Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DreamWorks Animation CEO: Movie Downloads Will Move To Pay-By-Screen-Size

Posted by Unknown on from the uh-huh dept.

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head of Dreamworks Animation, speaking at the Milken Global Conference in California, opined that the future pricing model for movie downloads will revolve around screen size. In his view, larger screens will incur larger download prices. As he says, 'It will reinvent the enterprise of movies.' Unclear is how physical dimensions, rather than just resolution matrix, will be determined. Will we soon be saying 'hello' to screen spoofing?" Can you fake the physical dimensions reported in the EDID block when the connection is using HDCP? Aside from the implication that this would mean more DRM (and seems pretty unworkable, but with the rise of locked bootloaders on even x86 hardware...), the prices he predicts seem alright: "A movie screen will be $15. A 75-inch TV will be $4. A smartphone will be $1.99."

50 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. Stretch that anus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bend over and take it boys! Hope your anus is been pre-stretched!

    1. Re:Stretch that anus! by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bend over and take it boys! Hope your anus is been pre-stretched!

      I'm a Comcast customer. I can assure you that my anus is more than capable of taking anything at this point.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Stretch that anus! by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Funny

      A Comcast customer with a fat pipe?
      Hmm. Something about that just doesn't quite ring true.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  2. Projectors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will they be able to tell how far away I have my projector from the wall?

    1. Re:Projectors? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure that would fall under the most expensive category, just to be "safe."

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  3. Or.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or they'll all continue to be free..

    1. Re:Or.. by InsultsByThePound · · Score: 2

      And I don't even pay $15 for a movie screen now. Around $8-11.

      The only tiered pricing will be how it is now. Closer to release date, the more you pay. Movie Ticket > PPV > Rental > Streaming > TV (free, albet with ads).

      Okay, I didn't stick DVD/BR in there which mucks up that neat formula with a higher price and ambiguities.... but the point remains. No one is going with this stupid plan.

  4. Er..."pricing is alright?" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    wouldn't they really want to charge on # of viewers? (no one cares about size of screen anymore; my kids watch everything on their tablets)

    also, $2 seems pretty high for a movie in the days of Netflix...

    1. Re:Er..."pricing is alright?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope you're not one of those "it's not the size; it's how you use it" guys.

    2. Re:Er..."pricing is alright?" by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      wouldn't they really want to charge on # of viewers?

      Long term, they absolutely want that.

      If they could, when you pop in a DVD, you'd submit your credit card to pay for the view, and charge according to the number of people in the room.

      They want all sorts of things where they keep gouging us for the price and keep their revenue stream constant.

      But, they might find people suddenly saying "to hell with that", and go read a book.

      And, of course, the book publishers want the same damned model where you pay to re-read your book, because clearly owning books and not compensating the publisher every time you read it is theft, right?

      And, since they basically pay the lawmakers to give them what they want, I won't be at all surprised if the assholes at the *AA manage to make it law that every time I watch a DVD I bought I have to pay them, and also pay for screen size, and also pay for # of viewers.

      This push to make IP and copyright laws drive everything we do is eroding our concept of property, and turning it into a rent-every-time model. And, I'll stop watching before that happens.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Er..."pricing is alright?" by click2005 · · Score: 2

      I was thinking the Kinect2 would be perfect for charging based on # of viewers. :)

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    4. Re:Er..."pricing is alright?" by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      Concept of property...

      hehehe, try not paying your property taxes and see how long you still own that "property".

      Property is a fallacy in the modern world of IP and big government.

    5. Re:Er..."pricing is alright?" by MonkeyBoy · · Score: 2

      A company I used to work for held negotiations with music & movie companies over a product we wanted to bring to the market which would let customers listen to music, watch videos, etc. while sitting in a restaurant or similar location. Essentially it took the place of a jukebox but since everything was in digital form it could have additional functionality.

      This was back at the height of the xxAA's anti-P2P "Napster" hysteria, when they had their heads lodged firmly in the sand that everything digital was evil. Before the iTunes Music Store proved they were being completely asinine.

      In any case, the only way they said they would work with us is if we helped them, at our expense, figure out how to charge all movie & music customers, everywhere, for every time they viewed a movie or listened to a song. And they'd own the rights.

      As you can imagine, my employer decided to kill the project. Multi-billion dollar companies expected a small business to foot the bill for their asinine product development plan...

      --

      Moof!

  5. value scales with screen size by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this makes sense based on my own experience. I get a lot more value from a movie in my home theater than I do from watching the same movie on my phone. So if I have to pay $5 to watch it on my big screen tv, I'm not going to pay $5 to watch it on my phone!!! The post implies that katzenberg is making an arbritrary technical distinction. in fact, what he's saying is that customer value scales with screen size, and the price should too.

    1. Re:value scales with screen size by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

      It's just a shame nobody makes a phone with 1920x1080 output on HDMI... oh, never mind. This post was meant for more than a year ago.
      Article listing multiple phones with HDMI output in April, 2013

    2. Re:value scales with screen size by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So by your reasoning you should pay $1.00 for a song you will listen to on your home theater, but only $.50 for one you will listen to on your iPod?

      And therein lies the problem.

      I'm willing to pay $15-$20 for a CD I own, can take home and rip to MP3,and play on whatever damned device I so choose.

      Fortunately, I live in a country where that's covered by fair use.

      These guys just want to change the definition to "well, no, you haven't bought anything, you've licensed it, and we will dictate how and when you use it".

      At which point, they'll never get another dime from me.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:value scales with screen size by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      right here

    4. Re:value scales with screen size by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      In my experience most torrented items are being torrented while they are in the top price bracket. People want to see them "now" but won't (or can't) afford to pay current prices for them now.

      Except for Demonoid. Man I loved that site. It had so much out of print but still in copyright stuff on it. Too worthless to reprint but many items that were part of my childhood. I'm glad it was up as long as it was.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  6. EDID spoofers are common... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Informative

    Any video switching equipment for HDMI/DVI will often use a small device such as Gefen's HDMI Detective to store the EDID of the screen and convince the video source that it is always connected. It would be trivial to store a "fake" EDID in such a device that reports a smaller screen.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:EDID spoofers are common... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      I think what they'll do is offer streaming services. That'd be a lot easier for them to police because they could create their own client and force you to use it. However, I think they are vastly over-estimating their customers pain threshold. Especially when 3rd parties are starting to produce their own content and could offer a much more pleasant experience as a selling point.

      The problem with all the movie industries attempts to change the dynamics of their sales model has been that they want to both restrict the customers access AND charge the highest rates in the land at the same time.

    2. Re:EDID spoofers are common... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      It would be trivial to store a "fake" EDID in such a device that reports a smaller screen.

      And then you'll get content at a lower resolution. I'd imagine that some services will be happy to sell you the lower-resolution content without spoofing, though I'm sure some won't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. We already have a unit of measure for billing by thechemic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We already have a unit of measure for billing which is referred to as "mega bits per second". Now they want to bill us by "screen size per viewing"? Every @#$%'ing time I try to go legit, they force me back to illegal downloads with their senseless bullshit.

    --
    Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
  8. Good thing I kept my CRT! by sinij · · Score: 2

    Good thing I kept my old CRT with 800x600 resolution. Well, at least that what my system will report and I am sticking with it!

    1. Re:Good thing I kept my CRT! by PIBM · · Score: 2

      Preceding parameters are important:

      (B) communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission embodying a performance or display of a nondramatic musical work intended to be received by the general public, originated by a radio or television broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission, or, if an audiovisual transmission, by a cable system or satellite carrier, if—
      (i) in the case of an establishment other than a food service or drinking establishment, either the establishment in which the communication occurs has less than 2,000 gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose), or the establishment in which the communication occurs has 2,000 or more gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose) and—

  9. Re:A computer will be $X by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Funny

    Watch the cost of 4K cameras soar as a direct result.

    Oh, excuse me, I'm the flight attendant I've noticed that you're breathing more than the other passengers. We're going to have to charge you for that.

    Oh? No more limit on your credit card? Step outside, please.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  10. And yet by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    buying that cheap $2-$4 dvd or $5-10 BR at a pawn shop costs me nothing to watch it anywhere. I got about 1000 dvd's and 700 came from pawnshops/flea markets. You can keep your price per size hopefully it goes all digital and no more physical media so I never had to be bothered to watch anything and go for a walk instead. That movie habbit is hard to break but I'm getting there. Been cable free for over a year now which saved me $100 per month and haven't been to a movie theather since The Road.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  11. Perhaps He Meant Resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think he was really referring to resolution when he was talking about screen size, perhaps he was addressing a non-technical audience. I agree with him for the most part. He's talking about expediting digital distribution to only 18 days after the initial release, as he figured the major cinemas have made about all they're going to make by the first three weekends. He sounds very forward thinking. Pay X3 for 4K, X2 for 1080P, X1 for SD.

    1. Re:Perhaps He Meant Resolution by Racemaniac · · Score: 2

      since a lot of recent phones are surpassing tv's in resolution, i doubt it...

  12. Much ado about nothing by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you ask me, odds are 70% he was just using "Screen Size" as a proxy for "Resolution" in the first place, either because he doesn't know the difference, or (more likely) was talking down to the audience. In any case, it is one person's speculation about the future, nothing more.

  13. Modified EDID possible by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can you fake the physical dimensions reported in the EDID block when the connection is using HDCP?

    Yes. The EDID block is not encrypted.

  14. Whoo hoo! by gehrehmee · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whoo hoo! My 51" hdtv's EDID data says it's 7" in size. Everything's coming up Milhouse!

    --
    "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
  15. summary is misleading by Khashishi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jeffrey Katzenberg might have said "you pay for the size", this does not mean he explicitly meant physical dimensions and not resolution. This suggestion was added in by the article submitter to make him sound more idiotic than he probably is. I'm sure if you were actually talking to Katzenberg and you pressed him on the issue, he would clarify that he used the term size as a proxy for a combination of resolution and compression quality which one would expect for a TV vs a cellphone.

  16. Pay per pixel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think basically, he's proposing pay per pixel. If you have a phone-sized screen, you have lower resolution, and they aren't sending you as many pixels.

    1. Re:Pay per pixel? by darkshot117 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except more and more phones are higher resolution then most HDTVs already. A lot of people will have a 55 inch TV at 1080p but a smartphone with 1440p at least in just a few years. So paying per pixel or per size is pointless as neither tells you anything...

    2. Re:Pay per pixel? by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      He explicitly says "pay for the inches you watch". Furthermore, my current phone is 1080p, same as my TV. There are 4k phones in the works right now (despite the questionable quality gains). There are still movie theaters in my area that are limited to essentially 1080p. Pay per pixel does not produce the market that he is describing.

    3. Re:Pay per pixel? by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Phone version will likely be far more compressed. It's not the "pixels" you're sending nowadays when it comes to video, but key frames and data about changes to the frames (rough simplification of modern video compression algorithms).

      So your movie version will be encoded using highest possible quality, TV size will be medium and phone version will be low. This will result in massive differences in file size.

      This is doable.

    4. Re:Pay per pixel? by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2

      Go to the apple store. They already do this. Buy a standard def and buy a high def version of the same movie and see which one you prefer, even on a small screen. (Hint: I always buy HD)

    5. Re:Pay per pixel? by shipofgold · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What he says and what he can do are two different things. I don't doubt that they are trying to work out a scheme where the screen identifies itself accurately, but I think it is much easier (and not unreasonable) to charge for resolution.

      You want to watch 720p on your 15ft screen, have at it...but we have this 4K version that you may be interested in for only a few pennies more!

      I will love it when they start suing for watching the movie on the wrong screen.

    6. Re:Pay per pixel? by Onuma · · Score: 2

      Indeed. YouTube is a great example.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    7. Re:Pay per pixel? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's definitely doable from a technical perspective, the question is whether these greedy fucks will do it the simple way, or try to use DRM bullshit to determine our actual screen size and charge us accordingly.

      The simple way would be to charge by resolution and image quality. Ultra-high-res with high-quality compression gets the highest price, low-res with excessive compression gets the lowest price. No need to use any DRM (at least for determining what kind of device you're playing it on) because you're charging by the actual quality of what's delivered: if the customer wants to play a crappy, low-res low-bitrate version on their 75" home theater with 4k screen so they can save a few bucks, they can do so, though of course it's going to look like crap on that setup.

    8. Re:Pay per pixel? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      You do, but others might prefer to save money and get the crappy-quality version. Obviously, a bunch of people already do, or else Apple wouldn't bother selling that version in their store. This is the way things should be: give people a choice, and let them choose what they're willing to pay for, less $$$ for low-quality, or more $$$ for high-quality. Some people prefer the high-quality version and are willing to pay extra, others are unwilling to pay extra, or have poor vision and think the low-quality version is good enough.

    9. Re:Pay per pixel? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      He explicitly says "pay for the inches you watch".

      So, streaming porn is going to get a lot more expensive...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    10. Re:Pay per pixel? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

      I think basically, he's proposing pay per pixel.

      They sort of have this model now (in the disc world.)

      Oh great, now Terry Pratchett's books are priced by the page? Sheesh, Alzheimer's must be expensive!

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    11. Re:Pay per pixel? by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      > Samsung is planning a 2560*1440 cell phone.

      The Oppo Find 7 already *has* one :-)

      http://forum.xda-developers.co...

      For those who've never heard of it, it's the phone everyone at XDA-developers.com has been having wet dreams about for months -- a top-shelf, best-of-breed Android phone that makes no hardware compromises & ships unlocked with Cyanogenmod. There have been officially "open" phones in the past, but they were always last year's hardware or lacked important features like microSD (when you reflash a lot, microSD makes your life several orders of magnitude easier & more convenient) and/or LTE.

      The last time I checked, Oppo's plan for the Find 7 is to make it directly available in the US as a retail product with US warranty by June, but AFAIK if you're dying to get one now, the GSM international model is hardware-identical to what you'll be able to get from stores like Newegg, Amazon, and Tiger Direct. If 1700MHz AWS HSPA+ is important to you (ie, T-mo in a market that hasn't been refarmed yet), you might want to double-check support for AWS.

    12. Re:Pay per pixel? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but $4 for a single movie on my TV screen? That's half a Netflix subscription. They need to get realistic about pricing. $2/month for unlimited streaming movies, or $0.5 for a full HD download of a recent release falling to $0.05 for older stuff. Must work on my smart TV of course.

      If that sounds low keep in mind that they are competing with free. FTA TV, borrowing from friends/libraries, YouTube, BitTorrent etc. This is all for rentals of course (DRM crippled files), if the downloads are DRM free they could double those prices.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  17. Re:Why stop here? Charge for loudness too! by lgw · · Score: 2

    No, no! Never repeat that Jar Jar idea. The fuckers will do it.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  18. Tiered based on Video dimensions, not screen size by landoltjp · · Score: 2

    Rather than tiered based upon Screen Size, it;'s more likely that Katz meant it would be tiered based on Video dimensions. Many people have pointed out that it's hard for the delivery mechanism to know the target screen size. It's easy for the producer to generate a video at multiple video dimensions. The teirs would relate to standard screen sizes, increasing in cost per tier. For example:

    Tier 1 - 320x240 or 640x360
    Tier 2 - 640x480 or 800x450
    Tier 3 - 800x600 or 960x540
    Tier 4 - 1024x768 or 1024x576
    Tier 5 - 1280x720
    Tier 6 - 1920x1080

    These are 4x3 and 16:9 resolutions. I'm sure they could make other resolutions available.
    The idea is that lower resolution may be just fine for viewing on your phone or watch, but you'd want the Tier 5-6 dimensions for watching on a large TV. Try watching a 320x240 res video on your 40" display and you'll see what I mean.

    Nothing to stop you from doing exactly that; you want to pay $1 and watch 320x240 res video on your 40" display? Sure, go ahead. But I'm betting it won't be as good as watching the 1920x1080 res video.

    Except if it's a download of Twilight.

  19. Re:no concept of digital technology by sconeu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No. They *do* understand it. They don't like it. They want to kill it in its current form.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  20. Re:Why stop here? Charge for loudness too! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

    Watch the film cut of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, with Tim Curry.

    Then watch something like Avengers, SWE1, or the like.

    You'll notice a lot of modern acting involves standing in a pose, focusing on the active dialogue deliverer or other direct action, then delivering a line of dialogue or taking an action. Opera and theater take this to an extreme: people exchange lines and actions in grand maneuver, conveying a story. Modern acting has made this form of simple delivery more fluid; however, it is not lifelike.

    I point out RHPS because the actors appear to live in their roles: they acknowledge the set and the people around them as people in a place of fantasy. When Janet looks to Brad for security, she is Janet looking to Brad for security; she is not an actress executing a practiced motion with a deep inner focus on herself. Tim Curry isn't strutting around singing and acting flamboyant; he is throwing inner urges and rude mannerisms in the face of guests at his castle, largely for his own amusement.

    Jar-Jar is so jarring in part because he doesn't feel like he belongs in Star Wars. He doesn't fit in the movie. There are people trying to act, and there's this jackass who hasn't figured out it's all just a show and is running around like it's real. He may be immature and obnoxious, but he's primarily out-of-place in a bland performance.

    --
    Support my political activism on Patreon.
  21. dead wrong by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Reality is probably closer to:
    "we'll try ever harsher and dumber DRM and rights constriction in order to stay the eventual decline of our business model."

    Or:
    "Only suckers will pay the premium, everyone else will just pirate to their little hearts content. This change will do nothing but increase the number of people paying 0 dollars."