Amazon Unbox Video Store Launches

andrewl6097 writes "Amazon.com has launched it's Amazon Unbox video store. Looks like about 1300 movies and 350 tv series, at $9.99 and up for movies and $1.99 per TV episode. Downloads come with a DVD quality version and a version more appropriate for portable players (using Windows DRM). Also, videos can be re-downloaded from your Amazon media library. Cool!"

Comments

"Cool!"

[sulli]

slashdot is now running accolades for DRM crippled movie downloads? uncool!

Re:"Cool!"

[x-kaos]

Yea well, it still costs to much money imo. May as well get the movie mailed to me if the download has all that junk with it. Thumbs down.

Re:"Cool!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, as a faithful open source fan and reader of Slashdot, there is no way I'm ever going to support this DRM-infested crap! They may take our lives, but they cannot take our freedom!!!

Now pardon me while I go back to buying stuff from iTunes...

Re:"Cool!"

[phatvw]

The question is, were the movie files encoded before or after Microsoft fixed its DRM issues?

Re:"Cool!"

[cptgrudge]

slashdot is now running accolades for DRM crippled movie downloads? uncool!

The submitter might be a shill. Seems way too obvious in the cheerleading aspect, at least to me. Shall we break down the summary?

"Amazon.com has launched it's Amazon Unbox video store."

Good, if obvious, lead sentence here. It makes sure that the company name is repeated twice, and by using the word "it's" we may get a slight feeling that of "it's amazing" before we read the rest of the product, even if the thought is just subconscious. Interesting, if perhaps unintentional usage of the incorrect "it's" instead of the correct "its", we also may get the feeling doubly reinforced again with the uncontracted "it is amazing".

"Looks like about 1300 movies and 350 tv series, at $9.99 and up for movies and $1.99 per TV episode."

Here we see the information about the service and products, including numbers and prices. This is obviously something that will be brought up in the discussion below, but by introducing the readers to it in the summary, the submitter can keep the content tied to the positive aspects conveyed in the summary. This is in contrast to reading about it below where it is coupled with Slashdot users' negative responses to selection and pricing. No control over those comments, but the initial impression is made.

"Downloads come with a DVD quality version and a version more appropriate for portable players"

Again, more information about the service. Sentence structure gives us the words "quality" and "appropriate", which are rather neutral terms, but may make a positive subconscious impression on the readers. The mentioning of the generic "portable players" does not exclude any type of device on name alone, so it will not alienate potential customers.

"(using Windows DRM)."

Then we come to the most interesting part. By qualifying the "portable players" statement with the phrase "(using Windows DRM)", the submitter may actually gain a small measure of trust from us readers. It is likely based on the demographics of the users of Slashdot. As generally informed people, Slashdot users dislike DRM for both it's technical and philisophical nature. By using parentheses, the submitter seems to be imparting information that is somehow cloaked or not for general public knowledge, like a whispered secret. With these two concepts, we may actually trust the submitter more than we would a normal submission.

"Also, videos can be re-downloaded from your Amazon media library."

Here we get a bit more info on the service itself and another placement of the company name and additional product. We are still possibly affected by the subconscious trust level, so we may have an abnormally positive response to this information. Such as a "Great feature!" reaction instead of an "I should hope so!" reaction.

"Cool!"

This final statement, while seemingly out of place, may be accepted simply because the summary has been crafted to elicit a positive reponse and we may find ourselves in agreement, though there is nothing that special about this company's service. It does have the potential to backfire when the target audience is quick enough that they can pick out the strange concepts, as the other posts already show.

Overall, it's designed to give a positive spin and impression to the service, which will hopefully drive more click-throughs to the site. I've seen plenty of links to the iTunes store, but never went there. I clicked on this link, and I don't even plan to buy anything. I didn't buy anything, but I guess it worked on me to at least go there and check it out.

I'm currently for hire.

Re:"Cool!"

[fm6]

slashdot is now running accolades for DRM crippled movie downloads?

Of course not! They're runing accolades for overpriced DRM crippled movie downloads. For example, compare the download of Walk the Line for $20.00 with a 2-DVD special edition for about the same price.

Attention editors! Please ignore breathless announcements of downloadable media services except in those very rare cases where economic reality is acknowledged.

Re:"Cool!"

[babbling]

My first thought was that it was a shill, too.

Re:"Cool!"

[el cisne]

Dang, man, were you trained by the Bene Gesserit or a Tleilaxu grown mentat ? I'm impressed.

Re:"Cool!"

[Anonymous Coward]

his prada-bindu bindings are complete, he has transcended all forms.

Re:"Cool!"

[70Bang]

And Slashdot still supports "editors" posting launched it's Amazon Unbox.

There are two certainties on Slashdot: interesting stories make for melted servers aka the "Slashdot Effect" and postings using contractions instead of pronoun modifiers (showing possession).

I can barely stand "CD's" instead of "CDs", but when you've got a little time before hitting the [submit] button, it's a bit slack.

I passed a pool hall the other day ("Chalkies" - no smoking - where the Black Widow hangs out) and there was a big sign in the window dealing with "Scheduling Party's") and all I could think was, "a Slashdot editor must have done that."

There's more to proofreading than balancing parentheses, making sure there are a couple of periods, and validating the links.
__________________________

To the inevitable declaration of "Grammar Nazi!", I offer these two thoughts:

1. Are you willing to tinker with Godwin's Law so quickly?
2. Such a declaration is usually made by a Grammar Idiot.

Re:"Cool!"

[70Bang]

I have three questions:

1. Does anyone know what patent number Jeff got for this?

2. Where did he hang the appropriate gold plaque?

3. Where can we buy the preapproved pads he uses to save time & effort?

(I know there's prior art just in Sony's DRM foobar, but I think Jeff would just say this is different because it's for DVDs).

Re:"Cool!"

[cptgrudge]

On one hand, the Tleilaxu are a little dark for my taste, and certain aspects of my own ideology line up more with the later Bene Gesserit.

On the other hand, I'm a guy.

You see my predicament? I'm rather torn.

Re:"Cool!"

[the unbeliever]

Kwisatz Haderach!

Maybe your second set of kids will be twins and one will turn himself into an immortal sandworm?

Re:"Cool!"

[1u3hr]

Interesting, if perhaps unintentional usage of the incorrect "it's" instead of the correct "its", we also may get the feeling doubly reinforced again with the uncontracted "it is amazing".

I was thinking the wrong "it's" was an indication that it really was just a fanboy and not a shill (I expect a PR spiel from a big company to be at least grammatical). Though of course that could be what thay want us to think....

Sadly many submitters seem to rush to regurgitate press releases, only adding their own spelling mistakes, so Amazon and such don't need to conspire to get their Slashvertisements.

Re:"Cool!"

[cptgrudge]

Sadly many submitters seem to rush to regurgitate press releases, only adding their own spelling mistakes, so Amazon and such don't need to conspire to get their Slashvertisements.

True. So maybe I wasn't bashing the submitter, but rather the Amazon-employed original author. That person might still be a shill.

What's ironic is that in my rush to post, I made the same stupid mistake as the submitter! Though I'd think that such submitter zealotry would employ Cut and Paste more often to avoid those pesky errors in an article submission. Assuming the source is a Press Release.

Re:"Cool!"

[cptgrudge]

Kwisatz Haderach!

I was halfway thinking that, but it seems rather vain and a bit blasphemous to give oneself messianic title, even if it is fictional.

Re:"Cool!"

[MacroRex]

I agree, "ten bucks and up" per movie is actually quite expensive.

If you happen to live in the EU I heartily recommend play.com. All their already cheap prices include shipping - and no, I'm not affliated with them in any way, I'm just a very happy customer.

Re:"Cool!"

[1u3hr]

I made the same stupid mistake...

And I';ve got some typos too. As an indication of my thick-fingeredness, htis post an uncorrected first pass. I went to school in htepre-PC era, I never make spelling m,istakes in handwriting, but typing, especailly in this crappy Salshdot text entry box, is terrible.

Re:"Cool!"

[troc]

'nother thumbs up for play.com. We use 'em for books as well (although they don't carry as many as Amazon) and recently got a rather cool radio from them :)

Re:"Cool!"

[IAmGarethAdams]

Huh?

So, any positive fact is shameless promotion, and any negative fact is playing to the Slashdot demographic?

Good to know you're not just out to pick a fight.

Re:"Cool!"

[Argentice]

The submitter might be a shill. Seems way too obvious in the cheerleading aspect, at least to me. Shall we break down the summary?

The clue is in the URL. The section after the "ref=" is an affiliate link. The poster gets a kick-back if you buy anything in that session.

Re:"Cool!"

[shades66]

I'll second that as well ! + If you pre-order and the price drops you get the lower price and if the price rises you pay the original price at the time of the order .

Also http://www2.cd-wow.com/ might be worth a look .In the UK LOST was split into two parts each being around £30. From cd-wow I got the entire series 1 for £32(ish) while it was still being shown on UK tv.. Nice to be able to watch it without the adverts :)

Re:"Cool!"

[shades66]

Just a quick update to my previous post.. On the unbox site it lists the entire series of firefly for $22 or $1.99 per episode. via cd-wow http://www2.cd-wow.us/detail_results_2.php?product _code=10490 it is $25.95 for the DVD set with includes "Interactive Menus, Scene Selection, Making Of Feature, Featurette".

and then you can use your favorite software to copy them to your portable players :)

No thanks amazon.

Re:"Cool!"

[beef3k]

I'd like to chime in as well. Extremely fast and free delivery on everything, very good prices, most often the cheapest after you take free shipping into account, and last but not least their customer service is EXCELLENT.

Re:"Cool!"

[Fred_A]

I think Amazon's PR department has added the apostrophe after careful reading of /. posting style so as not to alienate the readers (except for the minority that is either foreign or somehow managed to learn English despite being schooled in the US). I think it's quite slick.

Re:"Cool!"

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, far too expensive for something so restricted. If it was half the price they would get three times the number of customers. Personally i think bittorrent provides the cheapest, fastest, most workable downloading service for movies/tv/music. OK the quality can be a bit iffy until it comes out on dvd, but thats ok by me. I go to the cinema a lot anyway so i've prob seen all the good movies by then. It is also the only one that works with linux AFAIK. Until the commercial services can rival these features, I'm going to stick with bittorrent.

Re:"Cool!"

[mgblst]

What a load... This was actually one of the more informative news snippets, apart fomr the fact that it doesn't actually say what it is (a movie download site). You can manipulate the posters inability to spell as much as you want, but it is clear from the last word of the post, that it is some kid.

Re:"Cool!"

[cptgrudge]

The poster's inability to spell is fairly minor and actually irrelevant. If there was no intent behind it, the rest stands. I never said that the submitter actually was a shill, just that the person might be one.

Look at the submitter's posting history. It doesn't seem to match up with a "kid" mentality. Generally well informed, but no posts since January 2004? What brought on actually making an article submission? The user name does pop up on a couple other forums; motorcycle.com(0 posts) and 2CPU.com(3 posts), but no additional info can be gathered there. So we look back at the slashdot post history for comparison.

Look at this post. Look at this one. They are both modded Insightful or Informative. You're the one that said:

it is clear from the last word of the post, that it is some kid.

Would you have made the same assumption of the user if you had only seen those posts? I'm not taking issue whether or not the user is a kid. The person could be a bright 10 year old boy or a 70 year old woman, for all we know as fact. I myself assumed that the submitter was a male in a few of my posts, despite the fact that we have zero evidence of it. One of andrewl6097's other posts does use the "it's cool" element in it, referring to IPv6, so it may just be a favorite word. Your assumption that the submitter is a kid may also be part of the submission's aim. As people age, they wish to be young again, at least at heart. It is this wish that drives trends, most obviously in the fashion industry. If the allegedly young submitter is enamored of the service, it may drive others to emulate.

I don't take issue with every slashdot submission, but something about this one just seemed off. So I took it to task. Even if I'm completely wrong and way off target, the fact still stands that the company got some fantastic PR and advertising.

Re:"Cool!"

[mdecarle]

You see, I agree with you in general.

I see 2 uses for Amazon Unbox:
    a. Things that are not available on DVD (such as Jem & The Holograms)
    b. If you want to test a series before you buy the DVD box.

Re:"Cool!"

[gravis777]

They were charging 10 bucks for movies I can go down and buy at Walmart on DVD for $7.50. Am I paying the extra $2.50 for a DRM crippled file? And the portables are using Windows DRM, so I guess that means I cannot put it on my 5th generation iPod

Re:"Cool!"

[gravis777]

AE Wi-Fi radio technical details

        * Supports Real Audio, MP3 and Windows Media streams
        * Stereo sound from unique twin AE drivers
        * Uses 802.11b and 802,11g Wi-Fi connectivity
        * Offers 128-bit (max) WEP security
        * Supports HTTP protocol
        * 'Reply Key' enables future interactive features
        * Uses Linux OS Kernel
        * Dimensions - 165mm x 123mm x 120mm (HxWxD)
        * Weight - 0.916kg (1kg packaged)

Plays Windows Media content on a linux kernel? Does Bill Gates know about this?

Still cool

Re:"Cool!"

[Anonymous Coward]

please go crawl under a rock and die. you make me sick

Re:"Cool!"

[cptgrudge]

Question everything. Perhaps I just have gotten so used to bias in reporting that I expect it everywhere. I instantly switch into "What's the Angle?" mode to insulate myself from being unwittingly convinced of a particular view on an issue. If subjected to rational thought, I might have a different or completely opposite opinion. Nearly everything I read is taken with a grain of salt.

I know from the context of the medium what the target audience is, so I know what starting conditions are present. After that you just see how the various elements, facts, and opinions presented will be interpreted by the audience. What will the target audience's reaction be to a given statement be? What emotions are created or subdued by the word structure or ideas? Written content, in any language can be used in fascinating ways to agressively push an agenda, influence the reader in subtle ways, or cater to a given audience. Something didn't feel right to me when I read it, so I took it to task.

As I wrote in another post, even if I'm completely wrong and way off target in my analysis, the fact still stands that the company got some fantastic PR and advertising.

Re:"Cool!"

[cptgrudge]

The section after the "ref=" is an affiliate link. The poster gets a kick-back if you buy anything in that session.

I can't believe that I missed that! Good eye!

Though it doesn't really change the fact that I think the summary was crafted to funnel people to the link. But in this case, it wasn't a shill, just someone wanting to make some cash.

One problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It uses micro$hit DRM so screw it. Just another way for Micro$hit to unlawfully corner the entire market.

Re:One problem

[Goaway]

Wow. I didn't think the kind of people who say "micro$hit" actually existed. I always thought they were a myth, to scare kids with.

Re:One problem

[westlake]

It uses micro$hit DRM so screw it. Just another way for Micro$hit to unlawfully corner the entire market.

twitter, is that you?

Re:One problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Just wondering, is West Lake where you fuck your mother?

Re:One problem

[WilliamSChips]

Are you part of the botnet that jl.hb.com uses to harass twitter?

Re:One problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your fucking internet cocks out of my face, retards.

Marktup

[Mateo_LeFou]

At 1/3 to 1/2 this price I'd go on a spree.

Re:Marktup

[hackstraw]

At 1/3 to 1/2 this price I'd go on a spree.

I thought the summary said that TV shows were 1.99/episode and movies 9.99 and up.

Let me guess? I have to pay for an internet connection. Wait for the download to come down, and store the download. Oh, but I don't even own the copy either due to DRM, right?

For about $40-50/month I get tons of TV episodes with DVR service, the transport mechanism and storage media and no DRM.

I'd say about 1/5 to 1/10th or less of the cost, and I might to on a spree.

I know I'm in the slashdot minority here, but I think I'm still in the majority of the population that actually prefers to watch TV from the couch on a TV with a remote.

From the informal polls I've taken by talking with people, I know of two people who routinely watch TV on the computer, and the rest of the hundreds of people I know still use a television.

Re:Marktup

[Duds]

To include the price you pay for internet in the price you say they're charging here is as dumb as including the price you pay for gas in the price of buying a DVD from Walmart.

Or more accurately, to include the price you pay for your internet connection to order it from amazon "boxed".

Re:Marktup

[netsyd]

I know I'm in the slashdot minority here, but I think I'm still in the majority of the population that actually prefers to watch TV from the couch on a TV with a remote.

Amen.

iTunes

[carlocj]

Hey just a couple of days before iTunes, way to go amazon, lets try a price war! ;)

Re:iTunes

[wall0159]

Why will there be a price war when the same interests are behind both sites? The face looks different, but the gizzards are the same.

Re:iTunes

[Frungy]

mmmmmmm... giz-zards. Well, I'm living in the South. And I'll probably spend money on actual gizzards before spending anything on this service. Get more entertainment utility out of the gizzards too, based on first impressions.

Re:iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazons and iTunes got gizzards!

why pay for single-OS content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I pay for video files that are tied to a particular OS?

Funny thing is, i *would* pay for non-DRMed movies. I've bought plenty of non-DRM music online.

It deserves to fail, IMHO.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[eliot1785]

I would even pay for DRM'd movies (sorry guys), if the DRM weren't so restrictive. I buy stuff from ITMS all the time, partly because I know that if worse came to worse I could always burn them all as CD audio files and then rip them into MP3 format. My feeling on DRM is that I think some DRM is good to protect the artists, but there should be a way around it as long as you put in a little bit of work, to discourage people from doing it. It doesn't look like there's a way around this one.

So basically, rather than balancing customer interests against artist/studio interests, they went wholesale with the artist/studio interests. They'll probably pay for it by not getting a lot of buyers.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[mikefrommcmurray]

In addition to that, why would I buy from a site that I can't buy from in my money? I am in Canada, and Amazon UnBox is not available on Amazon.ca.

I agree with other posters that this was rushed out, perhaps in advance of Apple's announcement next week.

Tying the sale of something as simple as a movie to particular hardware is as stupid as the VHS/Beta war. Oops! I forgot about HD/Blu-ray!

Apple's style of DRM that allows me to make an un-DRMmed backup on a Music CD is the only type I'll accept. Anything more restrictive can be shoved where the sun don't shine.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[westlake]

Why would I pay for video files that are tied to a particular OS?

because you are among the tens of millions of home users running Windows or OSX who don't give a damn about cross-platform compatibility?

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[ejp1082]

Protect the artist from what, exactly?

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[Anonymous Coward]

> because you are among the tens of millions of home users running Windows or OSX who don't give a damn about cross-platform compatibility?

Well, I'm not of course, but let's go with your hypothetical situation for a minute, that I'm a Windows user so this thing works on my platform of choice.

10 years ago, I wasn't using Linux. 10 years before that, I wasn't using AmigaOS. 10 years before that, I wasn't using TRS-DOS. 10 years before that, I wasn't using Unix.

What are the chances I'll still be using the same OS in 10 more years, if I'm using Windows now? What are the chances I'll still be able to play the content I just bought in 10 years? I bet it is well approximated by 0%.

Now, what are the chances I'd still be able to play a physical DVD in 10 years? Or non-DRM'ed video? I've got damn-near 20 year old digital audio and video files from my Amiga days that I can still play just fine today on a totally different platform and CPU architecture.

Even if I was using Windows today, I might not be a while on down the road, so I *still* wouldn't want to buy a video file tied to a single OS.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[Nataku564]

Fans. Artists must never be allowed to accumulate enough of a fanbase where they can actually survive on their own. If they sold non-drm'd stuff, you would be able to lend it to friends, and spread the popularity of the artist. This rogue promotional method is far cheaper and more effective than the big label's methods, and must never be allowable under law.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[Jules Mercuri]

Pardon my asking, but what _else_ were you using in 1966 if not Unix?

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[supasam]

he was using the operator. Yes, the one at the other end of the phone.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[JimDaGeek]

Mac OS X users? This content will not run on Mac OS X. It won't even run on Win2k. Read the system requirements....

Amazon Unbox System Requirements

Minimum System Requirements

        OPERATING SYSTEM: The Amazon Unbox video player application is only compatible with Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2 (SP2), Windows XP Professional SP2, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition SP2, or Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 Update Rollup 2. The Amazon Unbox video player is not compatible with Apple/Macintosh operating systems.

        COMPUTER HARDWARE: A PC with a 1.5-gigahertz (GHz) processor or faster, at least 512MB of memory, and a DirectX 9.0 complaint Video (64 MB Memory) and Sound Card.

        INTERNET CONNECTION: Broadband internet connection capable of 800 kbps sustained transfer speeds.

Recommended System Specifications

        COMPUTER HARDWARE: A PC with a 2.4-gigahertz (GHz) processor or faster, at least 1024MB of memory, and a DirectX 9.0 compliant Video (128 MB Memory) and a Multi Channel 5.1 Capable Sound Card.

        INTERNET CONNECTION: Broadband internet connection capable of 1.5+ mbps of sustained transfer speeds.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[70Bang]

So you punish fans who have multiple playing devices by paying more in the interest of avoiding sharing?

The missus has a CD collection (Yanni and a lot of other things I won't mention), but she has one of two options (she's not going the iPod way):

1. Pack everything up from home, lug it to the SUV, load whatever she wanted to listen to, then haul it in from the parking lot to her office. Meaning: getting her a decent-sized luggage bag with wheels on it.

2. Make copies of each CD and keep them where appropriate; specfically, home, SUV, work, for her edification.

Door #1 means she will stop buying CDs despite the availability of discretionary income. This (obviously) means the artists will see less money. Not from theft, but inconvenience for the buyer.

Using door #2 means she doesn't have to tow things around. She's not sharing the IP/CDs with anyone else and the artist et al. aren't losing any money. (I suppose you could say the manufacturers of the blank discs are making money as well)

Piracy is going to occur, no matter what you do. That doesn't mean they have to lie down & take it. But they also have to understand that despite a case of "my sandbox (marketshare), my rules", dangling today's version of Rubik's Cube is only going to make people more determined to find a solution[1], silkscreen it on a pair of the company's boxers (purchased from the company store, thank-you very much - after all, this is an academic[1] exercise), and run it up the flagpole (the company likely has their flag on top of whatever country's flag should be on top) for all to see when they go to work the next morning.

Oh, if two of us want to trade movies, even if they're the same price at the site, we cannot do so. This is one of the biggest failings of any e-Book attempts. This is not to mention giving you something I purchased (music,movie,book) because I value giving it to you more than keeping it for myself. The producers are going to use "unfair use" or "piracy" as an attempt to avoid developing more marketing creativity and beeline like an asymptote toward single-use fees for each of those media.

They know people aren't going to stop buying (music,movies,books) altogether because only an egregious mistake of monumental proportiions will co$t them where it hurt$. They're obviously dipping their toes and testing the water. Sony got something soft & fleshy caught in their collective zippers. That's because they tried to sneak it past everyone with the empty beehive trick.[2] Amazon's appearing to take the approach, "things will work well because we're Amazon (never forget that), we're telling everyone up-front, and because we're letting them play it on more than one machine."
_________________________________________
[1] look at all of the weekend events where people are provided opportunities to crack things for the purpose of whose mojo is stronger. Socking it to the man only provides more fun.

[2] I looked at beekeeping once (in the middle of 1-acre lots) and had a nice place or two to stash them. I was concerned about neighbors. It was suggested to me that I put empty boxes where I was going to set up & leave them there for a few months before getting the bees. Once they were in place and if someone thought there was a problem of some type I could claim, "Hey, they weren't there before, why are you having a problem now?" A candygram[3] pointed out that if someone got stung, even if they didn't develop anaphylaxis, they'd try to sue for some type of pain, hoping there'd be a settlement to make it go away."

[3] "Candygram." {pause} "Landshark".

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[gnu-sucks]

Not running on win2k shouldn't surprise anyone.. that's over 6 years old now.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[eliot1785]

Protect them from having fans not buy their music because it is too easy to get it for free.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[BiggyP]

So are all the iTMS downloaded files you currently posses in a non lossy format or would you be burning lossy compressed tracks to CD and then ripping them and encoding with another slightly different lossy compression method? It doesn't sound like a good option to me. Imagine if you purchased a CD containing those tracks, maybe at a local independent record shop, you would have a lot more control over the music you paid, not to mention a nice hard copy with all the tracks in the intended order(album structures are often an important part of the listening experience) , some cover art, sleeve notes, lyrics, etc.

If i were to buy music files online it would have to be from a service such as http://magnatune.com/, i'd love to see this idea explored by other record labels but there's just no need for them to consider it if everyone owns an iPod and is happy to swallow their DRM.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[mgblst]

Yes, how rude of them. Just because it is a new service, doesn't give them an excuse to not have it available to the anyone in the entire world? What sort of crap is this, this is racism at its worst. Amazon pandering to the US and no-one else!

Give them a chance - it can take ages, even if the tech and support is there, for the legal stuff for each country to be worked on.

Unfortunately (or fortunately probably) there is no RIAW.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[CastrTroy]

However Windows XP was release on October 25, 2001, which means it's coming up on it's 5th birthday. Windows 2000 on the other hand, was released on December 12, 1999. So it's under 2 years older than Windows XP. I definitely see a problem here, especially because iTunes runs on Windows 2000 (SP4). If i was somebody who bought windows 2000, i'd be very much not wanting to upgrade to XP, which is pretty much the same operating system with a flashy skin, and hogs more resources.

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[ejp1082]

And when in history has DRM ever accomplished this end?

Re:why pay for single-OS content?

[gnu-sucks]

Hey, I agree with you completely, and if I'm forced to use windows, I prefer 2k as well.

The thing is, XP is the most recent 'operating system' for windows users (yes, I know it's basically 2k minus a few things, plus a few others).

So, of course they support the most recent OS. And the next-to-most-recent OS is either Win 'Me' (UG!) or Win 2k. Both of which are ancient by most 'os' standards.

Your point about the age of win XP is well taken -- no wonder the reds are busting ass to get Vista out the door. Furthermore, even the most recent 'SP' of XP is probably older than I'd imagine.

Apple's smart though, in supporting 2k SP4, XP, and Mac OS X 10.2-10.4. I just think it's unfair to expect other companies to do this.

I entirely see your point though.

Support

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

No Mac support == dead to me.

No support for iPod == dead to the market.

iTunes movies will probably be dead to me too since I live in !USA.

DVDs are cheaper anyway. the entire concept of movie downloads priced the same, or more expensive, as DVDs is retarded.

Re:Support

[wired_LAIN]

Why is it retarded? The material cost for DVDs make up virtually none of the cost... its the content that we pay for. Now if the content that we download is restricted with DRM, thats another issue, but theres nothing wrong with paying to download dvds.

Re:Support

[Yeshua]

The grandparent didn't say there was anything wrong with paying for downloads, just paying the same. The costs to distribute an electronic version (i.e. no shipping, no retail staff, no retail floorspace, just bandwidth and storage), should be significantly less than a nice shiny plastic and metal version.

Thus if you're paying the same, you're paying too much.

Re:Support

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>The material cost for DVDs make up virtually none of the cost

the DRM nature is a big point but not all of it. DVDs are trivial to lend, borrow and move about.

also materials are nice, or can be. so that's a loss. plus downloads have (higher) storage costs for the end user.

also, I use iTunes for 2 reasons:
1. individual song downloads - doesn't apply to movies.
2. exclusive content (exclusive tracks, individual music videos, out-of-print albums) - doesn't apply to movies.

downloading individual TV shows is where I think this kind of service can be really useful.

Re:Support

[Anonymous Coward]

No Mac support == dead to me.

Most Macs sold in the last 12 months can run XP, and all Macs sold in the next 12 months can run XP.

Re:Support

[Anonymous Coward]

2. exclusive content (exclusive tracks, individual music videos, out-of-print albums) - doesn't apply to movies.

Why doesn't it? They could just as easily put in some exclusive features. Plus out-of-print movies.

Re:Support

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

true, but what's the performance like?

boot camp: is it worth rebooting just to buy something from a company that doesn't care about your custom?
parallels: unbox has some pretty hefty requirements. will parallels play it pefectly?

for me, windows on a mac is about necessity or about making me money. not so I can spend money.

Re:Support

[NosTROLLdamus]

Most Macs sold in the last 12 months can run XP, and all Macs sold in the next 12 months can run XP.

So that's like, what? Twelve MACs?

Re:Support

[Have Blue]

There's also a big reason to use iTunes for TV that doesn't apply to either music or movies: Get it the day after it airs, not a few months later on DVD or at some indeterminate time when the network decides to rerun it.

Re:Support

[JimDaGeek]

So someone should have to pay extra money to run XP on their Macs just to download and watch a DRM-encrusted movie? Why bother when you can have the movie shipped to you and rip the DVD yourself and strip the stupid commercials? Oh, and why would someone want to taint a nice Mac with MS Windows?

And if you want to "stick it to the man", just use a service like Netflix and when you get the movies just rip a copy for your self before you send it back :-)

Re:Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The purpose of a movie *download* (over a DVD) would be to watch some good movie *right now* (and maybe even once; I don't have to own it; but then in this case I really don't anyway).

That means I wouldn't pay any more for it than for watching a *new* movie in theaters. $10 for a crippled download is way too much.

Re:Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, films that get released on DVD in the first place are almost always profitable enough on the back of cinema sales to pay back the cost of the film production already. The portion of DVD receipts that the studio gets is virtually all profit. With a download release, they don't even have to spend that little bit more on the extras.

Then you bear in mind the costs of a DVD is mostly the retail costs, i.e. people and floorspace (if at the RRP, 50% of the price can go straight to the retailer) and the shipping costs, as well as some to run the factory. The cost of the plastic disc is a very small part of the costs, yes. Bandwidth and web-hosting is a LOT lower cost than retail and traditional shipping.

A DVD with no extras, DRM restricted, and with much lower overall costs of production, with the portion that goes to the studio being pure profit? Hell yes, I expect that to retail at a lower price than a physical DVD. Free markets are supposed to settle on selling goods at just above cost, not at the highest point the customer will bear. Ah, but it's not a free market. Copyright deliberately gives companies a monopoly effectively forever now, so they have zero incentive to reduce prices. And they wonder why people don't buy their product.

(posting anon to preserve previous mods)

Re:Support

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you bandwidth for one DVD costs far more than shipping for one DVD when the shipping is done in bulk. Total retail staff bill probably equals total sysadmin and programmers costs, which just leaves us with retail floor space vs. server and storage cost. So while downloading is probably slightly cheaper, it isn't much cheaper.

Re:Support

[Anonymous Coward]

And, unfortunately for me, this is US-only :(

At first I was happy to see that they were selling Star Trek, only to find out that they don't support Europe. I'm hoping that amazon.co.uk will, but even then I'm afraid they would just sell to UK, not to the whole EU.... In this sense, EU is more fragmented than US -- for example, even iTunes is not available in the whole EU yet.

Re:Support

[CapnGib]

Not to mention that you CANT PUT IT IN A DVD PLAYER... or watch it on a mac... or linux... or xbox.... or iPod+video... or even on another computer (without re-downloading it) But I can do all those things and more with a physical DVD, so why should they cost the same again?

Didn't we try this with those retarded PSP movies? Cost the same, but only work on a PSP? Sure its protable, but that might have made sense 5 years ago when portable dvd players cost $2000.

I can only think of 2 advantages of a download vs DVD 1) Laziness... you can download in 2 hrs without leaving your chair. (Notice I said laziness not time, as I'm sure you could drive to blockbuster or bestbuy, get the DVD and start watching it in the same time or less) 2) Replacement... you can get another copy if you lose yours.

FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods excluded)

[Lord Satri]

The FAQ here.

Which includes this showstopper for Mac and Linux users:
Minimum System Requirements

OPERATING SYSTEM: The Unbox Video player application is only compatible with Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2 (SP2), Windows XP Professional SP2, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition SP2, or Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 Update Rollup 2. The Unbox Video player is not compatible with Apple/Macintosh operating systems.

COMPUTER HARDWARE: A PC with a 1.5-gigahertz (GHz) processor or faster, at least 512MB of memory, and a DirectX 9.0 complaint Video (64 MB Memory) and Sound Card.

INTERNET CONNECTION: Broadband internet connection capable of 800 kbps sustained transfer speeds.

No iPods either:
Can I use Amazon Unbox on my Macintosh or iPod?
Unfortunately, our Amazon Unbox video downloads are not compatible with Apple / Macintosh hardware and computer systems.

"Plays for Sure" ... MUHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[MarkTina]

The phrase "If your device is Plays for Sure compliant it may work," is quite amusing.

So the device claims to play for sure ... but it might not ... great stuff! ;-)

Re:"Plays for Sure" ... MUHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[syousef]

Isn't that how all DRM seems to work: Give us your money now. You might be able to watch the movie right after you do that. You may even be able to watch it again at a later date. Then again we may just charge you for it again next time you decide you want to see it, or if the format changes, or if it's a new moon, or... By the way you might want to check out these other movies you may get to watch. Seeya. Have a nice day. Come again (*but not if you have a complaint)

Re:"Plays for Sure" ... MUHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[noidentity]

At least you can be sure it might play! Funny how once computers became powerful enough to end compatibility issues, the industry found a way to intentionally prevent things from working reliably.

Re:"Plays for Sure" ... MUHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[asuffield]

"PlaysForSure" has always been a classic exercise in doubletalk. The thing is entirely about preventing you from playing media.

Re:"Plays for Sure" ... MUHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[gosand]

The phrase "If your device is Plays for Sure compliant it may work," is quite amusing.

And quite simple to handle. Offer a free 30 second clip for people to download to test their players.

Of course, that would be the smart solution, and you can't really use that phrase in the same sentence with DRM.

WMV files

[gEvil (beta)]

The site says they use wmv files. I'm assuming the recently mentioned FairUse4WM will work on them. Looks like I might need to check out one of their $3.99 (-$1.99 first time user discount) movie "rentals" to see how well it works (FairUse4WM, not Amazon Unbox).

Re:WMV files

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that vulnerability was patched already.

Re:WMV files

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded numbnuts here informative? FairUse4WM works only on WMA, not WMV. This has been repeatedly mentioned on slashdot and elsewhere.

Re:WMV files

[gEvil (beta)]

Patched, and then broken again...

Re:WMV files

[gEvil (beta)]

Supposedly FairUse4WM 1.2 includes video support.

Re:WMV files

[microbrewer]

fyi FAIrUse4DRM 1.1 supported WMV DRM inluding rental DRM ;).

Re:WMV files

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. FairUse4WM works great on WMVs. 1.2 works flawlessly even on a "patched" Windows box.

Re:WMV files

[Anonymous Coward]

I can confirm that FairUse4WM version 1.1 successfully un-DRMs content purchased from Amazon Unbox (a South Park episode, in this case). FYI, the filesize is 432MB for 22:22 minutes at 640x480 resolution.

Re:WMV files

[jZnat]

The XviD encodes from the scene are like half that size, and they're typically recorded in a PAL region where standard-def is better.

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[sugapablo]

And here I was clicking every Star Trek episode and ready to give them a fistfull of cash...

But then they had to say "Fuck you Mr. Mac user!"

maybe for future

[yagu]

I got all excited.... shouldn't have. Virtually no shows I care about watching are offered (only one major network, CBS has offerings, unless you include FOX). Even if, the offerings are old shows... shows if I'd cared to watch I'd have (and did) watched long ago courtesy of TiVo or some crappy knockoff (Comcast, anybody?).

That aside, I'm guessing many people will consider this a decent offering (I don't). The next hurdle is:

• XP is the only OS for now on which this will run
• minimum 1.5GHz processor (I'm guessing that's of the x86 family).
• minimum 512MB memory (many, many machines out there still don't come close to this)
• DirectX 9.0 compliant Video 64MB (ironically, Amazon misspells it "complaint"... Freudian?
• internet connection to support sustained 800kbps transfer speeds. I don't know many people who subscribe to this kind of pipe.

But, further consider the recommended requirements:

• 2.4GHz processor
• Direct X 9.0 compliant Video (128MB) (again, the interesting typo, "complaint"
• internet connection capable of 1.5+ mbps transfer speeds.

What are these guys smoking?

Of course it's all neatly wrapped around the axle of DRM so it can be more of a nightmare for anyone who helps and support friends and neighbors.

DOA

Re:maybe for future

[Keeper]

They're smoking the "you need a computer fast enough to use a 'nextgen' codec" weed. They're taking content that requires 6gb on a DVD and compressing it down to 1.2gb with little/no quality loss.

Re:maybe for future

[tartlhuQ]

What's currently on network tv that's actually worth watching? Fox has some good stuff (Family Guy, Simpsons), but other than that everything good is on channels like Comedy Central, SciFi, or FX (Always Sunny In Philidelphia).

Re:maybe for future

[Anonymous Coward]

Cartoon Network, between 10:30pm to 12:00am Eastern.

Futurama, Futurama, Family Guy. Oh, sure, you might have covered Family Guy with FOX, but FOX sucks, and if I recall, were the devious morons behind initially cancelling..

Wait, I must stop before I become Master of the Obvious, High King of No Shit. Of course FOX is responsible for trying to cancel good shows!

Other than that, the History Channel is sometimes entertaining - look for the reappearance of Hitler Month (it usually happens in the Fall) - nothing but a month of WW II goodness. Right now though it's all mostly Modern Marvels: The Toilet and other such not terribly exciting programming.

TBH, if this wasn't asinine technology (Windows, and I'm going to wager it won't run on x86_64 properly) and had a decent price, I'd consider it. Network programming sucks as far as I'm concerned - my ridiculous tax to the local Cable Baron grants me over a hundred channels, and my TV only visits three of them. :P

Re:maybe for future

[Mr2001]

internet connection to support sustained 800kbps transfer speeds. I don't know many people who subscribe to this kind of pipe.

That's kilobits, not kilobytes, right? 800 kbps is slow these days. Cable modems in my town run at 8 Mbps.

Re:maybe for future

[jasonwc]

Actually, their "DVD Quality" videos are 2500 kbit/sec which is very high. A DVDRip to two CDs (1400 MB) is usually 1200-1300 kbit/sec. A 2 hour movie at 2500 kbit/sec will be 2.2 GB.

Re:maybe for future

[gnu-sucks]

It gets better:

Unfortunately, our Amazon Unbox video downloads are not compatible with Apple / MacIntosh hardware and computer systems.

MacIntosh. Yeah.

I also found this funny:
One hour of programming is roughly equal to one gigabyte (1 GB) of file space on your computer... 1-hour TV episode=1.2GB

And the finale:
Some videos encoded with 5.1 surround sound do not sound as good as possible if your PC's sound settings are not configured properly.

Ya think!?!?

Re:maybe for future

[Keeper]

I meant to write 2.1gb. Stupid dislexia. :p

Re:maybe for future

[entrigant]

I'm not sure which of these are on what is considered network tv, but surely some of them are. There's Bones, Invasion, The Closer, Smallville, 24, and that's just what is currently still in production. TV seems to be coming out of the reality series insanity a bit. There are lots of new drama's coming out that look like they may have potential. There's plenty to see. All you have to do is look.

Re:maybe for future

[Blakey Rat]

Same here. Anybody on a cable modem is getting at *least* 3mbps and probably averaging about 5-7mbps in the US. Anybody on DSL is getting 3mbps unless they're miles away from a switching station, or they're using some crummy provider.

The only people this really leaves out is modem users, but they were left out anyway.

Re:maybe for future

[Trixter]

What's worse is that, like most digital DRM downloads, they probably mangle beyond watchability anything that is a pure interlaced source, ie. sporting events, etc. Downloadable content never exceeds 30fps.

Re:maybe for future

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "lysdexia". HTH.

amazon movies

[trancertong]

It seems this whole thing is kind of half baked, as if they were in a rush to get out before the itunes movie store.

Re:amazon movies

[pacalis]

Totally half baked as mixed model. While the restrictions of 2 downloads, 2 computers sucks, some are even worse - my wife and I watch coupling from BBC:
"US customers only. Your rental videos can be stored on your PC for 30 days. Once you press play, you have 168 hours to watch each video before it expires. Learn more "
$1.99 for 22 minute episode rental? Are they joking?

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think that they at least would mention Linux.

Why isn't MS drm on macs

[MySchizoBuddy]

I'm having this argument with a friend and he says its cause Apple dictates what MS can do on macs. So apple has stopped MS from making drm available on macs Any idea

Re:Why isn't MS drm on macs

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see... what benefit does Microsoft achieve by making DRM available on OS X (especially DRM that is compatible with all current Microsoft media files)? Well, they make all sorts of media that was previously only available on Windows platforms now available on OS X. Another reason not to use Windows.

Microsoft is not a software company that makes DRM. They are a software company that makes operating systems - the DRM supports their operating system by making more media available for their users.

And the idea that Apple (for some mysterious reason) has refused to let Microsoft port their DRM to OS X, to the HINDRANCE of Apple's users, is totally absurd.

Re:Why isn't MS drm on macs

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft can't modify MacOS X to add copy protection crap in there at all levels. Think of the protected audio path in WinXP, or the protected video path in Vista. Apple have nothing like those, and as far as I can see they don't intend to either. Microsoft can't add those things to MacOS X themselves, so they refuse to support DRM.

MacOS X is also lacking some other bits that MS-DRM uses (like any equivalent of the "protected storage" section of the registry). Not that it really matters, since they obviously don't work, but it's a nice excuse for Microsoft to not support DRM.

Same deal with Linspire, by the way. It has officially licensed WM codecs, but no DRM because Linux has none of the restrictions that Windows does.

Movies Downloaded

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't think I will pay for a movie download I can only watch on my PC, and only the PC I downloaded it on too!
The price for the movie itself isn't high, but you have to add data charges (unless you steal bandwidth from work)
At the cost we have to pay in NZ for broadband, it is still cheaper for me to buy the DVD and rip it overnight. I can then watch it anywhere I want, on any device I own without having to ask Amazon for permission.

Screw DRM! Every day I feel better about spending the time to get familiar with Linux and building a killer media station without making Microsoft rich in the process.

$10 bucks and up, that's fucking ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

$10 bucks and up, that's fucking ridiculous.

I pay that or less in a movie theater. I pay much less than that to rent or greencine it. Never go but I would bet movies cost less than that at Walmart, esp when on sale.

Oh, and you can eventually get a whole season or two of shows for $40-60.

All the above options lack the DRM feature, so I guess you get what you pay for.

Re:$10 bucks and up, that's fucking ridiculous.

[LordLucless]

Actually, DVDs do contain DRM - CSS, region encoding, and that content-locking unfeature that prevents the user from skipping legal notices and advertising. Moreover, DVDs and iTunes both have the number one feature that I look for whenever I'm thinking of buying DRM-enumbered media - it's been cracked. The only time I buy DRM stuff is when I know I can easily get around the DRM if need be.

Re:$10 bucks and up, that's fucking ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot another option: for $20 a month on NetFlix I get all the DVDs I could ever possibly want to rip for as long as I want. That's only TWO crippled Amazon downloads.

....but can I WATCH the things?

[krell]

Can anyone tell in the gobblygook if you are "allowed" to burn the downloads to DVD so you can actually watch them on a player? It's a no-go for me if I have to sit at a computer monitor just to watch the things.

Re:....but can I WATCH the things?

[eliot1785]

Nope, you are not. You can burn it to the DVD, but only in their file type. You can't burn it in a DVD-Player readable format. From the FAQ:

Can I make a DVD from my Amazon Unbox downloads?

You can store your downloaded files on a DVD or other removable computer storage device for the purpose of backup in the same format as the original files. However, any DVDs that you burn with Amazon Unbox files will not be readable by a DVD player. You can only view the files using Amazon Unbox installed on the computer that originally received the downloads..

Basically, this service blows.

Re:....but can I WATCH the things?

[borg007]

I heartily agree. I burn DVD's for my DVD player. Before this service was announced, I assumed that was what my DVD player was for! I especially like the part where it removes all your purchases if you uninstall the player. Whenever the player doesn't work the FAQ probably says to remove the player and reinstall. Ooooops. I didn't see the PSP on the device list either. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate this service a perfect ZERO. Next!

Re:....but can I WATCH the things?

[dukeZ]

I agree. At least with iTMS I can burn my music to an audio CD which actually works in a non-computer. Until these services let me burn a DVD from their player and let me play it on my iPod, there's no interest here... The whole "Plays for unsure" deal follows the usual Microsoft joke for reliability and interoperability...

When I would buy an Online Movie

[pjludlow]

I don't really want to download current movies I can get on a dvd. I can easily just buy them and rip them to my hard drive. There may be a possibility for obscure good movies I might want, but the odds of those coming online soon are probably less than being able to find them through ebay or some p2p/bittorrent solution.

What I would pay for are for movies currently playing in the theater. Heck, you could even make them limited to only play for a week/day after you downloaded them if needed. I would spend $15 to be able to watch whatever is new in the comfort of my home theater with family or friends than rather wait in line and deal with other theater inconveniences. Depending on the movie I would even spend more (split the cost with my friends of course). I doubt this offer will ever happen, but I do think it would be interesting to see how well it could do.

Don't get me wrong, the theater experience is great with the huge screen and the good sound system, but sometimes I'd rather be comfortable on my couch.

Re:When I would buy an Online Movie

[fithmo]

"What I would pay for are for movies currently playing in the theater. Heck, you could even make them limited to only play for a week/day after you downloaded them if needed."

Pay for one ticket and watch it many times? YES! The industry loves theater hopping!

"I would spend $15 to be able to watch whatever is new in the comfort of my home theater with family or friends than rather wait in line and deal with other theater inconveniences."

So you're willing to pay about the price of a non-matinee theater ticket to be able to watch current/new teather movies in your home while not giving them a chance to gouge you on food prices? Last of the big time spenders!

"Depending on the movie I would even spend more (split the cost with my friends of course)."

Letting your friends in the backdoor of the theater? Brilliant! What a persuasive argument for financially stability!

"...I do think it would be interesting to see how well it could do."

Yeah, I can't believe the industry hasn't jumped on this vast untapped market!

Steep anime prices...

[tktk]

How did Bandai & Amazon come up with their anime prices? I'm not picking on Bandai specifically except they're the only anime company I can find on Unbox.

I'm not sure about the pricing their season passes but the prices for individual episodes are $3.99. In comparison, a DVD costs about $15 and probably has 5 or more episodes. So for approximately the same price...download 4 episodes or buy a DVD?

Re:Steep anime prices...

[bizard]

It gets worse. I checked out a couple of the movie prices and they are generally the same as they are for the DVD (ie The Office at $13.45 for the download and $13.45 for the special widescreen edition with flair). As others have mentioned, that comes _with_ DRM and _without_ the flair, and probably at lower quality than the DVD (especially if their low-res trailers are a sample of the movie quality).

Re:Steep anime prices...

[mh101]

I can't comment specifically on any of the anime that Unbox currently has, but discs of Fullmetal Alchemist are about $20 each and contain 4 episodes. So for FMA anyway, $4 an episode would still work out cheaper.

I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[eliot1785]

You can't even transfer the file that you download between computers. Check this out, from their FAQ:

"You can only view the files using Amazon Unbox installed on the computer that originally received the downloads."

So that means if I buy one of these files and burn it on a DVD to transfer it to another computer that I own, I won't even be able to play it on that other computer. I will have to actually download it again from Amazon.com. You can store it on up to 2 computers (and 2 corresponding video players) at any given time, but files can only be played on the computer to which you downloaded it.

So that means if I want to use up to the 2 computer limit, I have to actually download it twice. There is no way to save download time by using alternative transmission methods, like a flash drive or a DVD-R. This sucks.

Remember all the early iTunes-like stores that failed? Although iTunes has DRM, it succeeded in part because its restrictions were less strong than, say, AOL's. I think Amazon.com's is too restrictive.

ITMS could beat it by being nicer about it, at least allowing you to transfer it between computers however you like. Honestly, that restriction doesn't even make sense from a DRM point of view, because you could always just require people to "authorize" a computer like ITMS. Maybe they aren't as skilled at this as Apple is?

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[kimvette]

"You can only view the files using Amazon Unbox installed on the computer that originally received the downloads."

I'll stick with DVD purchases or torrent downloads, thankyouverymuchAmazon.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[abandonment]

yup, pretty much.

i download everything off the net onto my laptop, and then burn &/or otherwise transfer to my other machine (desktop) with a nice big flat panel screen for watching.

this 'locking to one machine' system is completely bass-ackwards and a non-starter...

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[cptgrudge]

this 'locking to one machine' system is completely bass-ackwards and a non-starter...

Yeah, my DVDs aren't tied to a single DVD player (not that They don't wish it were so). Why should downloaded movies be different, especially when they cost nearly the same?

I think people have gotten too used to the portability of radios, LPs, MD players, cassettes, CDs, mp3 players, DVDs, magazines, books, soft drinks, and other smallish physical objects for there to be much traction on such a restrictive system.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[JimDaGeek]

Not to sound like a parrot, but I have to say: "same here". $10 bucks for a DRM-encrusted-WinXP-Only video? No thanks. And as one of the GP posts points out, you can view this on two computers, but must download it separately for each computer. What crap. Is MS-DRM really that limited?

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[aichpvee]

So that means you only get to "own" it for the 6 months before your windows tanks and you have to reinstall? Even less if you haven't reinstalled in a while, I suppose.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[gumbi west]

Perhaps in the future, we will have to link our DVDs to a player (think of your exact player=region) and then you won't complain so much. And I'll stop watching moves all together.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[Cowclops]

Circuit City beat you to that idea. It was called "Divx." It failed.

I hope companies look to Divx to realize why restrictive playback is unprofitable.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[Achromatic1978]

So tell me, other than plugging in and re-syncing your iPod, how exactly do you play the same song on iTunes on different PCs without it being "[downloaded] separately for each computer"?

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[edward.virtually@pob]

Unbox is also supported (likely to work properly) only on Windows XP and later versions, and has Terms of Use that include the following:

b. Purchased Digital Content. Upon your payment of the license fee, Amazon grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to retain a permanent copy of Purchased Digital Content and to view, use, and privately display the Purchased Digital Content in your Residence or for Permitted Non-Residential Use as specified on the detail pages of the Purchased Digital Content or other help or informational pages of the Service at the time of your payment. You may exercise these rights on up to 2 (two) non-portable Authorized Devices (e.g. laptop or desktop computers) and two (2) portable Authorized Devices as specifically designated by Amazon from time to time. There can only be 1 (one) account for the Service on an Authorized Device. You may make a back-up copy of Purchased Digital Content on removable media (e.g. recordable DVD) or on an external hard drive in the same format as the original downloaded file to play on your permitted Authorized Devices. Any back-up copy of the Purchased Digital Content on a DVD will not be playable on a traditional DVD player, but only on a permitted Authorized Device.

. . .

In order to download and view Digital Content using the Service, you will need to install the Unbox Video Player (the "Software") on an Authorized Device and agree to the Microsoft Software Supplemental License Terms set forth as an Addendum below these Terms of Use (the "Software License"). The Software may operate on your Authorized Device continuously for a variety of reasons, including the management of your Digital Content. The Software also will access the Internet in order to perform a number of functions including as described below:

a. Software Upgrades. The Software automatically checks for upgrades, but the Software will not automatically upgrade without your consent, except as provided herein. If you do not consent to an upgrade that we make subject to your consent, the Digital Content may no longer be viewed on your Authorized Device. You must keep the Software on your Authorized Device current in order to continue to use the Service. We may automatically upgrade the Software when we believe such upgrade is appropriate to comply with law, enforce this Agreement, or protect the rights, safety or property of Amazon, our content providers, users, or others.

b. Information Provided. Amazon respects your privacy, and the Software will not access computer files or other information on your computer that are not used by or otherwise related to the Service. Among other things, the Software will provide Amazon with information related to the Digital Content on your Authorized Device and your use of it and information regarding your Authorized Device and its interaction with the Service. This information will enable Amazon to manage rights associated with the Digital Content, allow Amazon to help you use the Service more effectively and otherwise help Amazon to enhance and improve the Service. For example, the Software may provide Amazon with information about the Digital Content from the Service on your Authorized Device, whether it has been deleted and whether it has been viewed. The Software may also provide Amazon with information about your Authorized Device's operating system, software, amount of available disk space and Internet connectivity, such as whether your computer or other device is available online. This information will, among other things, help us deliver Digital Content to you more efficiently and effectively. The Software may also provide Amazon with information about the transfer of Digital Content to portable devices to help us ensure compliance with our rules concerning portable devices.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[Brett Johnson]

You may exercise these rights on up to 2 (two) non-portable Authorized Devices (e.g. laptop or desktop computers) and two (2) portable Authorized Devices as specifically designated by Amazon from time to time.

I suppose in the altered reality of these asshats, they consider laptop computers to be "non-portable" devices.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[kjart]

So that means if I want to use up to the 2 computer limit, I have to actually download it twice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is one advantage over ITMS - I don't believe Apple will allow you to download the song, etc again after the initial purchase.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[eliot1785]

That is true. I will grant them that. On the margin, though, I would rather not have to download one of these movies twice, since they are probably all at least 700 megabytes and quite possibly much more.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[el_womble]

I'm on the verge of a similar problem with iTunes.

I've got 2 macs. So thats two authorized computers gone. The hdd failed on my three year old PB, no biggy, I just replaced it and reauthorized it in iTunes. Then the logic board went. Was intermitent enough for me to think maybe, just maybe I ought to reinstall OS X, just in case (I used to be a windows user). That went fine, but like a dumbass I forgot to deauthorise before I reinstalled. 1 licence remains.

The logic board finally gave in, I could no longer get my PB to boot. I bought a shiney new MacBook, but now I have no spare iTunes authorized licences remaining.

If I have a power surge / my machine gets stolen. I won't be able to listen to the music that I bought - and I've only been using iTunes for 3 years, I expect to be a ble to listen to the music for the next 50. What am I going to do when my iMac fails in 3 years and I don't get the opertunity to de-authorise?

1. Do I use jHymn on my existing collection and hope thats OK with the RIAA/BPI?
2. Do I rip all my music to CD then painstakingly reimport them back to iTunes?
3. Will I be forced to create a new AppleID and then repurchase the music?

The situation worsens should I start to invest in Apple's Movie service. Part of the appeal of paying £10 for a DVD is that I know that should I feel like it, I have bought permission to watch that film, whenever I like for the rest of my life. With the DRMd version, I seem to be buying the right to watch the movie for a rest of my computers life. Essentially I'm one mac virus away from loosing £100s of pounds of investment - especially with my current AppleID.

But the really stupid thing... I still buy using iTMS because it is the easiest way to impulse buy music and receive instant gratification. It's the music equivalent of a chocolate bar. We all know the clever money is in fruit. Its better for you, slightly more expensive, and if you want to you can take the seeds and grow your own, but most people buy chocolate.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you can deauthorise all your computers once per year, than reauthorise the ones you still have, which should solve your problem. Check this knowledgebase article for details.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[swissfondue]

AFAIK you can reset your authorisations to zero and start again. You can only do this when you've used up your 5 authorisations, and only one reset is permitted. Check out the relevant info on Apple.com

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[el_womble]

That will teach me to doubt Apple. Much appreciated. One reset a year sounds fair.

Best get to my Shrine of Jobs, say a few "Hail Steve"'s and make a quick sacrifice - do you think the blood of 1 or 2 MSCEs will suffice? ;)

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[sm62704]

So tell me, other than plugging in and re-syncing your iPod, how exactly do you play the same song on iTunes on different PCs without it being "[downloaded] separately for each computer"?

Fools use iTunes. The rest of us buy CDs and rip them. Duh.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[LordSnooty]

You may exercise these rights on up to 2 (two) non-portable Authorized Devices (e.g. laptop or desktop computers) and two (2) portable Authorized Devices as specifically designated by Amazon from time to time.

Hmm, they lost me at about this point. Laptops are non-portable? As for the rest of the junk, well forgive me Amazon but your average Joe will take no notice and try anything they can, and no doubt end up frustrated when they can't watch their disk on another machine (which since it's the norm for DVD it's what they'd reasonably expect).

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[MoneyT]

OTOH, in iTunes, you can just copy the file to an external/removeable disk and take it with you.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[bano]

Actually its one reset per year, and you do not have to have used all 5 authorizations.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[Tim C]

By burning the files to CD, or copying them across the network.

If they're protected, you have to contact iTMS to authorise the target machine to play the tune, but that takes a click or two and does not involve downloading the entire song again.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[AmberBlackCat]

So that means you only get to "own" it for the 6 months before your windows tanks and you have to reinstall? Even less if you haven't reinstalled in a while, I suppose.

Windows XP doesn't crash after 6 months unless you're clueless about Windows. No need to turn this into a Windows bashing session. It's an Amazon-bashing session. Anyway, I had that kind of problem with iTunes. I upgraded the bios in my laptop and iTunes detected it as a new computer, informing me that I had one less computer I could play my music on. But they have a way you can deactivate all the computers and your count starts over. If Amazon has something like that then I could deal with it maybe.

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[Tim C]

So that means you only get to "own" it for the 6 months before your windows tanks and you have to reinstall?

If your Windows install tanks every 6 months, you shouldn't be allowed to use a computer as you're clearly a danger to them...

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[poulbailey]

Only completely incompetent people can hose a modern Windows install in six months. Are you incompetent or are you just parroting dirt old FUD about Windows?

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[gravis777]

Check out http://www.yamipod.com/

Re:I agree, this sucks - can't transfer b/t comps

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, it crashes WAY more often than that. It hoses itself every 6 months to a year and needs reinstallation. If yours doesn't you are either doing nothing with it or extremely happy with buggy, inconsistent performance.

And it is a windows bashing session as this amazon crap is windows-only and thus that garbage platform is part of the discussion. Same would go for apple if amazon put this out for mac.

"Wonderful" Quotes from the Terms of Use

[ween14]

"From time to time, Amazon will automatically deliver promotional video content (e.g., movie trailers, celebrity interviews, reviews, etc.) to your Authorized Device. Amazon may automatically delete such promotional video content from your Authorized Device without notice to you."

"If Amazon changes any part of the Service or modifies license terms applicable to Rental Digital Content or Purchased Digital Content, which it may do in its sole discretion, you acknowledge that you may not be able to access, view, or use Digital Content in the same manner as prior to such changes, and you agree that Amazon shall have no liability to you in such case."

The Software automatically checks for upgrades, but the Software will not automatically upgrade without your consent, except as provided herein. If you do not consent to an upgrade that we make subject to your consent, the Digital Content may no longer be viewed on your Authorized Device."

Re:"Wonderful" Quotes from the Terms of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember these terms the next time Eric Raymond starts blathering on about how Linux users need to start compromising on allowing closed source content and DRM into our operating system.

Re:"Wonderful" Quotes from the Terms of Use

[cryptoluddite]

Just sign up for this service but don't use it right away. Instead, print out their terms and make a few "changes" such as:

"Mr. may change this agreement at any time in his sole discretion. Amazon's continued providing of Media Download Service constitutes agreement to this contract. Where this contract and Terms of Service, this agreement shall prevail".

Steal the language from some other contracts so it sounds more lawyerly. Send it certified mail, then every week keep sending them new "updates" to the terms. Finally add a clause saying you shall receive all Material(s) necessary to make backup copies of delivered Media. Then start using the service. And send them a "Demand for Private Key".

Re:"Wonderful" Quotes from the Terms of Use

[Deliveranc3]

More informative than everyone else, keep up the good work!

Mod parent.... more up?...

beware if you install and want to uninstall

[ozarkcanoer]

I bit and bought a tv show and then downloaded and installed Unbox which after installing, started to download the show. I decided I didn't want to wait for the download and stopped that. I then tried to uninstall it from my XP SP2 system and the uninstaller connected to Amazon and restarted the download! Couldn't find anyway to prevent this even having Unbox delete the file it had created (which reserved the full space required for the video). Uninstall still kept reconnecting and trying to download the video. I finally had enough of this and used the restore point that had been created when Unbox was installed, the after rebooting, manually deleted the file that had been created. Not very friendly. Larry

Re:beware if you install and want to uninstall

[Liquid Len]

Ouch. Sounds like all your base are belong to Amazon once you've installed this piece of ju^H^Hsoftware.

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[Anonymous Coward]

No indication in the FAQ (or elsewhere that I could find) of the resolution.

The supported devices says you need Plays For Sure... is Zune a Plays For Sure device or is Plays for Sure going to the scrap-pile?

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[dfghjk]

When arguing the merits of the mac mini as a media center device, people seem to think this problem doesn't exist yet here it is on a large scale. Macs will not play a lot of DRM'ed video content if MS has its way and this type of content will make Media Center the only viable choice for the living room. I sure hope that changes because MCE blows.

Play For Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Right here, right now....on Microsoft Windows.

Give me a break.

Guess what Amazon? Torrent DVD rips play for sure as well - on Windows, Apple, Linux, and anything else under the sun with the right codecs. I think a lot of us realise that the content creators definately deserve to get paid, and so we are willing to pay for content as long as we can use that content on whichever platform we chose - when I go to the dealership to buy a car, they don't tell me that I can only drive it on Anzac Highway. If they did, I would simply go somewhere else. On the Internet, there is nowhere else to go to purchase platform independent DRM-free content (apart from Magnatune), and so individuals fill that void by sharing with eachother via p2p networks.

The solution is simple: sell platform independent, DRM-free content online. Make it available at high-connection speeds. Sure, you will still get some teenagers downloading off of bittorent - but you will get a ton of people in their 20s, 30s and onwards who have cash to spend and who realise that people deserve to get paid for their work and for the content they create.

Re:Play For Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

But this would put the people that rip the video out of business. Won't someone think of the children?

Re:Play For Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you will still get some teenagers downloading off of bittorent

The thing is, they are ALREADY downloading off bittorrent, DRM or not so the DRM did nothing with regard to that "piracy", which makes one wonder what the true goal of DRM is.

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>is Zune a Plays For Sure device or is Plays for Sure going to the scrap-pile?

Microsoft(TM)(R)'s Zune(TM)(R) will NOT be compatible with Microsoft(TM)(R)'s Plays For Sure(TM)(R) standard.

Microsoft(TM)(R)'s Plays For Sure(TM)(R) standard MAY be playable with Microsoft(TM)(R)'s Zune(TM)(R).

What about Pocket PC?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAQ doesn't do much to describe mobile device compatibility. All it has is a link to a list which includes a few 'Plays For Sure' media players like Creative Zen Vision, Archos AV, and so on.

Will this thing generally work with PDAs that run Windows Mobile 5.0, or not? Anyone have a clue about this?

Feature Missing

[kaufmanmoore]

I'd love it if they were to offer you the ability to download a movie instantly when you buy the same DVD from amazon, so you can watch it while the physical disc is in the mail. That way you get the instant gratification, but you will still control the content you own.

Re:Feature Missing

[viper66]

At the speed I am getting on a download the DVD would be here first.

Re:Feature Missing

[gnu-sucks]

So then you'd pay the shipping and normal DVD price, plus a download premium. Doubt that'b be a bargin...

Re:Feature Missing

[Deltaspectre]

Must be your connection, as I'm getting a nice 300kb/s which was less than 20 minutes start to finish for an episoe of Numb3rs.

Won't succeed. Here to stay.

[sporkme]

I would like to point out that when I looked at the website, the top ten downloads included:

#5 Firefly
#6 Adventures of Mary-Kate & Ashley: The Case of the Funhouse Mystery
#8 Adventures of Mary-Kate & Ashley: The Case of the Volcano Mystery

This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Slashdot users are a significant part of the early adoption crowd.

Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[gsfprez]

They are spinning like a politician on this...

from the FAQ:
Unfortunately, Apple Computer Inc. has exclusive rights to the
hardware and software that would make it possible for Amazon.com to
provide Amazon Unbox for these devices. Because of these
restrictions, we are unable to make Amazon Unbox compatible with
these products.

Additional information on using Amazon Unbox and purchasing videos
is available on our Help pages at this URL:

www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeI d=161988011

now wait just a damn minute - there is NOTHING stopping Amazon from writing software for Mac OS X. nothing. Apple allows anyone to write software for Mac OS X. They do not have exclusive rights to the hardware and software to make this work on the Mac.... Microsoft does.

Micorsoft does not write any software to allow non-Windows operating systems to view Windows Media files. (they used to have Windows Media Player for the Mac - but now, they let a small company write a codec for Quicktime to play non-DRM WMP files - Flip4Mac)

Anyhow - screw Amazon - they are lying. They can write any damn software they want for the Mac - and the iPod will play any mp4 file you want.

Nothing is stopping them from making Mac compantible files - its their own problem that they don't.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[TimmyDee]

It looks like they fixed it to simply state "Unfortunately Amazon Unbox is not compatible with Macintosh computer or iPods" or some-such. I wonder if someone got the memo.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[dodongo]

I appreciate that rant wholly. I actually felt a flash of anger, because, dumbass that I am, brain fried by thesis in progress, I expected this to, you know, be a site where I could go download a fucking movie. Oh emusic.com you've spoiled me so, advertising content that you make available to anyone who can play an MP3 file. Look at me carrying that expectation that my Xubuntu box and iBook will be allow me to avail myself of this new service.

But no. Windows XP only, it says. Well, screw that.

Someday I'll learn that nobody in the RIAA/MPAA extortium wants to sell me anything anyway.

For now, though, I'll just laugh heartily that the Office Space DVD version is available used, including shipping, for less than the IdiotBox version and feel a little smug for noticing that. Ha!

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[ScaryFroMan]

now wait just a damn minute - there is NOTHING stopping Amazon from writing software for Mac OS X. nothing. Apple allows anyone to write software for Mac OS X.

That may be true, but Apple won't licence the DRM that the iPod will support, which is most likely what they mean. And since they have to release it with DRM, they're forced to use Microsofts, which all in all isn't too bad. It's supported by an overwhelming majority of computers, and pretty much every non-ipod mp3 player.

That, or Real. I think they made the right choice.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[eldalonde]

Well in that case their FAQ should say that they'd love to make their files compatible with any player but the MPAA will not allow them to provide media in it's most useful form to the consumer sans-DRM.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[noidentity]

Unfortunately, Apple Computer Inc. has exclusive rights to the hardware and software that would make it possible for Amazon.com to provide Amazon Unbox for these devices.

Maybe their Digital Restrictions Management system couldn't be made restrictive enough without low-level access to the Mac hardware?

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[dfghjk]

You mean like Apple does?

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[eldalonde]

I'm not defending Apple's use of DRM. I don't like it either. But Apple didn't put something in their FAQ saying that other platforms/devices are unable to play their files because those companies are holding out on them. In fact, Apple did port iTunes to Windows for this very reason, in the same way that Amazon could port their client to Macs or Linux instead of simply bitching about it, that is if Microsoft would port their DRM. And for the record, I think Apple should come out against DRM and simply say they have to do it becaues of the record/movie companies who are greedy brainless idiots. (though in kinder terms that wouldn't cause said greedy brainless idiots, their business partners, to pull out.)

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[dfghjk]

"there is NOTHING stopping Amazon from writing software for Mac OS X"

Sure there is...lack of economic incentive. The investment required compared to the potential revenue (especially considering that they will be in direct competition with Apple) makes it clearly not worth their while. Apple doesn't want competitors particularly on their platform.

"Micorsoft does not write any software to allow non-Windows operating systems to view Windows Media files."

No surprise there. Amazon gets coverage of virtually the entire market without much effort by using MS. Amazon could have used Apple but Apple won't allow it.

"Anyhow - screw Amazon - they are lying."

No they aren't. No vendor is going to develop its own technology to distribute protected content. Apple locks out all vendors from its solution and MS locks out all alternate platforms from its. Complain to Apple/MS, not Amazon.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Linux user who has asked Apple numerous times for official Quicktime support many times, I feel a sense of schadenfreude seeing Apple users ask for DRM'd WMV support for OS X. At least you guys are getting an answer. Apple completely and totally ignores Linux desktop users.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[snuf23]

"that is if Microsoft would port their DRM"

And this is exactly the same as Apple and their DRM. So blame Apple/MS for splitting the market on digital downloads due to differing DRM. So because of something no consumer wants (DRM) our choices of where to go to purchase digital music and video and our choices of what to use for playback have been cut in half. Wheee. Thanks MS! Thanks Apple!

"And for the record, I think Apple should come out against DRM and simply say they have to do it becaues of the record/movie companies who are greedy brainless idiots."

You do realize that Steve Jobs is now a board member of Disney? What makes you think that he doesn't want DRM on his movies? I think if anything Apple's policy has been to have DRM that is fairly unobtrusive to the purchaser but prevents casual trading. That and like MS not license its DRM for use in other devices because it's the iPod and not iTunes that makes Apple the majority of their money.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[dfghjk]

Mac users aren't going to consider any store other than iTMS anyway, at least that's what I'm told by every advocate who claims the mini is the greatest home theater PC available. As long as you only care about Apple-puchased products and content I don't see why it matters. I personally prefer being able to play anything I might get regardless of source. Regrettably, that's only possible on Windows.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[SilentChris]

I call bunk on your part.

First off, it would help to link to the FAQ itself (it's here: www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeI d=161988011). I don't seen any reference to this paragraph in the FAQ.

But let's assume they've changed the FAQ. You leave out the actual "Q" for that answer, but since it talks about "devices" (not computers) one can only assume they're referring to iPod.

In that respect, Amazon is completely right. Apple has that thing completely sealed shut. The only ones who get to remotely play with the embedded OS (on a commercial level) are parties like Nike. No one gets to (legally) use the DRM.

Fault Amazon all you want (I'm going to on the crappy video selection. One episode of Mythbusters? Pass), but you can't fault them on Apple's stranglehold of the iPod.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[jZnat]

and pretty much every non-ipod mp3 player.

There are mp3 players other than the iPod? </Joe Sixpack>

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[dfghjk]

Amazon isn't the same as Apple or MS. They aren't suppliers of delivery mechanisms for content, they are simply users of it. MS licenses that mechanism while Apple does not. Amazon stating that Apple refuses to license their system is totally fair. The only way to support OS X and the iPod is to forego DRM (not possible), license Apple's software *blocked by Apple) or develop your own system (not economically viable). Amazon chose to give up Apple's miniscule marketshare instead.

"In fact, Apple did port iTunes to Windows for this very reason, in the same way that Amazon could port their client to Macs or Linux..."

No they didn't. Apple ported to Windows because they would have no marketshare if they didn't and Apple is in the business of producing a MS/Real competitor with QT. Amazon is not in that business and it can license a solution to the dominant platform without engaging Apple at all.

There are two businesses here, the content infrastructure business and the content distribution business. Apple is in both and locks the two together. Amazon is in one and partners with MS to use the other. If Apple chose to do business in an open manner then Amazon would license from them (as they stated). Apple is simply pursuing the same closed, lockin business model that lost them the PC marketshare battle in the first place. They will lose this one eventually as well.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[Blakey Rat]

Please. Amazon pulls in enough money to write their own DRM if they wanted. They CHOSE Microsoft DRM, and thus they CHOSE to go with an option they knew was not Macintosh compatible... blaming Apple is moronic.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[Rakarra]

Maybe they could write their own DRM, but they cannot write DRM that will work on Apple iPods.. at least not without breaking the iPod's software so it won't work with Apples. And they're not legally allowed to write DRM that will work with iPods as-is. Apple is fiercely protective of the iTunes iPod DRM tie-in.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[Rakarra]

Steve Jobs hates Linux. That's all the answer you need.

He has some respect for some "open-source" projects, but not Linux, or more specifically, not GNU/Linux.

Re:Amazon's lies about why no Mac support

[SilentChris]

Reference please? I've never heard him say that. Hell, I've never herad him talk about Linux period.

Bad timing

[TLouden]

A launch like this should have been timed to occure after the Oct 3 DRM protest. With all it's problems, it already has poor opening sales going against it, now it'll jump in front of a protest too.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

uh huh. keep telling yourself that.

Windows Media Patch

[sottitron]

So this is why MSFT fixed the Windows Media Flaw in 3 days...

Re:Won't succeed. Here to stay.

[kaufmanmoore]

Are they 18 in those features?

Download DVD quality, but can't burn a DVD from it

[oliverk]

Wait a second: it says specifically that you can't BURN A DVD from the downloaded file. Wha'?

Absolutely the worst idea, and opens the door extra wide for a certain, slightly balding man in a black mock turtleneck...

Outlaw Star

[rlp]

So I can download Outlaw Star for $3.99 per episode, or I can purchase a complete set of 26 episodes on 6 DVD's from Amazon for $43.88 (or $30.17 used). Of course with the on-line download I get all that special DRM goodness.

Revised

[Mateo_LeFou]

After reading some of the details of the deal -- viz., how badly fuctup the files you receive are -- I cap my bid at $2.50/movie.

Re:Revised

[crunch_ca]

I'll give my $0.02.

So what else is new?

[FlatCatInASlatVat]

How is this different from CinemaNow?

Re:Won't succeed. Here to stay.

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>#5 Firefly

I had a look at the firefly section and the descriptions for the individual television episodes give away all the twists! they should have spoilers for that stuff.

Quoting a certain SciFi flick (Hugo Weaving)

[Lead Butthead]

"Tell me (slash-dotter)... what good is a (VIDEO) if you're unable to (PLAY IT ON LINUX BOXES)"

Cheaper??

[brunes69]

Show me where I can get a copy of V for Vendetta for $14.

Sure, *some* moves are the same as their DVD prices. But some are less.

Mostly the new releases are cheaper than new release DVDs. The older stuff, well youc an get that in the bargain bins at Walmart, sure.. but you have to *find them* first.

Re:Cheaper??

[Jerf]

Show me where I can get a copy of V for Vendetta for $14.

Uh, Amazon.com? At least for me, the full screen DVD (that link) is $13.87. (If they're using differential pricing it may not show the same for you.) Free shipping if you add something else to get over $25.

Interesting, they charge $2 more for the widescreen. I've either never seen that before in brick & mortar stores, or never noticed.

Re:Cheaper??

[LordNimon]

Not only that, but used copies are half as expensive. And guess what - a used DVD is very often just as good as a new one. After all, if you're willing to buy a DRM'd movie, then you're not really looking to own a keepsake that you can display in your bookshelf, or something that you can give as a gift. You just want to watch the movie. In that case, you're highly likely to accept a used DVD that's in good condition.

Re:Cheaper??

[jZnat]

Rent it from Blockbuster/Hollywood Video/Netflix and back it up.

Or are you looking for a legitimate way?

Re:Cheaper??

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, in that case you'd probably be fine with just renting it.

(this either splits costs between you and friends, or means you can use some movie rental service like Netflix. Amazon has one too, at least in Germany, but I don't know how good it is.)

more DVDs?

[2020steve]

Stem cell research? You can get stem cells from lots of places. Umbilical cords and, oh yeah, aborted fetuses. Of course, the religious right doesn't take kindly to stem cells. W ain't funding it. How are the Chinese doing on this one?

Impending fuel crisis? We sure are addicted to oil in this country. We all seemed really into converting our cars to run on booze for a while, but then gas prices dipped down to $2.75 a gallon and we dropped that fad like a bad habit. What's up with that, slashdot? Any good articles about alternatives to fossil fuels?

Oh, wait, what's this? A NEW way to buy movies? Wow. Used to be you had to go to get off your ass and go to Blockbuster, then those Netflix boys started sending 'em to ya in the mail and damn was that convienent. It was easier to rent a movie than get up to use the can. I saw a RedBox in a McDonalds the other day. You can order three big macs and use the change to get a DVD!

Gotta go get in the Esclade and pick up Kyle and Rylee's Ritalin, then clean the McMansion...

Re:more DVDs?

[JackieBrown]

What the f**k are you talking about? I thought I switched to the wrong tab for a second.

Obligatory Matrix Trailer

[hcob$]

I mean, they have The Matrix of all things. Does that mean that the Machines can be sued into submission by the MPAA for violating their trademarks/copyrights? If so... YEAH LAWYERS!

Missed opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a less desireable product offer something they can't get anywhere else. How about TV shows and movies that were never released on VHS or DVD? There are some oddball things like the Strange Luck series that I'd happily pay for even with the restrictions since there seems to be no intention of ever releasing it on DVD. I can think of half a dozen series and scores of movies in the same boat. It's a win win. Companies can unload content they can't release due to limited market so it creates a cashflow and maybe creates interest in an eventual DVD release. Amazon wins because they would have a captive audience instead people debating their service when for a few dollars more you can own a proper DVD. The services strength is cheaply getting content into hands of consumers, cheap for the company. They don't have to run off 10,000+ copies and incure advertising and distribution costs. All that has to be paid for other than digitizing is uploading and storing the content on servers. The potential is to have most of the surviving TV shows and movies availible. Focasing on popular content actually doesn't make sense given the cost and restrictions. Let fanatical collectors after rare material drive it into profits then come up with a better model to sell current movies and TV shows. Collectors kept Laser Disks alive until DVDs took over eventhough the average price of a disk was north of $45 ten years ago. I paid even more for rare or special content on laser. Provide superior quality as in HD and rare films and TV. That at least gives you a fighting chance to develope and expand the market. I can't see why anyone would pay given the restrictions for mainstream films that can be bought outright for $15. Kind of like leasing a car for 20 grand for a year when for 30 grand you could own it. Doesn't make much sense.

Blame studios

[DarkFyre]

Yes, yes, everyone complains about 'teh evil' DRM. I'm sure the studios give Amazon the content with no restrictions at all and it's up to Amazon to decide what happens after that. Right. Sure. The prices must be the same way. Amazon gets it all for free and are just greedy bastards ripping you off like that.

The content owners who set the rules have little relationship with the guys who are providing access to the content. You got a complaint? Buy stock in the content holders and bring it to the shareholders meeting.

There's a reason Apple only has content deals with one studio (I leave it to the general paranoia of this thread to speculate on Jobs' relationship with Disney). It's probably like pulling teeth to get the studios to unclench their sphincters from around those digital copies even in DRM encumbered form.

Amazon Unbox?

[benplaut]

Unpossible!
What's 'unbox' supposed to mean, anyway?

Re:Amazon Unbox?

[chmod a x mojo]

Simple, it means the DVD is taken out of the box..... not to mention it is also undisked. Now if only we can get it unDRM'd....

Non-starter

[Randseed]

Can I burn it on a DVD? Can I play it on more than one device? Does it work under whatever OS I'm using? Does it work with any movie player I want to use?

If the answers to any two of those is "no," this is a non-starter. It's dead out of the gate.

Re:Non-starter

[JackieBrown]

All no except "Can I play it on more than one device?" and even that has a catch.

seems cool to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I really am totally clueless I guess, do they have to give them to you for free for you guys to be happy? I guess it is the MSness that you hate? Why doesn't slashdot develop their own DRM for nerds that don't understand that businesses are in the business of making money. That's why they are called businesses. They aren't "locking up content" or whatever you nerds call it. Make them an offer that makes sense for everyone and they will be all ears. They aren't here to make you happy, get over it.

Re:seems cool to me

[Noodlenose]

While you're obviously trolling, it's not so much the DRM that gets people, but the price the end-user has to pay for this lousy offer: not only is the movie/show not transferrable to other computers or a DVD, no, the price is also too high for the crippled content.

I am sure that we would be bitching less if the offered content would be the more appropriate third of the price.

Now go back to your playgroup.

Check the hardware requirement!

[AJWM]

From the hardware requirements:

and a DirectX 9.0 complaint [sic] Video

Yeah, I'd complain about DirectX too, because I'd prefer OpenGL compliant, but it doesn't do any good. I bet they even passed that through a spell checker, because they did it twice.

Re:Check the hardware requirement!

[JackieBrown]

or they used copy and paste

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[DDLKermit007]

Why should you care if MCE wins? Your on /. You should allready know how to circumvent DRM, download files via P2P, or just rip the video from DVD. Honestly though...Apple has a much more established system that "just works" out of the box. I do have some DRMed video files from iTunes and what I payed for was the knoledge that the video I have saved I can just hit play on and not have to deal with a, "security update," reboot, and an online licence check before I can watch a file.

Plays, For Sure!

[Tibor the Hun]

I love it...
From the description about supported devices:
If your device is Plays for Sure compliant it may work, but we cannot guarantee performance on untested devices. (Emphasis mine.)

Dude, so if all of those people with "Plays for Sure" players will send me 20 bucks now, I'll send them 25 on Monday. For Sure!

Re:Plays, For Sure!

[CastrTroy]

Does anybody else think it's funny that movie rental stores sell DVDR's, by the spindle? It's almost as funny as selling CDR's at the music store, except that if you're going to copy the CD for a friend, you'd probably just rip it to MP3. However, with DVDs, due to the amount of storage required, and the fact that you want to watch them on TV, most people just burn them to a DVDR. Isn't it kind of odd that they would sell a product that allows you to illegally copy their product? Could a rental store get in trouble for giving out a free 25 spindle with every 25th movie you rent?

Re:Plays, For Sure!

[Hawthorne01]

Am I the only one that thinks "Plays for sure" and "may work" are just a tad contradictory?

Re:Plays, For Sure!

[dangitman]

Isn't it kind of odd that they would sell a product that allows you to illegally copy their product?

Not really. Selling DVD-R spindles is profitable. Especially as movie rental stores can sell at a higher markup than other places. Why would they care what you use it for? Especially as selling the DVD-R makes it more likely that you will rent it in order to copy it. So, they make a profit from selling the blank discs, as well as renting you the movie you want to copy. After all, if you bought the movie outright, you have less reason to rent/copy it.

Come on ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, if perhaps unintentional usage of the incorrect "it's" instead of the correct "its", we also may get the feeling doubly reinforced again with the uncontracted "it is amazing".

Slashdot users dislike DRM for both it's technical and philisophical nature.

Uhmmm, OK, then ...

Re:Come on ...

[cptgrudge]

Yes, yes, you pointed out my egregious typo and horribly confusing sentence structure. Have a cookie.

It's a slashdot post, not a thesis paper. I'll post the corrected version in my blog. Happy?

Prices seem a tad off

[Ka D'Argo]

Just from the main page, first movie I saw listed was Office Space. Funny movie, but they want $13.99 for it. The movie is like eight years old, for a digital download that has limitations on usage, almost $15 is way to expensive. You could get it cheaper by picking up the DVD for $5 at any Walmart...

Free 1.99 instant rebate convinced me to try it

[Anonymous Coward]

I rushed headlong into getting to try this. Here's my experience.

1. Purchased a TV show, easy as click and click
2. Surprised to find I had to now download unbox application, but I did it anyways
3. Install looked like it stalled because there is no progress meter, but after a while finished install
4. Prompted me for a password and did nothing
5. No way to login, except for restarting unbox.
6. Restarted, nothing
7. Restarted, did troubleshoot and got connected but no video
8. Restarted, did troubleshoot and got connected and started download.
9. Downloaded, watched show.
10. Tried to load to ipod, no such luck. Didn't RTFFAQ.
11. Tried to uninstall unbox, no suck luck.
12. Got pissed, wrote nasty letter to amazon and deleted .exe

What a piece of shit. No way I'll be using this in the future. But thanks for the free tv show.

Re:Free 1.99 instant rebate convinced me to try it

[jasonwc]

"1. Purchased a TV show, easy as click and click ...

What a piece of shit. No way I'll be using this in the future. But thanks for the free tv show (emphasis added)."

So, you purchased a "free" tv show?

Re:Free 1.99 instant rebate convinced me to try it

[Loconut1389]

My 'free' purchase somehow went through twice, despite me not clicking twice (eg- clicked purchase and selected which of my cards to use- done). My machine can't even connect to the stupid service. Overload/slashdotted?

Re:Free 1.99 instant rebate convinced me to try it

[symie5]

Bah, sorry if mine was a repost. :S

What, No...

[sjs132]

Adult content?


Narrow by Category
Action & Adventure (548)
African American Cinema (6)
Animation (24)
Art House (5)
Classics (54)
Comedy (471)
Documentary (31)
Drama (756)
Gay & Lesbian (3)
Horror (134)
International (36)
Kids & Family (94)
Military & War (50)
Musicals & Performing Arts (88)
Mystery & Thrillers (375)
Science Fiction & Fantasy (173)
Sports (25)
Westerns (76)


I thought they wanted to break into the movie biz... Where's the "on golden blond' and other such classics. Guess I'll have to slide back into the slimy side of the internet. (No, "Gay and Lesbian" catagory is not Adult Content )

One Great Upside to This Offering...

[poptones]

Maybe the "competition" will get the ripper groups to finally break free of the "two CD" standard and standardize on three cd, or "half a DVD" resolution rips.

You mean this isn't a joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here I thought this was a joke... I mean lets take this example, http://www.amazon.com/Escaflowne-Anime-Legends-Com plete-Collection/dp/B000E8NRNA/ref=pd_rhf_p_1/104- 5035356-9174338?ie=UTF8
vs
http://www.amazon.com/Escaflowne/dp/B000GR8JG4/ref =dp_return_2/104-5035356-9174338?ie=UTF8&n=1626163 1&s=digital-video
You can buy the DVD boxset for $40, or you can download it. They have a season discount making this only about $80. Of course, the downloaded season happens to be missing episodes 9, 25, and 26 so if you actually wanted to watch this entire series you are out of luck. Furthermore there are no extras and as far as I can tell, no choices for languages or subtitles. Add to this your inability to have a physical copy for backup or use in a hometheater system that has no computer attached. The quality although for some features could be released at 720p or possibly 1080p are released at their dvd equivalents. I cannot see any advantage to this scheme at all. I would have thought that Amazon should know what else they are already selling to compare it against though. Removing features and then charging more doesn't tend to work.

How much did Amazon pay for this ad, I mean story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see DRM's movies at a higher price than most Walmart movies, and slightly less then a brand new one. Oh and massively restricted DRM. Wow, that is really cool. Eh, not. I'll stick to DVD's and ThePirateBay. How about $5 for a new movie, no DRM and $1 for a TV show no DRM. Do that and you earn my business.

Here's my offer

[zogger]

2 bucks for a music CD, 3 dollars for a movie DVD. Stamped out by the millions, that is a reasonable price, still plenty of room for profit for all concerned. They would sell way more copies then they do now, less profit per disk, but sell hella lot more disks. In the store, on the rack, no DRM crap, plays in any player you have. Download, don't care, it's ho hum. I prefer original hard copies of stuff.

That's my offer anyway. I used to buy a lot of music, then started buying some expensive on tape vids when that came out..then quit. I noticed they refused to drop prices as tech made making copies extremely cheap, especially since they switched to cheap stamped plastic discs. That is gouging, that lead to the problems they experience.

I don't D/L bootlegs either, in case you want to make some peg legger accusation. Legit free to copy would be fair game or at best I buy used very cheap or cutrate marked down bargain bin, but nothing full price anymore-it's a rip, gouging.

2/5.1 = 1/3 the audio experience of DVD

[TofuDog]

One area a DVD shines is the nifty Dolby surround experience. Having shelled out $$ for all kinds of channels and an earth-shaking subwoofer, I'd never buy a movie with plain old 2-channel sound. Hopefully Apple can get that right with their "showtime".

Purpose of DRM is to trigger Re-Purchase

[GodWasAnAlien]

"... some DRM is good to protect the artists"

The current use of DRM is _not_ to protect the artists.

When the artists make pennies to the big publishing companies dollars, it should be obvious who DRM benefits.

The current use of DRM is control:
  - control where and how the renter/"buyer" views/listens to the media.
  - when the viewer/listener wants to listen/view the media in some other way, The media must be re-purchaced.
  - this re-purchacing leads to a more constant money flow, without the need for new material.
  - this combined with a near infinite copyright period helps to maximize profit from old works.

As with many things in society today, a very effective, but irresponsible way to make money is to make the product disposible. If the buyer is forced to throw away the DVD/Music/Computer/Phone every so often, more money is to be made.

So, let's see...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Hmm... if a Slashdot submitter doesn't provide the details of a story, they get hammered for it. When they DO provide the details, they get classified as a "shill".

C'mon, I think the way Amazon's store is set up sucks (way to restrictive DRM, no non-Windows support) - but this most certainly qualifies as news.

Downloads amazingly slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to "try it out" I attempted to download "V for Vendetta" as a rental tonight.

Well, it's been an hour or two and it is 13% done. Averaging 52KB/sec on my 6mb cable connection so um.... I think they will have to improve the throughput for this to be useful. I can drive to blockbuster more than a couple times in 14 hours.

It never was the price

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, $1 for a song, $2 for a 20 minute TV show, and $10 for a movie on iTunes seems completely fair to me. I wish it were cheaper, and at that price I wouldn't go on a shopping spree often, but they have managed to price it at that evil little point in which the content is neither too expensive nor cheap enough. I make a fairly good income, for a High School student at any rate, so I would be happy to buy most of my music/videos.

The problem is the DRM. I don't object to DRM on moral grounds, it simply kills the value of the media for me. I own a PSP and a Treo 650, both of which cannot play the media I buy from iTunes (and Amazon). While I do use a Mac as a primary computer, my secondary Linux box would not be able to use it either. I also want the assurance that I can jump platforms at any time, and still be able to play my media. DRM cannot offer me that assurance, and I don't want to be stuck on any operating system/portable media player simply because the DRM is compatable with it. Also, what happens if, in 10 years, Apple runs out of business (anything can happen in the long term) and shuts down the FairPlay servers? All the stuff you bought is gone forever, as your computer can't obtain the keys to decrypt it.

If I pirate the media, however, I get the same thing, simply DRM free, so I can use it on essentially any operating system/device. The files last forever, untill I destory them myself. Thus, the pirated content is better then that which I can buy. If you think there is little enough encouragement to buy media these days, just put yourself in my shoes.

I have used the iTunes video and music store before, using gift cards I often receive as presents. FairPlay isn't horribly restrictive; you can move the DRMed files anywhere, back them up, transfer them to another computer, using conventional drag n' drop methods. And you can play them on Windows and Mac (not Linux, however). In fact, the only restriction that really bothered me was, unfortunately, the biggest: DRM restricts the platforms on which you can use your media.

I don't beleive in the whole "changing culture" thing many people use to justify piracy as something moral. But I believe in DRM even less. Piracy is my only option if I want the latest episode of the Colbert Report on my Treo 650, and I take that route because the companies controlling the media offered me no legal alternative.

Re:It never was the price

[dmabram]

What prevents you from both buying a legal copy and then obtaining a non-DRM copy through whatever means you are using now? You claim you have no problem with DRM on moral grounds, and no problem paying the asking price for the content, if that were really true, I don't think it would be that much more hassle to buy it legally and obtain a DRM free copy (something you are already doing).

Re:It never was the price

[kinglink]

The problem you have is not with DRM, it's with restrictive DRM.

To have a true DRM we need to have a system that is supported on all three platforms, Macs, Windows and Linux. At the same time we have to have freedom to move our "account" from one to the other, the ability to redownload music and the ability to have a way to copy the files in case of issues.

An even better DRM would be a server based system so if the server ever closed shop it would unlock all the music and files, of course this would never happen because of coporations but it's a possibility.

Re:It never was the price

[JadeNB]

The parent's point wasn't that any particular operating system was supported, but rather that any current form of DRM prevents one from being properly platform-agnostic. Adding another platform to the list doesn't change this. (To be fair, I don't know what would, short of no DRM -- but that was, after all, what the parent was saying.) Your first suggestion doesn't, but, tragically for snarking, your second suggestion does, address the additional concern of finding yourself orphaned with copy-able multi-platform-supported files whose playback requires support from a company which no longer exists.

Re:Download DVD quality, but can't burn a DVD from

[Anonymous Coward]

certain, slightly balding man in a black mock turtleneck...

Joe Pesci?

here's how

[goombah99]

0) you can put it on an unlimited number of ipods that are synched to your computer.
1) Every itunes account can be shared by up to 5 computers.
2) an itunes account can be migrated from one computer to another (so if your computer dies your music does not)
3) you can burn an itunes song to a CD which will work on any computer (not sure about the video)
4) you can convert any song with AAC DRM to DRM free using iMovie on a macintosh.
5) you can convert any AAC DRM song to DRM free using Jhymm.

Does that answer your question?

Re:here's how

[FireFury03]

2) an itunes account can be migrated from one computer to another (so if your computer dies your music does not)

What happens if the iTunes servers die (for example, if Apple go bankrupt)?

Re:here's how

[Anonymous Coward]

see items 0,1,3,4,5 asshat.

Re:here's how

[krakelohm]

Well then its on you to have a backup. You cannot expect everyone to wait on you hand and foot right?

Re:here's how

[FireFury03]

Well then its on you to have a backup. You cannot expect everyone to wait on you hand and foot right?

This is the whole problem with DRM though - if it has to contact a server to authorize a machine to play it and that server nolonger exists then all the backups in the world won't help you - you just lost access to all the content you paid for.

Re:here's how

[dangitman]

This is the whole problem with DRM though - if it has to contact a server to authorize a machine to play it and that server nolonger exists then all the backups in the world won't help you

The DMCA allows you to remove the DRM if the service you were using goes bankrupt or becomes obsolete. If Apple went out of business, they would likely provide you with the keys to keep using your songs.

Re:here's how

[Anonymous Coward]

if it has to contact a server to authorize a machine to play

That is how the windows DRM works but not the Apple DRM. The apple DRM is permenantly locked to up to 5 computers.

Re:here's how

[FireFury03]

The DMCA allows you to remove the DRM if the service you were using goes bankrupt or becomes obsolete.

Ah, great, so you have to put a helluva lot of effort into cracking an encryption that is designed to be very difficult to crack, yes, that makes it allright then...

If Apple went out of business, they would likely provide you with the keys to keep using your songs.

Have you got a contract with them guaranteeing that they'll do that? (Bear in mind that when apple go out of business it'll be the liquidators deciding what to do with DRM keys, not apple themselves. And the fact that they probably have a contract with the copyright holders guaranteeing they will never release the DRM keys).

Re:here's how

[dangitman]

Have you got a contract with them guaranteeing that they'll do that?

No, which is why I used the qualifier "likely." Where did I give a guarantee?

(Bear in mind that when apple go out of business it'll be the liquidators deciding what to do with DRM keys, not apple themselves.

And the liquidators probably don't want to get sued and lose money on the liquidation - so they'll probably provide the keys.

And the fact that they probably have a contract with the copyright holders guaranteeing they will never release the DRM keys).

So then they will get sued, probably by both (ex)-Apple and consumers.

Re:here's how

[Achromatic1978]

Sued for what? Unless 'key provision' was in your "EULA" for your music purchased at iTMS, then you have precisely zero grounds for a suit.

Re:here's how

[dangitman]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are probably applicable consumer laws involved. If they are selling you a product, then it is expected that you are able to use said product, otherwise it is not fit for sale, or false advertising. Even if there were no applicable laws, consumer outrage can be a powerful thing. Many lawsuits with zero grounds succeed, or are settled out of court.

Re:here's how

[FireFury03]

No, which is why I used the qualifier "likely." Where did I give a guarantee?

I would be unwilling to pay money for content that I *might* be able to use in the future - when I buy a CD I'm guaranteed that it will continue to work for as long as the medium itself lasts, nomatter what happens to the reseller (which is what iTMS is), the publisher or the artist.

So then they will get sued, probably by both (ex)-Apple and consumers.

If they give away the keys they're likley going to get sued by the content providers - so on the one hand we have a bunch of outraged customers with whome Apple (or it's liquidators) haven't violated any contract, and on the other hand, if they release the keys, they have almost certainly willingly borken a contract with the content providers.

It seems the only way Apple (or the liquidators) can abide by all of the contracts is to withhold or destroy the keys. Yes, that'll piss a helluva lot of people off, big deal.

Re:here's how

[dangitman]

I would be unwilling to pay money for content that I *might* be able to use in the future

Then don't buy it. Pretty simple, really. What's your problem? You can buy music or movies elsewhere.

If they give away the keys they're likley going to get sued by the content providers - so on the one hand we have a bunch of outraged customers with whome Apple (or it's liquidators) haven't violated any contract, and on the other hand, if they release the keys, they have almost certainly willingly borken a contract with the content providers.

Well, there are already tools for removing the DRM from iTunes files, so if Apple goes out of business, you could legally use those. I find that most contracts are pretty borked from the beginning, anyway.

Re:here's how

[FireFury03]

Then don't buy it. Pretty simple, really. What's your problem? You can buy music or movies elsewhere.

I don't buy it, and yes, I can (and do) buy my music and movies elsewhere *at the moment*. But the way things are going, the non-DRM'd sources are going to be gone eventually and then there will be no choice.

Well, there are already tools for removing the DRM from iTunes files, so if Apple goes out of business, you could legally use those.

The people who developed those tools are breaking the law and therefore risking their own freedom. So you seem to be saying that DRM is ok, because people (not you) are risking their freedom to develop tools you can use.

IMHO, anyone who actively supports DRM by buying DRM'd content is either crazy or has absolutely no understanding of the implications.

Re:here's how

[dangitman]

I don't buy it, and yes, I can (and do) buy my music and movies elsewhere *at the moment*.

Where do you get non-DRM DVDs?

But the way things are going, the non-DRM'd sources are going to be gone eventually and then there will be no choice.

On the other hand, without the DRM, I would not have the choice of any legal download options for major label music. So, it seems I have more choices now, where before the only options were to buy a physical CD or to use a file-sharing network. How does more choice equal less choice in your world?

The people who developed those tools are breaking the law and therefore risking their own freedom. So you seem to be saying that DRM is ok, because people (not you) are risking their freedom to develop tools you can use.

You don't have to use those tools. iTunes allows you to burn your songs to an unprotected CD. So you already have a way to "unleash" your music. I'm not a big fan of DRM. I'm just saying it's not the end of the world if people choose to buy music from iTunes.

By the way, it is not illegal in most of the world to create DRM removal tools. Not all the world is the USA.

IMHO, anyone who actively supports DRM by buying DRM'd content is either crazy or has absolutely no understanding of the implications.

So, you refuse to buy or rent DVDs because they have DRM? And what makes somebody crazy for buying DRMed media? It's just media, it's not like it kills people. Get some perspective, there are much bigger issues. There's no guarantee you will be able to use any of your media in the future, even unprotected content in a standard format. But most people aren't that concerned about having a few songs until the end of time.

Re:here's how

[FireFury03]

How does more choice equal less choice in your world?

In the short term there is more choice, but in the long term the publishers want to phase out non-DRM'd formats.

By the way, it is not illegal in most of the world to create DRM removal tools. Not all the world is the USA.

It's illegal in the US and it's also illegal here in the EU - that constitutes a large chunk of the world.

So, you refuse to buy or rent DVDs because they have DRM?

DVDs are slightly different in that they don't tie the content to a specific device - I can put my DVDs into any region 2 DVD player and they will work (but don't get me started on the whole region coding thing).

That said, I wouldn't ever buy a licenced DVD player for myself - I'm much happier playing my DVDs illegally using MythTV or Xine so I can skip the annoying unskippable parts which accuse me of piracy when I play contend *I paid for*. I suspect that if I couldn't skip the sections that are flagged as unskippable then I'd still be using VHS.

Re:here's how

[dangitman]

DVDs are slightly different in that they don't tie the content to a specific device - I can put my DVDs into any region 2 DVD player and they will work (but don't get me started on the whole region coding thing).

So, you admit to buying DRM-infested DVDs. Does that mean you are crazy, as you said that anyone who buys DRMed products are?

How do you draw the line? DVD region coding restricts you. It stops you from having a guaranteed playback in the future. So, why is the DRM on DVDs OK, but people are crazy to but songs from the iTMS? In many ways, iTunes has less strict DRM than DVD, because it allows you to legally burn an unencumbered CD. You would have to break the law to do the same with DVD. So, why do you accept the DRM on DVDs, but not on iTunes?

DRM, in Reality.

[Inominate]

My dad owns several hundred CDs. (500+) So it became an issue of simply storing them. We had two practical ways to deal with it, the first was to simply buy a couple of massive carosel cd players, the second was to convert them to mp3s and get an Audiotron. The latter was cheaper, and turned out to offer a lot more flexibility. (Though encoding that many CDs took a few months) Owning a CD player is no longer worth even the space on the shelf.

It's digital audio, you can always just convert it to mp3 to play it on the stereo right?

So not too long after, he bought a CD online. DRMed. It will never legally play on the audiotron, only on the computer. I went to usenet to get a WORKING version. That's the fundamental problem with buying music online. The music industry wants to use it to impose new restrictions, rather than to expand thier market.

It's easy to feel guilty stealing music. It's hard to feel guilty when I _HAVE_ to break the law to listen to it.

Re:DRM, in Reality.

[gnu-sucks]

several *months* of work? And you could have spent $100 on ebay and got a few multi-disc players?

Not to mention the loss in quality.

I bill by the hour man, and several months of work, with a lower quality result just doesn't compute.

that said, I ripped most of my cd's (PCM, not mp3)... And I do own a lot. So I understand the flexibility arguments.

Re:DRM, in Reality.

[Inominate]

Several months of work meaning "doing a couple of cds when bored".

Re:DRM, in Reality.

[gnu-sucks]

Still, at 500 cd's, say you can import them at 10x (a reasonable estimate, given the slower speeds of dvd-compatible drives, and the encoding process), that's 50 hours of labor. Plus the overhead of opening cd cases and those annoying things in the middle of a cd that either cause them to crack or be released. Then there's the UI of your software or box. And finding the cd's. Remembering which cd's you have and haven't ripped.

Then again, if you're satisfied with the quality of mp3, you could take the stash to a used cd store and pay yourself :p.

Re:Won't succeed. Here to stay.

[artifex2004]

I had a look at the firefly section and the descriptions for the individual television episodes give away all the twists! they should have spoilers for that stuff.

That's because the other 34,999 of us fans have already seen them all, but who pays attention to titles?

DRM crack for Unbox

[RoscBottle]

... will of course be called FreeUnbox or FairUnbox. Or in short Funbox. Not that it will happen anytime soon: given the titles Amazon offers are all out on the already "pwned" DVD format, who can be bothered to crack it?

Re:DRM crack for Unbox

[mh101]

...all out on the already "pwned" DVD format, who can be bothered to crack it?

Using that logic, you could say that it doesn't make sense that people are trying to crack DRM in music files. Yet people still do.

Not good for impulse watching

[mh101]

Let's say I get the urge to watch a movie. I can drive to a local rental shop, browse the selection, and return within probably 30 minutes, then pop the DVD in and start watching. The time elapsed between when I decide what I want to watch and when I've returned home with the movie may only be 5-10 minutes, depending on how fast the checkout is.

Or, I can go over to Unbox and select what I want to watch, and wait for it to download. And wait. And wait some more. Assuming a movie takes up 1GB, it would take me over an hour to download - and that's on my 2.5Mbps connection which is faster than an average user would have. Hopefully they were smart enough to have the ability to watch it as it downloads rather than waiting for the complete download.

Not to mention that I'd have to sit in front of my computer for a couple hours, rather than my comfortable couch in front of my TV.

it's

[Anonymous Coward]

it's

$9.99 stinks

[DrXym]

Since you can barely transfer files, this service is tantamount to a movie rental service since you only have so much space on your PC. And movie rental is significantly cheaper than $9.99, especially with the likes of Netflix. And besides, most of the movies in the service cost more than $9.99 - Police Academy 7: Mission to Moscow is a bargain at $13.99. So why would anyone be insane enought to pay for this service?

It would be cheaper to buy the DVD in many cases, especially as they'd be in the bargain bin to begin with.

While I'd love a decent digital download service, this one just stinks. Either the movies should be mostly unencumbered and allow DVD burning, or the movies need to sell for reasonable rental prices. This service has turkey written all over it.

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[Anonymous Coward]

and a DirectX 9.0 complaint

At least I'm not alone.

Next step: compatible DVD player

[ElGanzoLoco]

any DVDs that you burn with Amazon Unbox files will not be readable by a DVD player.

Yeah, that's pretty dumb.

Some manufacturer should step up and make a DVD player that's compatible with the fileformat (and that lets you type your password / account through the remote I guess), just like when the DivX logo started to appear on DVD players on the market.

Incompatibility with iPod: sure, it makes little sense to give compatibility to the 37 people who bought a Toshiba Gigabeat, and the 45 additional who got an Archos player, and not to the 50 million iPod users out there. BUT I think it doesn't really matter, I think the "watch-long-videos-on-the-go-on-a-tiny-screen" market is small anyway. People who really want to watch video on trains and planes have laptops or portable DVD players.

Basically, this service blows.

Agreed. However, I'm still sure they'll make a killing. Remember, it's Amazon, they're playing at home (on the internet), on their own webpage (huuuge userbase), and their marketing firepower is almost infinite.

Now, let's see what Apple can do.

Re:Next step: compatible DVD player

[sam1am]

Incompatibility with iPod: sure, it makes little sense to give compatibility to the 37 people who bought a Toshiba Gigabeat, and the 45 additional who got an Archos player, and not to the 50 million iPod users out there. BUT I think it doesn't really matter, I think the "watch-long-videos-on-the-go-on-a-tiny-screen" market is small anyway. People who really want to watch video on trains and planes have laptops or portable DVD players.

Well, the video iPod has video-out, so you can watch it on your TV, at least. It appears the Gigabeat doesn't offer this, but at least the Archos does. This would at least partially (if you had an Archos) make up for the "unable-to-burn-to-DVD" problem, as it's still relatively simple to watch this content on your TV.

Re:Next step: compatible DVD player

[ElGanzoLoco]

Well, the video iPod has video-out, so you can watch it on your TV, at least. It appears the Gigabeat doesn't offer this, but at least the Archos does. This would at least partially (if you had an Archos) make up for the "unable-to-burn-to-DVD" problem, as it's still relatively simple to watch this content on your TV.

Yeah, but then you only get the low-res, 640x480 version of the movie you've bought, even though you've paid for the hi-res version!! Not too bad if you're on plain SD, but it sucks for the folks who've sunken 2000 bucks on their brand new HD.

Re:Next step: compatible DVD player

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD resolution is 720x480 [NTSC], not far off from 640x480. Both are, of course, less than ideal with an HD set. (In fact, they can be downright ugly). But unbox movie downloads aren't HD, are they?

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[dfghjk]

"Why should you care if MCE wins?"

I don't. I care that online distribution actually be useful. I'm not married to any platform.

"Your on /. You should allready know how to circumvent DRM, download files via P2P, or just rip the video from DVD."

I should? Who says I don't? Why does that matter?

"Honestly though...Apple has a much more established system that "just works" out of the box."

It does? If that were true then this thread wouldn't exist. Macs can't play WMV DRM'ed files. Sounds like you're the one that cares who wins.

"I do have some DRMed video files from iTunes and what I payed for was the knoledge that the video I have saved I can just hit play on and not have to deal with a, "security update," reboot, and an online licence check before I can watch a file."

Really? Perhaps you just haven't experienced one yet.

I didn't realize this was a discussion of iTMS video content. Mac users always have to make every discussion one about how great the mac is.

For us "foreigners" - the service works only in US

[Anonymous Coward]

From the terms of service:
"7. Limited to U.S.

The Services are available only to customers located in the United States. If you are outside of the United States, you may not use the Services and you may not transfer Digital Content outside the United States. As used herein, "United States" refers to the 48 contiguous United States, the District of Columbia, Alaska and Hawaii."

This is something I just don't understand... There is a huge number of people living outside the US who can not access this type of content by hardly any other means than through the Internet. I would _love_ to be able to download the episodes of Lost from the Internet legally and I would jump at the offer to pay 1,99 for secure and clean downloads. 1,99 is way below my opportunity cost for finding a torrent and waiting for it to download. Many TV series feel old when we get to see them. Personally, I would like to see my Daily Show at least the same _week_ it was originally broadcasted.

US-only ... As tested by GeoIP.

[mxs]

This service is only available within the US. The client seems to determine whether it is in the US by sending a GeoIP lookup request via SOAP. I won't tell you the address, you can do the legwork yourself.

Interestingly, that soap-request contains the amazon username and password to do further SOAP GeoIP lookups.
If you were really devious, you'd either proxy that stuff or manipulate the SOAP response. Nobody here is devious, right ?

Great deal?

[sm62704]

Lets see, I can wait three hours for the movie to download and pay ten bucks for it, I can drive to Walmart and buy the physical media for the same price (some movies only $5), or I can rent the DVD for $2.

I just bought some books from Amazon, very reasonably priced. Thuis isn't. I won't be using it, but there are a lot of stupid people with money or iTunes would have tanked immediately.

It seems businesspeople these days count on the stupidity of their customers.

This is Not How To Do It

[joel8x]

You can buy the DVD's on the internet for cheaper prices, and there is no technical curve to playing a DVD. Unless the software creates a burnable DVD that can play on any DVD player with one click, this will fail hard and fast. The only reason iTunes works is because the iPod exists. Its easy to get your music on to the portable player, plus you can burn it to a CD that can be played in any other CD player. The only appeal this Unbox has is the instant gratification of getting a movie on a whim. Unfortunately, most people dont want to watch movies on their computer - they want it on their TV. Most people do not have a media PC hooked up to their TV. So Amazon provides no proper delivery system to get this to the TV set and not one popular leading portable device to drive the portable market either. Is their even a cheap rental option that can beat out NetFlix? Wow, suits can't think.

If Amazon wants to make this actually work, they will sell you the crappy as hell drm'ed digital video AND send you the actual DVD in the mail for the price of the regular DVD. That way you can get the instant gratification and not get ripped off.

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[EnglishTim]

I imagine that's more due to Apple holding the keys to Mac/iPod DRM'd content, rather than to any ill feeling against Mac users.

DRM SUCKS - INCLUDING APPLE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

People who buy into DRM because it is from a particular company (like Apple) are morons. They're too "In Love" with Steve Jobs to notice that they are screwing themselves and everyone else!

The average torrent site has more choice...

[Tillmann]

Hi,

1300 movies?! The average torrent site has more choice.

But what the movies/music industry hasn't understood: Most often, people pirate not because it's free, but because it's convenient and better (more choice, file formats used for piracy have wide hardware support, no DRM crap).

So why not make it better than what's available illegaly. It doesn't have to be free. Really. People will pay for it if it's good. But 1300 movies just isn't good enough, even as a start.

Ok, 350 TV series, that's good indeed. But somehow I doubt it's really 350 complete TV series, probably it's just 350 seasons, or maybe just 350 _episodes_.

bye,
Tillmann

I don't get it

[pedestrian crossing]

I buy stuff from ITMS all the time, partly because I know that if worse came to worse I could always burn them all as CD audio files and then rip them into MP3 format.

I see this posted all the time, and I just don't get it.

You are taking file that I assume has been compressed by lossy compression (or are itunes AAC files lossless?). You then decode it to a wav file, then you compress it with another lossy compression.

It seems like it would sound like ass by the end of this process.

Certainly the mp3 that comes out of this byzantine process (burn, then re-rip, WTF?) doesn't sound as good as the original file that you purchased/licensed, which in turn wasn't ever as good as the original.

Are itunes AAC files so good that you can re-compress them and still want to listen to them?

Wow, what a great idea!!!!

[Anita Coney]

This is so much better than choosing from the 60 thousand movies and TV shows Netflix offers, ripping them myself without any DRM, and paying less than a buck a disc.

Won't change the Best Way to See a Movie

[Sigg3.net]

This will never beat the fat dude wiping grease all over your seat's armrest or the afro dude in front of you. Or the girl that winked at you just before the lights were turned down. Or the way you're completely absorbed by the enormeous screen and sound, and left alone to dive deeper into the story by the help of the upsurge of emotional susceptibility. The magic, people, the magic. Vivé la cinematèque!

(And pardon my French:)

Gonna have to do better than that

[aonaran]

Are they nuts??

Dr Who episodes are $1.99 (and most are 3-4 parts, so $6-$8 per full episode) and you only get to keep them for 7 days
Escaflowne (one of the few anime choices) is $3.99 per episode ($95 if you want to download the whole series) and they are missing episode #9. ...but at least you get to keep them once you've bought them

Try an Unbox TV Episode for free ;-)

[symie5]

If anyone out there watches http://www.slickdeals.net/, you can see here that you can try out a TV episode download for free (they deduct $1.99 from the bill)...worth a try, eh?

Geek out!

Rentals

[JeTmAn81]

Everyone's complaining about the movie download prices, but to me those don't even matter because DVD's are a clear advantage over similarly priced downloaded films. The only way this service might be useful to me is in the rental department. Since I don't feel the urge to rent often enough to maintain a Netflix subscription (something I would feel obligated to keep up with and get my money out of), an instant rental download for around $0.99 or $1.99 sounds quite appealing to me. Unfortunately this Amazon service has its rental price set at $3.99 and won't be getting any sales from me. I'm fairly mystified by the pricing for these services since the cost of providing bandwidth to the customers seems like it should be far lower than the costs of supporting an entire supply and shipping chain.

If i'm not mistaken

[cybrthng]

Under windows vista you can enable media connect on the master PC and as many remote pcs can connect to those resources as you have licenses for of which i would hope the license store allows for the appropriate downloads/uses and isn't relying on amazon services to do what can be done locally nice and easy.

Re:If i'm not mistaken

[eliot1785]

Sounds like a complicated disaster for the average user, though...

Re:If i'm not mistaken

[cybrthng]

actually its real easy. Just enable "media sharing", open media player and it discovers media on the network and plays the catalog like your on the other pc.

If you can use itunes, you can use WMP11 & Media Share

Use the negotiating power of the masses

[nohup]

Here's your chance to let Amazon know you don't appreciate the draconian DRM they have included in their video service. If you log in to your Amazon account, you can send email to customer service. Since you'd be sending an email directly from your account, they will know that you are indeed a loyal customer that has purchased content from them in the past. Let's let them know what we think about this new DRM service. Here's my email to them:

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been a loyal customer of yours for many years. You can verify this since I am sending this from my customer account. Now I see you are offering this new Unbox video service. I am deeply frustrated by the fact that the service is so limited by DRM technology. I have a tech-savvy person. I have built my own media computer attached to my TV to manage all of my media. This computer runs Linux. With your video service, there is absolutely no way I can watch my videos the way I would like to.

I can't even express to you how upset and frustrated I am by you offering this crippled service. I refuse to buy videos from your new download service. At least buying a DVD I can control my own content and play it where I like. I don't have to worry about always being issued a license everytime I want to watch my movies.

I know your contracts with movie companies probably compel you to put these draconian protection measures in. However, are you aware how upsetting it is to your loyal customers that you don't trust us to be able to handle our own content? Many of us feel that the pirates will find a way around these measures anyway. Please don't insult us by taking away our privileges because of the few.

Perhaps you could compromise in the way Apple has with their Itunes service. It contains DRM, yet we can still burn the music to a CD, thus freeing us to be able to do with the content as we please.

Thank you for your time.

Why this is a bad business model

[FuzzyDaddy]

I just went and looked at the web site. As a business proposition, it's useless to me. I would be interested in buying kids programming (kids like watching the same thing over & over & over & over...). I can't burn it to a disk to play on my DVD player, so my kids can't watch it in the living room or in the car. Also, we have Macs at home.

If it was unencumbered, or even if I could burn only a single DVD, it would be well worth the $2 per episode of Blue's Clues. Nor would I download it off the internet, even if it was freely (although illegally) available - so even if some jerk posted it up on their website, amazon wouldn't lose my business. But they're not getting it now, because I can't use the service like it is.

So the question is, would they make more money from people like me, who would gladly pay for a legitmate copy I could use (even in the face of easy illegal alternatives), or are there more people who would forgo buying a legitmate copy because an illegal copy was available? That's the business decision that needs to be made.

DRM and Linux - GRIP laughs

[Anonymous Coward]

I found the the Grip CD ripping program in Linux completely ignored the copy control DRM on one of my CDs that had previously given it problems... I was re-ripping at higher quality years later and was delighted. My wife also bought an expensive double-cd somewhere and didn't realize it had copy control until it was home and opened. Again, grip on Linux had no trouble and the music is on her iPod. Yes, iPod. We have two of them, used exclusively with Linux for years.

Oh, for the people who say you get lower quality music ripping to MP3, you just don't get it! It's about ease of access. I've got rubbermaid tubs full of CDs. My iPod plays thousands of tracks randomly and I actually get to enjoy the music for weeks on end without repeats.

For DRM-crippled Windows only......Move along....

[LinuxLuver]

Nothing here for free people.

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[DDLKermit007]

Gota love that menality. You create a cohearant post on /. and what happens? You get accused of being a of choosing. I have no large vested intrest in Apple V. MS V. Linux. I do however have a vested intrest in things that work. MS DRM has little flexbility, Real DRM has no flexibility, Apple DRM is very flexible, but no DRM is absolute.

Re:FAQ and showstoppers (Mac, Linux, iPods exclude

[dfghjk]

You're argument is hardly coherent and is filled with Apple buzztalk. Apple DRM doesn't "just work" any more than MS DRM does and it is not "more flexible". It may allow more licensed playback devices but that's subject to change. On the other hand, MS is open to licensing on any device whereas Apple locks itself to Apple products and iTunes only. Hardly more flexible.

If you don't want to be "accused" then maybe you shouldn't accuse others and sound like a mac fanboy.

Working?

[tdempsey]

I have yet to view an episode on UnBox. When installing the software Thursday night I was hung-up on the .Net download assuming many people were installing the software. I bypassed this by installing .Net directly from Microsoft but the 2 shows I purchased do not download to my PC. I am assuming a login issue since the software will not authenicate. (I do know my id and password but get a long connection message or login failed.) Not sure what to think about this service. Tom Dempsey