Slashdot Mirror


Why There's No iTunes For Movies

theodp writes "Slate's Farhad Manjoo would gladly pay a hefty monthly fee for immediate access to recent movies and TV shows — if someone would just take his money. In reality, he pays nothing because no company sells such a plan, and instead resorts to getting his programming from the friendly BitTorrent network.

36 of 474 comments (clear)

  1. Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by Richmeister · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's under 'Movies' in the iTunes Store.

    1. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by meist3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's under 'Movies' in the iTunes Store.

      Well but the problem is... it's iTunes. I don't buy Hard- or Software from Apple. Why should I buy my movies from them. Completely neglecting the fact I can't even install their shitty software -of course.

    2. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by Winckle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why do you boycott Apple?

    3. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by psychodelicacy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Technically, you're right. But it doesn't work like iTunes - it has a very limited range of movies on offer and the prices are often not at all competitive. If you're outside the US, the range of stuff on offer is even worse, and the prices are much more prohibitive. So although it runs out of the iTunes store, it's very far from being an iTunes for movies in anything but name.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    4. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you would RTFA (or had actually used iTunes movies), you would know about the very limited selection and restrictions on use from iTunes (and other 'services') due to the Byzantine industry contracts.

      It sounds like a hopeless situation and it looks like the best option is to use the ubiquitous peer to peer sources which offer free convenient downloads of just about anything you could want.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by Spad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I must have missed that 'iTunes for Linux' release announcement...

    6. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Informative

      I tend to boycott Apple MP3 players mainly because of their proprietary formats and hardware lock-in. I's like a device I can just drop files on and play, without installing some bloated management software. There's people worse than me as well. I have a friend who was car shopping and rejected one car because it had an iPod connector. Having a custom connector is not even that bad if it can be used free by others, but the iPod connector is definitely not like that. I've recently removed QuickTime from my remaining Windows box because of their pushy update strategy.

    7. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      internet, and no, that do *NOT* mean through some crap IE webbrowser crap solution with sub par quality

      It also doesn't mean iTunes. Sorry, iTunes may be great software, but it is not the web, and not everyone has or wants iTunes.

      DRM is only part of the problem, and getting rid of it is a great step forward. Now let's see this the rest of the way -- just the Internet, or at most email -- better yet, publish that website as a REST API to allow anyone to develop an iTunes-like client.

      HTML and FLAC over HTTP for the win.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    8. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by Jezza · · Score: 4, Informative

      AAC? My new Nintendo plays that! You don't need iTunes (as others have commented on) but for me at least it's a nice "one stop shop" for media files. As for "hardware lock-in" well there are plenty of after market widgets for iPod; I don't need to get my charger from Apple, I can buy speakers from almost anyone, most iPods work with any headphones (even the new Shuffle if you have a widget to replicate the control buttons).

      I see no more "lock-in" than any other popular make of "MP3 Player".

      Now the studios are letting Apple remove their DRM I can even convert iTunes bought Music to another format.

      On the subject of the "Shuffle" it's not like I'm going to be trapped by my purchase - if I decide I want to use something else in the future I can just convert the music and bin the player (it's cheap enough).

    9. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

      I tend to boycott Apple MP3 players mainly because of their proprietary formats and hardware lock-in. I's like a device I can just drop files on and play, without installing some bloated management software. There's people worse than me as well. I have a friend who was car shopping and rejected one car because it had an iPod connector. Having a custom connector is not even that bad if it can be used free by others, but the iPod connector is definitely not like that. I've recently removed QuickTime from my remaining Windows box because of their pushy update strategy.

      You do understand that you can use iPods (as well as many other players) without having to use their proprietary formats, right? iPod will play the standard format MP3s as well its apparent successor, AAC. As for hardware lock-in, you get that with any MP3 player. Wanna use your Sansa case with an iRiver? Nope. Not going to fit. As for managing music goes, I once had a device where I had to drop and drag. Here's the problem with that: It got extremely cumbersome after a dozen songs. You may think you want "control" but when you have to manage 10,000 songs manually, it's a pain.

      As for your friend, I think it's rather short-sighted to reject a car worth tens of thousands of dollars because it has an optional feature he didn't want that could be replaced for hundreds of dollars or better yet, simply just not used.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I tend to boycott Apple MP3 players mainly because of their proprietary formats and hardware lock-in.

      Apple does NOT use "proprietary formats" for its iPod, that's just FUD spread around by people who never even tried one.

      The iPods are compatible with MP3, AAC, DRM'ed AAC, Apple Lossless (yes that one is proprietary but since it's lossless nothing would prevent you from converting back to something else later on, such as FLAC), MPEG-4, H.264. I may even have forgotten a few formats (such as Audible, but if that one is proprietary I don't think it's from Apple).

      I'd like a device I can just drop files on and play, without installing some bloated management software.

      Good luck with that, with today's portable media players being 1~160GB+ capacity it would be practically insane to manage files by hand. Let go of this useless obsession and learn to use metadata on your files. You'll probably even like smart playlists once you start using them.

      As for your friend, he probably won't be able to buy a car in a decade or so (...just kidding).

    11. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by dsoltesz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, iTunes is barely mentioned in the article. iTunes was inaccurately mentioned in the story headline, apparently to start a flame war among the various flaming fanboys. I'm outta here - apparently someone's letting the new intern approve stories.

    12. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > You do understand that you can use iPods (as well as many other players) without having to use their proprietary formats, right?

      This isn't about someone complaining about music. This is someone complaining about Movies.

      iPods are very picky about what they will play when compared to other devices.

      This leads to the consumer needing a special purpose app just to deal
      with it rather than taking a generic converter and using it's defaults.

      If iPods were as picky about Music as they are about Movies, most people
      would conclude that they were proprietary.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    13. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by cthellis · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are. Also, their formats are not "proprietary," just the Fairplay DRM. (While, amusingly, MP3 is a proprietary format. Just the de-facto standard.) And since Apple was basically instrumental in getting the RIAA to back off music DRM everywhere (short of subscription rentals, of course), I'm not sure why people continue to have a stick up their butt on what was inherently RIAA-demanded DRM, and the problems that surrounded that and their licensing and distribution model.

    14. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you are saying, rather than buying an MP3 player that does all this properly without installing bloatware (such as my Zen or my Sansa)

      1) Your Zen or Sansa lacks a lot of features iPods have. Last play time/date, skip count, play count, and so on, that all two-way sync back to itunes. And I use this meta data heavily to generate smart playlists that automatically rotate tracks to the ipod etc.

      Some of that stuff needs a separate database.

      Sure it would be better if that database were open instead of proprietary. But quite bluntly, until someone defines an open standard, and Creative and Sansa step up and implement it, the iPod will remain my mp3 player of choice.

      2) I don't -want- to manage my music library by dragging dropping files around. I do -want- to manage it by creating smart self-updating playlists based on meta data including play history, song ratings, and so on, and to have that automatically sync to the device. So installing a piece of software to handle the sync is something I'd be doing even if I didn't have to.

      we should cripple ourselves to satisfy the apple fanboys on /.?

      Using a Zen or Sansa is crippling yourself.

      This place is always against proprietary, unless its apple proprietary and then BEND OVER BABY!

      There are a lot of things I don't like about apple. I don't currently own a Mac because they refuse to release a tower with anywhere near the specs or price I want. There even a lot of things I don't like about itunes. But I've had other mp3 players... Sansa, Yepp -- the iPod is, for me at least, the best device hands down.

    15. Re:Actually, there is an iTunes for movies by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>Fuck that, Apple is just another Microsoft, and the reason people don't see it is this weird blindness people get when the "in-thing" is around

      Gosh, I really am tired of this argument. I think it's annoying because when you say that someone bought something just because it's the 'in thing', you are telling that person that they are so stupid that they don't know what they want, don't know why they want what they want, and in fact want stupid things.

      My iPod is not a slap bracelet or zubaz or a mullet. It's a tool that I use to get something done (it plays music for me). I don't use it in public. Only one of my friends owns an iPod besides me. In addition, it comes with tools for managing and aquiring music, videos, podcasts, games, and other stuff.

      Maybe, just maybe, you could get off your high horse and admit that some people aren't fucking idiots and consciously chose iPod over something else for good reasons. You want a car, I want a truck, and I don't need to hear your theories about why owning a truck makes me a trendy redneck asshat. Some people buy trucks because they're remodeling their house and can't fit lumber and sheetrock in their geo prizm.

      Sorry to pick on your post but I am pretty sick of pretentious trolls considering anything popular to be crap.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  2. Slashdot education by XPeter · · Score: 5, Funny

    In school, we had a trademark infringement lawyer come speak to us during computer science telling us how bad it was to illegally download music movies and such. But now as I read this, since there is no where to buy these movies piracy seems like the only option.

    I'm glad Slashdot is here to educate me.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Slashdot education by MrMr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A trademark infringement lawyer? Why not a divorce lawyer? That would have been funnier.

  3. Segmentation by meist3r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As I wrote several times before about TV shows, game releases and cinema starts this is all about segmentation. Putting up an international one-price-for-all platform for movie purchases would undermine the local market branches the industry has elaborately established over the past decades. You can charge different prices for movies in the EU, Asia, US and so forth. The differences make for additional profit. They would never give that up voluntarily.

    1. Re:Segmentation by digitalchinky · · Score: 4, Informative

      They aren't making much money from the Philippines then. The most expensive movie you can see here is around $10 USD, and that's for a world wide hyped movie on opening night at the posh end of town. On average it's about $4 in a good cinema. They are competing against piracy though, a single pirated movie is about $1, $2 will get you a disc containing anywhere up to 32 movies. 12 is about average though, any more than that and the compression makes them look worse than the phone cam in the cinema kind. Now an original movie purchased from a store in shrink wrap with hologram stickers, that'll set you back 1 to 2 bucks as well. They are well and truly in competition with the pirates now. Arrrrr. Most people can't be arsed to go to the mall and buy the originals though. Pirated stuff lives closer to home, and it has the adverts stripped out.

      So aside from geographic IP mapping which is trivially defeated with proxies, or charging a single price for world wide distribution, people are just going to flock to the cheapest and most convenient source. I figure if they can still turn a profit at 2 bucks for an original movie on DVD, they aren't hurting so bad after all.

    2. Re:Segmentation by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not so much the different price that's annoying. It's not having the chance to watch some things because of where you live. I can't see how giving everyone the chance to buy something that doesn't exist in their country is a bad thing.

      We need to put an end to regional distribution deals for the internet. The internet should, in fact, be considered it's own region and that would allow them to get around existing distribution deals.

  4. False right by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So basically Manjoo is saying that copyright holders are obligated to make their works available to him in the format and timing he demands, or else he has the right to get them illegally?

    I think we call can agree that current copyright is unreasonable and undemocratic (since it was bought for by the music/movie industry). But Manjoo's reasoning doesn't make a ton of sense either.

    1. Re:False right by Winckle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps he doesn't have the right, but the MPAA shouldn't act so surprised when people do it.

    2. Re:False right by djmurdoch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So basically Manjoo is saying that copyright holders are obligated to make their works available to him in the format and timing he demands, or else he has the right to get them illegally?

      No, he calls himself a scofflaw. He's saying that there's a market for works in the format and timing that the customer chooses. Currently it's a black market, and the studios are going to lose a ton of money because they don't offer a legal alternative.

    3. Re:False right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they aren't selling it, they they are losing nothing when we pirate it. This in turn means that there is no damage to them, and thus no case against us.

      If they are selling it, but there are artificial barriers caused by legal restrictions on over-riding region coding and the like, then this could be argued to be an illegal restriction on free trade under WTO rules, although we all know that no-one with the money to fight such a case ever would.

  5. Money, again by psychodelicacy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting article. It seems that the studios etc. are wary of losing the guaranteed revenue that comes from the premium and pay-per-view TV channels. But what happens when these channels wise up to the fact that an increasing number of people are getting these films for free online? Will they become more reluctant to pay the studios for the right to show a movie that everyone's already seen via bittorrent?

    Does anyone have any figures on how pay-per-view services are doing? I wouldn't be surprised to see that the number of people paying for the Hollywood blockbusters is on a downward trend as broadband speeds increase.

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  6. Yip by Norsefire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only thing I pirate are episodes of a TV series, it only started showing here about a month ago (5 months after it started showing in the US). At the end of the first series I bought the DVDs of the season, and I intend to do the same for the second. I've tried to find a legit way to watch it, mainly because I would like to contribute towards the ratings of the series. I've tried watching it through NBC's website, Amazon, Hulu, and many other websites but no one will offer it to viewers outside of the US.

    I'm a fan of the show, I want to watch it legitimately and if I could I would pay to do so.

    It just goes to show how far behind with the times the entire industry is that people *want* to pay them and can't, so they break the law instead.

    1. Re:Yip by neomunk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, having just done this a couple weeks ago, I can tell you that at least in my case they send you a little booklet for each TV that you use and you're supposed to write down what you watch on that TV.

      Interestingly, I don't have cable (television, I do get my internet access from Time Warner over a coax cable), I don't have satellite TV, and I don't watch OTA broadcasts. I DO however watch movies and television shows via my internet connection. The interesting part is that I told the nice lady who called and asked me about being a Nielsen family all of this and she actually sounded excited. She informed me that they really wanted some perspective on the viewing habits of people who do that, but for some reason (I suspect it has to do with Nielsen's mission statement) only if they pipe the video to a TV to watch it. I do exactly that in 3 rooms of my house, so they sent me the packets.

      I wonder how Thundercats and He-Man are going to enjoy their ratings boosts... The late, great George Carlin is going to be highly rated this month too, as well as some online-only media outlets that probably have never seen a rating point.

      The fact that they were highly interested in my survey suggests to me that some media companies see the writing on the wall, and want accurate information about my viewing habits in spite of the fact that they keep screaming that I'm killing them by watching online content exclusively. A small critique I have is that if they're going to start recording activities of people who use their TV like I do, they're going to have to make the box for you to write the channel name into bigger, so I can properly fit a URL into it.

      Finally, I'd like to say that I don't know how large of a sample they take any given week, but I hope it's low enough that a media company or two takes notice that someone out there is seriously using sites like Hulu and netflix, and considers expanding the content available via such channels.

  7. Here's the answer.... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The answer is twofold. First, the vast majority of people will not pay a hefty monthly fee for immediate access to recent movies and TV shows. So there really is not market for it. You cannot compete with free by putting a "hefty" fee on it. God, that's fricken ludicrous. Why is this completely asinine idea even posted here?!

    Second, the movie industry makes a lot of money with its gated approach to releasing movies. First, to theaters. Then to premium TV channels and pay-per-view. Then to DVD/Blue-ray. Than the normal TV. If the studios started releasing new movies as soon as they were released in they theaters, or even soon after, the money from the premium TV/pay-per-view/DVD/Blu-ray releases would drastically decrease. It's all about making the Benjamins, not about making it convenient for the viewer.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Here's the answer.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I pay around $20/month (approximately, at the current exchange rate) to be able to rent almost as many DVDs as I can watch, and have them shipped to me. This is the only way I watch any TV shows now, by renting them after they are aired. I would be more than happy to pay the same amount to be given access to a library of DRM-free downloads to watch, saving the shipping costs of transporting the DVDs to and from me. I would not pay for DRM'd media, because that would almost certainly prevent me from watching it on some of the devices I may wish to use for playback.

      The movie industry needs to realise that the rental and sales models are doomed. Few people watch the same movie over and over again (small children excepted), and so the benefit in owning a copy of a film is small. Rental simply can not work for soft copies, because rental requires a scarcity that is not applicable. What they can offer, which has great value, is timely access to new material and large archives of older films. If you can download any film or TV show you want for a fixed monthly fee, in high quality with a good download speed, the incentive to pirate them disappears. Some people will download everything they can and archive it to massive hard disks, but most people won't. Why would they? If they want to watch something again they can just download it again and not have to worry about paying for the local storage and backups.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  8. Amazon has a service where you can purchase movies by Marrow · · Score: 4, Informative

    They even have their own download client. Search on Video on Demand.

  9. It Ain't Philosophy, It's The Business Model by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently they see some magic gain in *not* making their product available in *preferred* distribution channels.

    It's not magic, it's real money. Follow the entertainment trades like "Variety" and you will see that the studios are selling nice lump-sum deals for some movies into broadcast and cable distribution windows even before they hit the theaters. The domestic and foreign TV distribution channels are not going to pay this big money if the movie is widely distributed in one form or another prior to their contracted window of distribution. The studio *must* restrict online distribution -- or at least make a big show that it is trying to. It's part of their contractual obligations.

    When a studio gets confident that the money it can make via "easy early global online" distribution will be enough to off-set the reduced fees it can charge its "old school" distribution partners, believe me, they'll pull the trigger on it. But the old school guys pay big bucks, and, currently, the new skool online direct-to-consumer model is, literally, pennies.

  10. Marketing 101 by Dan541 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My ISP offers a movie service, BUT you have to install a proprietary player to play the movie on.

    I'm a customer, I want the option of having the product as a .avi but the service is not giving me the service I want and am willing to pay for.

    So I use The Pirate Bay, money has nothing to do with my decision Movies cost nothing anyway even on DVDs it's all about the service. The Pirate Bay simply provides a better service than the studios can so they get all my downloads.

    Considering how big the market for movies is that must be a fair bit of money they are missing out on, all because they want people to use a certain piece of software.

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  11. Re:AVI codecs are patented too by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And its illegal in the US because VLC don't pay the license fees. So is mplayer and ffmpeg. In fact to play a DVD on Linux is to break the DMCA. Its not like this in all countries. But it is this way in the USA.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  12. Movies have ALWAYS been about restriction... by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Read something like Terry Ramsaye's "A Million and One Nights," about the early history of the movies--up to the early twenties--(Ramsaye doesn't believe the talkies have much of a future)--and, to a technical guy like me, it's incredibly boring.

    It's all about complicated business maneuvers based on artificial restrictions. (The phrase "B movie" dates back to the days when distributors wouldn't rent a good movie to a theatre unless they agreed to rent a lousy movie too). The various Laemmles and Selznicks and Zukors are doing nothing but finding clever ways to restrict product flow, cutting complex deals to outdo each other.

    The movies themselves are sort of a byproduct of the real industry, which is business deals. The movies are sort of a necessary evil, like the chips that are needed at a casino. Who cares who designed the chips, or whether the artwork on the chips is great or mediocre?

    Patents, too. Patents and patent pools and trusts and cartels, the whole nine yards.

    Why is the movie industry associated with Hollywood rather than New Jersey? No, it's not because of reliable daylight. Anyone old enough to be familiar with the little loop of film in a camera or projector that buffers between the intermittent motion at the film gate and the smooth motion of the reels, so the claw doesn't need to pull against the inertia of the reels and tear the film? You need that if you want to put the film on reels and run continuously for more than a couple of minutes.

    Well, that's the famous patented Latham Loop, and the people that held the patent refused to sell cameras, only rent them at exorbitant costs. So a bunch of people decided to make movies with pirated, illegal cameras... and they did it in California to make it harder for the process servers to find them.

    Printing has always been about making books cheap and available... starting with the Bible. Movies have always been about restricting product. It's in their DNA.

  13. Car Salesmen by Weedhopper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a certain point in my consumption of media where things just became absurd. And then I became a pirate.

    It's similar each time I go to buy a car. I'm there at the lot because I want to buy something but first, I have to deal with the first enemy, the salesman. I usually know exactly what I want but almost but not quite invariably, he tries to sell me something else first. Then he tries to sell me a couple things I don't want before I can manage to leave. I looked up your inventory and the inventory of your competitors before I came, don't try to BS me. I have Edmunds and AutoTrader right here on my phone, why make me distrust you by lying to me? This is changing, but not fast enough for my tastes.

    The movie/TV industry is the same way. They're either trying to sell me what I want in a way that I don't want them or don't sell what I want at all.

    First, let's get this notion of having to sit down at a certain time to watch a TV show out of the way. It's an obsolete mode of thinking. We started with primitive VHS, but now we have DVRs and even those will eventually be replaced by streaming.

    I find it remarkable that the torrent of a popular show is usually up within minutes of the show airing. Lately, even the HD versions are up lickety split.

    Yet, despite the pirates offering a mostly superior product (commercial free, 720/1080p), I have yet to torrent a single episode that I can watch on Hulu instead. But then again, once Hulu's not allowed to stream an episode that I "missed," guess where I am? You got it, TPB. There's a months long gap between "legit" online availability and the DVDs being released where I physically can't access the content.

    That's if it's even online in the first place. Show me where I can watch The Big Bang Theory online. I can't. Thus, I will download it.

    And man, I would pay for this if I could. In fact, I did. Then I gave up. I rented video on iTunes for a while until I realized what a sham it was. It's not that I didn't want to pay, (though the prices are way too high for TV episodes), its that once I pay, I don't want to be told when, where, and how I can watch or otherwise be forced to pay for the same content again. This is why Blockbuster is gasping its last breath and NetFlix is standing over its dying body.

    I could potentially be the best consumer the movie/TV industry has, but instead, I became the enemy for no other reason than the industry treated me as such.

    This stuff about complex contract systems and embargoed air dates is a product of a system that's no longer appropriate for the technology of today, much less the near future. And you know what, this is THEIR problem, not ours (the consumers). They're paid the big bucks to solve the problem before it gets to us, instead of just passing the problem along to us. I really couldn't give a shit about the contract between Warner Bros and HBO. That's really not my problem and by making it my problem, you, the content provider are my problem. Thus, I will torrent.

    I want to pay. But you have to give me what I want, not what you think I want.