on a TV hooked up to a computer. That's not going to appeal to the masses and at the same time the tech savvy will probably find that too restrictive.

--

Presently here, but not there.

Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 03:45 · Score: 0

Bittorrent protocol implies that you download as well as upload. So this scheme is only possible if they somehow change their licensing scheme to make it legal for people to make the movie available for upload again. And since they don't seem to see much differene between a movie bought on DVD and a movie downloaded over bittorrent...

Because that would chop the movie's WORTH too! by debest · 2006-05-09 03:51 · Score: 1

So have it at a tenth of the price of the DVD: $2.

Here's the problem with this: by going the route you suggest, they create the precedent that their movie is not worth $20, but rather $2. Then the genie is really out of the bottle!

Right now, the movie is "worth" $20, and anyone who doesn't wish to run afoul of the law pays that amount. To the rest, it's free, but they're breaking the law so they don't really enter into the legitimate value equation.

With your plan, the majority of law-abiding citizenry starts to see that movies are in fact only "worth" $2, and that they are getting ripped off to the tune of $18 for packaging. Then they might start actually, you know, downloading movies from the Internet (legitimately or not). As I stated in a post earlier, distribution of their content online is diametrically opposed to their business model. They want to discourage it, not encourage it.

That is why they are offering crippled, inferior quality content that uses your bandwidth for the full price of the DVD. They know no one will buy it: It is supposed to be a spectacular flop! Then they can demonstrate how it is "impossible" to use the Internet for legitimate distribution of content. Then they'll lobby Congress to pass more laws forbidding free distribution of content on the Internet.

--
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!

How is this supposed to compete with RedBox for $1 by Matt+Ownby · 2006-05-09 03:54 · Score: 1

Why would I pay full price for a movie that, due to DRM restrictions, I'd have a good chance of only having on my hard drive for a short period of time, when I can just go down to McDonalds and rent a new movie for $1 from the http://www.redbox.com/ ?

You're all missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 03:58 · Score: 0

With General Pentagon Hayden of the CIA now in charge of "protecting our freedoms", your interactions with giganews are NOT private. I would be willing to pay for LEGAL downloads of movies and have peace of mind.

It's only a matter of time until someone realizes the profit potential of shaking you down for your list of illegal downloads. They are going to knock on your door and say "Pay for all this stuff or go directly to jail ... Oh and, by the way, you can finance your illegal indulgences on our 30 year plan"....

Your illegal activity = your indentured servitude. None of the records are private anymore - remember the AT&T fiberoptic splitter closet?

For the many reasons already listed by f1055man · 2006-05-09 04:00 · Score: 1

Mr. Warner, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent business plan were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on the planet is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Bingo! by debest · 2006-05-09 04:03 · Score: 1

Or is it just another attempt to "prove" that nobody would "buy stuff" over torrent and that torrent should be shut down 'cause it's only a pirate tool?

Absolutely. This is the only purpose of this exercise: a smokescreen to pay lip-service to Congress that they "tried to offer legal downloads on the Internet", and lobbying for more restrictions because nobody bought it. They know that no one is stupid enough to pay for this, and they want it to fail. I just hope that someone will be able to effectively demonstrate this intent when the industry brings this up at the future hearings for their new laws.

--
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!

So ... by slavik1337 · 2006-05-09 04:06 · Score: 1

when I buy a DVD over BitTorrent, I have to worry about the andwidth from/to other customers? Customers are not your free servers. If I buy a DVD, I want to be able to max out my connection instantly from servers provided by WB, not by other customers. If I buy a track, I want uncompressed, all information file (wav) not a cut down encoded version (mp3).

--
just my 2 bytes

Can you say FUD ? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 04:15 · Score: 0

They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film.
Oh yes!! Don't steal my megahurtz, oh might trojaned .avi's of kazaa. I prefer to pay than to get a CELLPHONECAM.DVDRIP.SVCD of the movie with spyware...
Now seriously... who are they kidding ??

Honest question by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 04:26 · Score: 0

I wonder if they know/care/considered posting their 'movie only' mkv's with Mp4 and OGG sound and or just OGM's for say 3 dollars a hit here's why: They wouldn't need to wory about them getting plaid on a DVD player . Relativley small file size caters to people with modems. Plus with OGM's their's a bunch of fairly good windows tools for making them, certainly as much or less work for VOB to Windows Media format. I'd bet having talked with movie wonks (in the industry) they honestly don't have a clue. As long as the tools are as comfortable for them to use as what they currently are using they might go for it. At 3-5 for video file that plays on lots of different kinds of computers it might work.

Revolution is here: Age of Information by Frozen+Void · 2006-05-09 04:27 · Score: 1

You can call it piracy because you support charges for information,but its here.
Information Freedom is what will shape
the internet,and no copy rigths will stop determined users.Crypto societies will spread all information they want.
Its like fighting anarchy,terrorism,
the concept of negative numbers,and law of gravity.Information wants to be free(to be known by most,being accesible any wishing so).Stopping spread of any Information Form is futile.

(Fighting terrorism is possible temporarily in limited fashion,but eradicating the concept is impossible)
on topic:
BitTorrent is now filtered/shaped,and that despite being one-third of traffic.
I don't see how they(wb) can provide they "service" to those loyal customers,with ISP interfering.

pricing by jilles · 2006-05-09 04:33 · Score: 1

So essentially users will be subsidizing the expensive, redundant and obsolete physical distribution chain involving (re)production of the discs, shipping, marketing, retailing and margins of all the people involved in all of the previous. Sounds like a great deal. Wake me up when prices drop to a more realistic level involving only content production cost + marketing + hosting (should be negligable using bittorrent).

Besides, I'm not at all interested in producer verticals. I want to buy on a horizontal market with multiple sources of content where competition happens based on price and quality of the content. I guess this is too much to expect from companies who are essentially entirely optional in a digital world and well aware of that.

In economic terms the problem of production and consumption is extremely simple. There's this notion of the value adding chain. Essentially that means that each step in the process is about making output more valuable then input (e.g. trees->wood->chair). Added value is something you can build a business on. The movie industries current idea of ading value is doing everything the old way, actually removing value (i.e. the physical media + consumer freedom) and then asking the same inflated price as before.

The market opportunity here is huge. With a distribution model that is essentially close to free, sales are pure profit. Maximizing the volume/revenue curve is the trick. Maintaining old prices, will ensure that volume stays limited to those few nuts who don't care about money, the dvd and just want to see the movie now. Not a big growth market. Then there's people like me who generally don't waste 20 dollars on a dvd unless they really want to see it (in my case, rarely). There's plenty of movies in the past few years that I have not seen and that I wouldn't mind seeing. I'd gladly pay a small fee for convenience here. In other words, I represent a market opportunity. If 20 people pay 2$ that is the same amount of revenue you get from 2 people buying the same movie for 20$. My guess is that there are a whole lot more people willing to spend 2$ on a movie than there are willing to spend 20$ on a movie (especially bad movies, something that hollywood specializes in). This in short is the iTunes businessmodel: people are paying 1$/song for stuff that is pretty hard to find in regular stores. That's pure profit (aside from the music industry tax).

--

Jilles

Good. by PeteDotNu · 2006-05-09 04:52 · Score: 1

Maybe then my ISP will bring an end to their ridiculous traffic-shaping policy, whereby they cap all BitTorrent traffic to 20kb/s.

--
My other processor is big-endian.

Smell the FUD? by kimvette · 2006-05-09 05:15 · Score: 1

They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film.

read: let's throw some buzzword names of bad evil stuff like viruses and poor quality. Funny, MPEG4 is visually just as good as a DVD for a lot of material. Oh, and when was the last time someone actually executed a video file? I can't speak for others but I know I haven't. Good luck getting a virus from a video file.

Peer-to-peer connections enable people to quickly swap files between their computers without having to go via an internet server.

Oh really? So in a peer-peer setup there is no server, but only clients? When did this breakthrough in network technology happen? Are the files served up via wormholes or something? Semantics, I know, but let's look through the marketing doublespeak, shall we?

The truth of the matter is that Warner Brothers wants to not just reduce, but eliminate distribution costs by using customers' machines as servers, and yet have a portion of the file be a key which is tied to a single playback device, while charging the same price as for the packaged movie.

Sorry, I'll stick to BitTorrent for checking out a movie and purchasing DVDs via either Amazon or at a brick-and-mortar store. You can keep your DRMFest to yourself, Warner Brothers.

(Yeah I know DVDs have DRM, but playback is not tied to a single device, allowing for easy resale if I decide I no longer like a movie. Also, the DRM on a DVD is inconsequential.)

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50

Re:How is this supposed to compete with RedBox for by geoffspear · 2006-05-09 05:31 · Score: 1

Redbox is available in 1 of the 20 largest cities in the US. The Internet is available is all 20 of the largest 20 cities in the US.

Competing with Netflix and Blockbuster isn't going to work. I don't think they're too worried about the ability to compete in Houston and a bunch of small markets.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.

The math: by mbius · 2006-05-09 05:49 · Score: 1

Netflix: conservative renter:
$18/mo = $0.60/day, for
6 movies/mo = .2 movies/day yields
(A)$3/movie, at a quality of
(B)9 mbps, with a queue setup time of
(C)1 hr = 1/24 day = 0.009 your life wasted per 100 movie transaction = 0.00009 per 1 movie transaction

BT: aggressive downloader:
$45/mo*1/3 = $15/mo = $0.50/day, for 8 hr/movie yields
(A)$1.50/movie, at a quality of
(B)0.7 mbps, with a queue setup time of
(C)0.05 hr = .05/24 day = 0.00045 your life wasted per 1 movie transaction

WB:
(A)$20/download + $1.50/movie in bandwidth, at a quality of
(B)9 mbps, with a queue setup time of
1/10 hr = 0.1/24 day = 0.0009 your life wasted per 1 movie transaction, plus
1.188e-6 lifetime disposing of 500 "special offers" @ 6 seconds apiece, plus
1 hr = 0.009 lifetime on phone with customer support
(C)= 0.001 of your life wasted per 1 movie transaction

To calculate your Personalized Viewing Index, compute, for each of the three film distribution services listed,

(A)*(B)*(C)*E*T/[S*L]

where "S" is your annual salary, "T" is the size of your television in inches, "E" is your Snellen fraction, and "L" is your life expectancy as a percentage of 80 years.

The lowest number indicates your optimal Movie Acquisition Format.

--
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club

The craziest thing happened by mbius · 2006-05-09 06:08 · Score: 1

The FedEx guy asked me if I wouldn't mind dropping off some packages for him on my way to the grocery store. When I got there, the butcher needed me to hold a chicken for him. I stopped for gas on the way home and the clerk asked me to mop the bathroom. Jeez. After that I got pulled over--I made an illegal U-turn when I saw a funeral procession coming. The cop made me call the courthouse to see if they had any warrants for me.

Talk about your bad days. I need some down time, maybe I'll find one of those escort services.

--
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club

Ehm... in2movies anyone? by GlowStars · 2006-05-09 06:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Funny... Warner already has a similar P2P-download-service in open beta-test over here in Germany and Austria, not based on Bittorrent.

http://www.in2movies.de/

Still making up their minds which technology to use?

No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame. by shark72 · 2006-05-09 06:27 · Score: 1

Your post echoes the same sentiment of several posts here: this initiative is doomed to fail because it's priced too high for the quality of the material.

However, the market shows us that Slashdotters are not as large of a market force as we think. "Slashdotters don't like it, thus it's a terrible idea" is not borne out by the empirical evidence:

Downloading songs off of iTunes: a buck a song and encumbered by DRM. If you listen to enough Slashdotters, you'll learn that songs really should be $0.10 each and in unmolested MP3 format. Yet the iTMS is a runaway success by any definition.
Downloadable ringtones: paying $1, $2 or more for a ringtone? What a stupid idea! One can just use their phone's music composer program to create the ringtone of that popular song from scratch, or download a MIDI file to their phone, or even just create their own sample of the MP3 file or song off of the CD... for free. Yet downloadable ringtones are a billion dollar business.
XM and Sirius? You mean pay for radio? A CD changer or an iPod will do the same, with no monthly fee. Read the Slashdot reaction when the subject comes up, and you'd think that satellite radio is sure to go the way of that little magazine barcode scanner that looked like a kitty. Yet XM and Sirius are mostly doing fine (Howard Stern's paycheck notwithstanding).

Now, let's look at some businesses which fit the common Slashdot idea of how to do things right:

Magnatunes. It's an open source record label! Payment is optional, and they don't ask for your first born! What's not to love? Yet they haven't signed any major artists, haven't had any breakout hits, and the general public hasn't heard of them.
AllofMP3. It's great! Music in any format you want, DRM-free. And the artists get paid! Okay, they don't really get paid, but at least the record companies aren't getting paid, either. What's not to love? Yet, the general public hasn't caught on.
Linux. Sorry... I don't know a single person who uses it. I tried. I really tried. It just didn't do what I needed. And I've been coding on *nix boxes since 1985. I think that for many people, running Linux is a political statement more than anything else. Yeah, yeah, I know... say goodbye to "karma: excellent."

Of course, these are just my opinions. The real answer will lie in what the market's like in five years. I think Warner (and more film studios) will still be selling films online, even using P2P. I think that the iTMS and downloadable ringtones will still be going strong, and Magnatunes will still be a tiny label that nobody's heard of. Let's see, shall we?

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.

I'm not going to pay by Darth23 · 2006-05-09 06:31 · Score: 1

To upload a movie to a munch of other people.

Especially when I can just rent the thing and rip it myself, or BUY it (and break the law by ripping a backupm uncase the disc ever got lost or stolen).

I don't even USE my CDs anymore. They are in cases stored at work. Everything is ripped to mp3 (yeah I know, lossy format, blah blah blag). One day there will be a relatively inexpensive device that will hold ALL my music and be completely portable. Right now I just use collected MP3 CDs with about 10 hours of music per disc.

--

-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

The whole DVD?!?!? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2006-05-09 06:39 · Score: 1

I don't want the whole DVD. How much for the first five minutes of the middle Lord of the Rings movie, where Gandalf is falling down the bottomless pit, and is so coordinated he grabs his supersword and makes some swats at the balrog or firbolg or whatever the Hell it is?

Or the original Star Wars, where Han shoots first, and Greedo doesn't shoot at all, and there are no morphing, bulging CGI bags of mostly water walking around? Or the original RotJ, without Anni's face in there? Or one of the supposed fan cuts of the first movies floating around, with no Jar Jar, midichlorians, or children winning planetary-level Indianapolis 500s with their hand-made vehicles?

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

What's the price??? by demonbug · 2006-05-09 06:55 · Score: 1

I read about this in this morning's New York Times (here's a link to the on-line article.

I only bring this up because in the Times' article they have the following to say about pricing:

"The service will begin sometime this summer, with prices beginning at about $1 for some television programs and increasing to about the price of a DVD or video rental for full-length movies."

It still sounds pretty restrictive, but the $4-5 I'm guessing they mean ( ~ a Blockbuster rental) is at least close to a reasonable price. Anyone know what the actual pricing scheme is supposed to be?

LaserDisc by PhYrE2k2 · 2006-05-09 07:04 · Score: 1

Have you seen the price of LaserDiscs? Not to mention the fragility of the disks, size of the player, and so on.

-M

--

when you see the word 'Linux', drink!

Decentralized; what's needed; by PhYrE2k2 · 2006-05-09 07:18 · Score: 1

At least their accountants will work out a way to write off the losses for the hardware, networking and other things required for this.

Isn't the point of BitTorrent that you steal bandwidth from your customers instead of spending the money on the hardware, networking, etc. Find a reliable shared/dedicated hosting provider, and implement a PHP/CGI/PERL/etc tracker. It sends http requests every 20-30 minutes with minimal data back and forth. You can have thousands upon thousands of concurrent users on a few thousand dollar a year budget.

Right- they forgot to mention that. Not only are you going to pay the full price, get less, be able to do less with it, but they'll also steal a few GB _upstream_ of your bandwidth so that you can reach the limits of your ISP faster.

Which reminds me- they don't let you know about the format itself. You know they're not going to send a DVD9 to you, but rather a 700MB WMV (wish it was XVID) file that they claim has 'quality equal to that of DVD', yet fails to live up to that promise as it adds filters upon filters to clean up the output and make it look sharp.

What customers plain and simply want if you are going to use _their_ bandwidth to distribute is:
a. DVD5 or DVD9 ___NATIVE__ content formats- not an xvid that uses your processing power and time to convert a lossy file to a guess as to what the DVD format should be.
b. the ability to remove it from the computer, via a burner or any video out. Not just on 'trusted content' displays (per Vista)
c. just as DRM protected as a regular DVD, capable of being played on all DVD players. I don't mind CSS on my DVDs or other core technology compatible with all (even older) players, however it's light DRM. It won't get in the way at all- which is how it should be. Not to mention, it's an easy one to add at burn time.
d. a verification that the DVD burnt successfully before removing the data from the computer. It should check the whole dvd for errors and compare a successful decode.
e. a cost that is less than the $20 I'd spend on a DVD. By less I mean compensating me for my time, my DVD media, my bandwidth for bittorrent uploads; and my lack of liners and extras. This is probably fairly equal to the cost of distribution and retail markup... bringing the cost down to $7.50-$10.00 or so per disc.

--

when you see the word 'Linux', drink!

Licenses... by PhYrE2k2 · 2006-05-09 07:25 · Score: 1

The other option is to send an encrypted file, for which there is only one key, but then once one person recovers the key, they can share it with everyone else who's downloaded the file and you lose a lot of security.

Basically it just doesn't seem like Bittorrent in general is really conducive to transmitting DRMed content, at least in the way that most companies are implementing DRM right now.

Ummm- how about licenses as a seperate component to the data? This integrates a player aspect of it as well. Your player connects to WB to purchase the movie via SSL sending a unique computer ID. It gets a unique key that's imported into the player and is meant to not come out of it. This is unique to your computer so it won't work with another. Embedded in this unique key is the decription for the data files, which are the same for all computers.

Many software companies have done similar things with registration codes, and it's just a matter of having something in the code that's common and used for the data.

-M

--

when you see the word 'Linux', drink!

spiking the competition's punch by MoFoQ · 2006-05-09 07:33 · Score: 1

...swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film.

the funny thing is...they are the ones distributing viruses and fake files and corrupted files.
most unofficial releases tend to take pride in quality and are sometimes better than the official ones.

I'm on your side but... by Cosmo-san · 2006-05-09 08:30 · Score: 1

What is the logical alternative? So WB offers free downloads of non-DRM, hosted, lower costing DVDs. 5 hours later it appears free on Pirate Bay. You will have the few who will stop illegally downloading movies, and you will have the people who can now do it better and faster.

It's like the downloadable music alternatives. $1 a song isn't that bad, is it? So our music pirating problem should be solved, right? Yeah... that isn't doing so well.

So what will stop that from happening with DVDs? Stop complaining and proffer a suggestion.

The usual shenanigans by mshurpik · 2006-05-09 11:06 · Score: 1

Disappointingly, the pricing is set to be about the same as the DVD, even though the download...can only play on one machine.

Of course, this is how product upgrades are launched.

* Manufacturing/distribution costs are less.
* Quality is less (now you have to burn it yourself)
* Product gutted (no case/artwork/ability to play anywhere)
* Price is the same

If you take a look at food/homecare products, you'll see this has been going on for quite some time. Of course, the one thing I don't see is the compelling reason to switch. Ususally with a product upgrade, there is a perceived improvement in convenience (for example, smaller bottles of soda) but in this case, downloading off BitTorrent takes just as long as going to the store.

Warner Bros. REAL plans by tonycarboni · 2006-05-09 12:33 · Score: 1

Most people in the US are too dumb/lazy to figure out how to work bit torrent. I know, because I live in the northeast, where we're supposed to be technologically capable, and I'd say one out of every fifteen of the students I know (including the dorky ones) know that bit torrent even exists. If they made a legitimate way to use bit torrent, people would quickly learn of the illegitimate ways of using it and Warner Bros. could end up being blamed for an even bigger pirating problem. Warner Bros. must have secret plans of destroying what's left of the movie/music industry and they're actually trying to teach people how to use bit torrent!

Designed to fail by RyatNrrd · 2006-05-09 13:03 · Score: 1

This is a token gesture which offers nothing of value and is designed to fail. Hollywood just wants to crow about being able to offer legal alternatives, their not at all interested in giving the consumer what they really want.

I agree, and it seems pretty obvious to me that what they're trying to do is to say to lawmakers, "Look, we offered legal downloads over file sharing networks and nobody payed for them. File sharing is therefore only for pirates and we should persue all forms of it with our lawyers out."

It's just another pathetic attempt to maintain the dying status quo.

Selling TV shows would make more sense. by walterbyrd · 2006-05-09 14:15 · Score: 1

Let's say you miss an episode of "24." And for $1, you can legally download the show the next day.

I might be interested in something like that. I know there's Tivo, but I don't need all the fuss, and the commitment.

For most movies, I can wait until they come out on HBO, or pay-per-view.

The other side of the coin. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-09 15:06 · Score: 0

What exactly can Hollywood do? Let's say, hypothetically, they offer to sell 100% completely unrestricted DVD-quality movies online. They STILL can't compete with FREE when the products are identical. So no matter what Hollywood does it will never be good enough.

You can already download DVDs by Movie+Downloads · 2006-05-09 16:35 · Score: 2, Informative

EZTakes already provides movie downloads that you can burn to standard DVDs. Prices start at $1.99 and average about $6.

Slashdot Mirror

Warner Bros. to Sell Movies Over BitTorrent

319 comments