Slashdot Mirror
Sony's Ultra 4K Streaming Service Launching On April 4; Titles Priced At $30 (variety.com)
Janko Roettgers reports for Variety: Sony is launching its 4K movie streaming service called Ultra next month: Consumers will be able to buy movies from the service, and stream to supported Sony 4K TV sets, starting April 4. The new service will offer 4K HDR movies to stream, including extras that have previously been able only on physical discs. Ultra ties into UltraViolet, the cloud locker service backed by Sony. Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
I for one prefer to "own" the copies that I buy. If I'm to buy a digital only copy that I will never actually "own" why should I pay the same price, or even more, as a physical copy? No thank you Sony.
I knew it wasn't meant for playing 4K games (hell, my $600 videocard can barely handle that).
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I don't think this has anything to do with caps. I have AT&T DSL and as I mentioned on a previous story today, all I can get out of them is 768kbps. I can *barely* stream SD netflix without too many buffering breaks, no way in hell I'm going to stream a 4k movie.
timeo Danaos, et dona ferentis
Back in the VHS days, I can remember spending $90+ for some titles. And that was in 1980's dollars too, for a crappy VHS version.
And you're complaining about $30?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Yes.
Back in the VHS days, I can remember *not* spending $90 for some titles. I looked at the price and said, no thanks. Having the entire cast and crew show up to my house to play it for me live wouldn't have been worth that.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
You think people bought HD because they could see the resolution, or because large flat-screen LCD TV's came into vogue with new connectors at the same time?
Rachael: Do you like our new movie service?
Deckard: It's streaming?
Rachael: Of course it is.
Deckard: Must be expensive.
Rachael: Very.
Rachael: I'm Rachael.
Deckard: Deckard.
Rachael: It seems you feel our work is not a benefit to the public.
Deckard: Streaming is like any other service - it's either a good deal or a rip-off. If it's a good deal, it's not my problem.
just won't notice any difference
Resolution ain't done until I can put it up on the wall and have people think it's a window.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
4K really is a joke. Why would I replace my current TV with 4K when no human on earth can detect improved quality on the 4K TV over my TV at 7.5'-8' or more???
People were making the EXACT same argument 10 years ago comparing 720p to 1080p, over and over and over.
They were wrong then, you're wrong now.
You'll likely all be correct at 8k, and for many people 4k will be the limit, but the difference is noticeable.
My office has a 55" 4k TV in it, got a good deal on it Black Friday and it has given me the chance to compare. My primary TV is a 70" Sony 1080p and my secondary TV is a 60" Sharp 1080p.
4k is clearly better, when fed a 4k stream from Amazon via their Fire TV box.
Now maybe YOU can't see the difference, but that doesn't mean other people can't.
If I'm going to drop $30 on a movie I want to see it on a huge screen with a colossal sound system - in other words in a movie theater. Currently I'm paying about $9 a month for Netflix. I think I'll stay with that.
Because otherwise all your friends, co-workers and family will talk about it and reveal spoilers, ruining the movie for you.
What, like in the new Star Wars movie where the ass kicking skinny white chick wins the day and the token black guy tags along and provides for a counter balance, while the old people make token appearances and we see a cute little droid run around for the kids?
Oh, and big new scary weapon does bad stuff and crazy bad man runs it and kills people for fun?
Does that about sum it up?
30 bucks per movie and I don't even get a copy to store?
So what happens when the service goes out of business? I lose everything I've bought?
Thank you, no.
For the same price you can buy the UHD Blu-ray which will also include a digital UV copy (probably only HD but still) and the regular HD Blu-ray copy as well.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Well, maybe. If 4K comes under the jurisdiction of UltraViolet, then hopefully the licensing will be pushed up through them. That's as close to a "permanent" cross-entity license as one can get these days. In most cases, you're purchasing a license even when you have a physical copy. That's why you're not allowed to use it to show the movie for profit.
You're wrong off the bat, that's because it's in copyright law under Exclusive rights in copyrighted works:
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly
There's nothing wrong with plain old copyright law which means we need to substitute a sale for a license.
I'm with you in terms of preferring to own a physical copy so that I can continue to watch it when my internet is down and I don't have to rely on a dozen different entities to still exist when I do, but I thought we were past the point where people thought they had a "right" to a movie on their own terms. If you don't want to agree to the copyright holder's terms for the movie, don't retrieve/store/watch it.
Obviously the consumer shouldn't be able to set their own terms. But I think the liberal idealism that as long as nobody puts a gun to your head it's voluntary and they can put whatever they want in their terms is flawed. We're constantly hit with lengthy boilerplate legalese that nobody reads, nobody understands and if they did they couldn't change them anyway and that nobody takes seriously until they're being fucked over. And sometimes it's just consumer anti-features you're never asked to agree to like that we'll disable the fast forward button when we feel like and not let you play movies from other regions even though they get to shop all over the world for the cheapest labor.
There's a little bit of what I'm asking for with regard to unconscionable contracts, but really consumers should have far more protection than that from big business. Particularly when they're agreeing on "industry terms" that smells like a cartel dictating terms for all the consumers, since it's not unconscionable if it's common knowledge you'll be fucked over. To use a car analogy, just because you sold me a car doesn't mean you should be able to dictate maintenance and repair, parts, after-market alterations, fuel, where I drive and so on. It's necessary to cut those cords, you built it but it's now my car. And it was your movie, but now I bought a copy.
Of course they don't want to cut the cord, they don't ever want to really let go just give you a crippled license to use it on their terms, like if your living room was is the same as going to the cinema. Well sorry, they don't get to collect a per seat royalty or add mark-up to any snacks you might be eating in your own home watching their movie. But they would if they could and even if it was technically possible it shouldn't be legally possible. They should be forced at some point to either not sell it at all or really sell it, not more getting to have your cake and eat it too. But that would involve consumers winning against a lobbying industry, so most people will just give the law the finger instead.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
$30 for less than or equal to a single watching of a movie? No. For a physical copy that I can watch whenever I want? No, still too high. But the fact that it is streaming over the internet and may be subject to buffering, disconnects, jitters, bad encoding and all manner of other issues? No way.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Cache it starting when you go to work. Watch half when you get home.
Repeat the next day.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I can see the difference on my 4K TV when I stream 4K content. However I cannot say it has had the slightest effect on my enjoyment or non-enjoyment of any movie or TV show. I really do not care whether the show is 4K. I care that the show is good.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
And you're complaining about $30?
Yep.
I remeber those days. My reaction was along the lines of "oh hell no". So, we went to blockbuster instead. Then came DVD players and they wanted 45 quid for a movie and 150 quid for a box set. My reacion was basically "nope nope nope" and go to blockbuster or the "Video Rental Emporium" (local place, more diverse choice, knowledgable staff, now gone forever).
Then they decided that they should actually start selling videos for a price people were perpared to pay, like 30 quid for a new box set and a tenner for a movie while recent, going down to 2 quid for an older film. My reaction was to buy lots. Then I found the big second hand shop which sells them for as low as 10p. If you even think you might want to see it, it's worth it for that price! Actually the only one I got for 10p was Crank and it's wicked.
So 20 quid for a movie? Nah, no thanks. Plus it's Sony so you're going to be paying 20 quid for getting abused somehow too.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Have you even used Ultraviolet?
UV movies are one time purchases. The upgrade feature is only if you bought a lower quality license and decide to upgrade quality afterwards. For example, I converted a bunch of DVD's to SD UV for $2/disc (instead of paying for HD at $5/disc). If I later decide to convert my $2 SD license to a 4K license I can pay $15 or just not and keep watching in SD. Note: buying the higher quality license gives you access to all the lower levels. Since SD is fine for those older movies than I will continue to be able to watch them in perpetuity for exactly $0.
You can also DL UV movies to whatever device you want for later offline watching. I do this routinely to load up my SD cards for trips.
You can enter pretty much every UV code at either Vudu or Flixster and never go near any Studio site or service.
The biggest difference between UV and Apple is that while on Apple you are locked to getting your playback service and your locker storage from the same provider (iTunes) on UV you can choose whichever playback service you prefer. This is especially helpful when you deal with different playback devices. If you're preferred provider doesn't make an app for the device you're currently on you just have to install one of the other providers apps. Try doing that with iTunes.
So don't bitch about how a service provider killed a movie format for you when you apparently have absolutely no understanding on how that service works.
There are legitimate gripes about UV (and I personally have many more concerning iTunes) but almost nothing in your post hits on any of them.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
$30 for a movie in a format few people can tell the difference, across bandwidth few people have, to watch some lonely set of movies few people want to see?
How can this not be a success?
Under the current interpretation of copyright I am not, unless I submit to their onerous terms. But by the same token, why are they entitled to have their work protected when it can be freely copied with no loss or downside to anyone, except a potential lost sale? Sure, authors should be able to benefit from their work, but there is no reason why they or their publishers are the sole authors of the terms of their temporary monopoly. If they don't want me to copy it, they can choose to not publish the content or add whatever DRM they think will work. But for much of human history, free copies have been the norm.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Common people were not denied access to copies because the works were protected, but because they could not afford to have a copy made. Copying was labor-intensive and expensive, which is one of the reasons that made books rare. Not any form of copyright. For the rest, if you cannot distinguish between a physical object that cannot be taken without the owner being deprived of it and cannot be copied free of cost, and a virtual intellectual work that can be copied at no cost to anyone or a small sum from the person who wants the copy without depriving the owner of the original of anything, then you have no business discussing these matters. Piracy is not theft. It may be illegal, it may even be immoral, but it is not theft. Not even close.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Always making horrible ideas possible.