Internet Movies Before DVD 418
alfrin writes "Actor Morgan Freeman and Intel are starting a company that will sell movies over the Internet before they are released to DVD. "We're going to bypass what the music industry had to come up with, and that's to get ahead of the whole piracy thing," Freeman told reporters at Sun Valley after making his presentation, which was closed to the press. Wouldn't this just make it easier to pirate movies?"
SHHH!! (Score:0, Insightful)
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the movie industry has done a reasonably good job of keeping ahead of the market forces that drive piracy. Depsite all the complaints about movies getting on the Internet early (as if the problem didn't exist with bootlegs prior to the Internet), I haven't seen any evidence that it has been a widespread issue. Your average person seems happy enough to go to the theater, buy a DVD, or sign up with Netflix.
The ones who should really be worried is television. The DVD rehashes of shows have helped, as have PVRs like TIVO. But the general populace is starting to get pretty annoyed about being told when they can and can't watch television. If TV doesn't reinvent itself as an internet business soon, the reprocussions could be of Napster proportions!
It might decrease piracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not very efficient.... (Score:3, Insightful)
no more ???? (Score:2, Insightful)
Get with Apple, do a (probably relatively minor) code revision to iTunes for the selection/shopping engine and DRM (face it, its gonna have it in some fashion) and add video support, maybe do some more work to use distributed downloading like bittorrent or have multiple mirrors in network-close proximity (work with cable and satellite cos?) to users, and have at it.
Why would this help piracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. burn it to a CD, then rip the CD, thus losing quality
2. record the audio as you play it
3. crack the encryption.
However, with a video, #1 and #2 are out of the question. Unless, of course, you really want to hook up an S-Video/etc. out plug to a digital camera or VCR, record the playback to the camera, and transfer it back. It's just not feasible. Unless (until?) the encryption is cracked, this won't help piracy one bit.
Music industry Suffering? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when is the music industry in a real slump?
About the movies, I wish they would do this and make it as portable/open as possible, but as we all know it will be DRM'd out the ass and completely unusable except at Uncle Bob's house on Tuesday after 5pm.
What _is_ this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Complete Contradiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Give the public what it wants! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Good quality
2. Readily available
3. The price is right
Most people, to this day, don't know that most DVD movies are encrypted and have the Macrovision(r) switch turned on. They just put the disc in and press play. What they care about are the three things above.
Item #3 doesn't mean free. In fact, it can't be free because if people see a price that's too low, they will think it sucks. #2 is important because from what I have seen, people download movies mostly because they aren't available on DVD yet. When the DVDs come out, they often buy'em... (or not based on whether they liked the movie...) #1 is pretty obvious, but I think it's not as important a draw as the later two. It is significant, however, as at present, in order to make video content on the internet feasable, a sacrifice in image quality will likely have to be made even with the best consumer grade broadband. So even if they capture the stream and put it on a DVD and can even play it that way, it will not likely measure up to the quality of a production DVD which would be a motivating factor to buying the DVD... not necessarily instead of downloading and not necessarily in addition to downloading either. I don't think the two are connected drives.
Re:Not very efficient.... (Score:3, Insightful)
getting the download out before the DVD is key, as part of the motivation for piracy is to be the first kid on the block with the latest and greatest. This shortens the time span for which that is a motivation.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think many people are going drop TV as the medium in favor of something that's unreliable. I know I sure didn't tune in to the Daily Show on TV when ShunTV was around...but now, without a consistently reliable source for it I watch it on TV.
I don't think we're going to be able to get a good distribution point for it as long as a threatening letter or a lawsuit can bring one down (which will be the case for the foreseeable future).
JMHO
Freeman +1, MPAA -1 (Score:5, Insightful)
if an actor almost 70(!!) can understand the importance of new technology, why can't a "consortium" of movie companies who "supposedly" have our best interests in mind embrace digital distribution?
Piracy for the Sake of Piracy. A.K.A. hoarding (Score:5, Insightful)
1. How many do you actually watch?
2. How many do you use to buy friends with?
3. How many get thrown on a spindle and forgotten?
I know people that download almost 50 movies/TV shows/games a month. When I ask them how many they actually watch/play, it's rarely 20% at most.
I think this stems from the fact that having so much media readily available to us is still a relatively new concept. It was only 10 years ago that it took us 2 hours to download a 5 minute, low-quality movie (usually porn). I believe people are thinking "Wow !! i CAN have all these movies", not "Wow !! I want to WATCH all these movies".
I believe that when our kids grow up, they won't have this desire to accumulate all this media, because they'll be able to watch/play all this stuff when they want it.
Instead of paying $50/month of DVD, just to have the pleasure of burning and stock-piling them, why not hire 10 DVDs for $30 from your local video shop and buy some beers to drink while you watch.....
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
See, right now most people don't have the bandwidth for subscription based movie download services, and as very few actually want to watch movies on a 19 inch monitor, converting and burning to DVDs is non-trivial. It's somewhat like the old axiom: "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of quarter inch tapes." For a lot (if not most) people, getting two DVDs a week by mail is much more efficient than downloading, so the subscription movie services are mail-based.
This isn't true of music; bandwidth is high enough and compression good enough that market forces have driven a download-based subscription service, as you can easily download and listen to music on the computer, and burn it to CD for home theatre playing.
Piracy, Arrrr... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is exactly this kind of illegal downloading that would go away if they offered reasonably priced legitimate copies. It's true that they will have to offer some recording capability (probably with reduced resolution) -- people feel pretty strongly about their ability to record what they see on their TV.
However, for all the grandstanding of the media companies in the US, the real "piracy" (actually, a very bad term [gnu.org]) problem they face is in the far east. The problem is not people downloading low-resolution copies of movies (which doesn't cost them much business), but entire factories which churn out illegally copied DVDs, and people who buy the cheap fakes rather than the expensive originals.
Re:It might decrease piracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Netflix has got it nailed. A monthly subscription to just keep watching new movies, plus a database of my ratings and suggestions offered to me which are usually pretty on target. Now if they could figure out some way to do that over the internet, I'd definitely be interested.
Re:It might decrease piracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like for music, there is lots of material out there and each individual desire probably to own much more stuff than what is wallet can afford. In consequence even if they lower the prices, there revenue wont go down. The people who where spending 200$ each year on movie purchase will still spend it but will just get more. The people like me who weren't buying anything will maybe start to do so. I hope they will realize that they can make much more money on the volume than on the price of each movie.
Inferior bootlegs are fine for inferior movies... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, they're inferior, pirated copies, but for most people that seems to be good enough.
If Hollywood were capable of making films that were good enough to merit the trouble of going to a theater and paying the premium price to see it, then people wouldn't be satisfied with crappy camcorder internet bootlegs.
Will this service ease the piracy of movies? (Score:3, Insightful)
But it will also make it easier for people to legitimately buy movies.
No irritating crying children.
No people who smell bad.
No waiting.
No hassle.
No lines.
No fuss.
Given the choice, I think that most people would like to compensate the actors, directors and producers of a movie. What that price point is, remains to be seen.
If it would be computer-tethered and non-portable, I personally wouldn't shell out more than $5.00 (matinee ticket price).
It's already happening (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad movies, on the other hand, have a hard time drumming up rentals if they really bombed in the theater. ("Catwoman" is a great example. I personally thought it wasn't half as bad as people made it out to be -- but are you going to spend your money on it?)
I've heard it from more than one Hollywood type: Movies have the glamor, but TV is where the real money is. (Though maybe that depends which side of the camera you're on.)
Yes, this will work provided... (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Delivery is sane: No funky P2P implementation. I'll be damned if I pay for a movie and have to use my own connection to help the publishers distribute it. Better cough up the bucks for the fat pipes, cause you're gonna need them.
3. Timing is sane: Say, really really soon after a movie premieres? Maybe 5 working days? If not, cheap bastards like me will just score it off ***net. It's not just about the quality, it's about the timeliness too.
4. DRM is sane: I'd better be able to shift the vid around, or view it without being connected to the mothership. Or better yet, forget DRM, because
we'll just film it off the monitor if we can't crack the copy protection. Have you seen high quality telecines? They're free, and they look real decent. You can't compete with that.
5. Selection is sane: Don't just limit the choice of movies to the latest corporate trash. Some of us like the weird obscure unseen shit. Donnie Darko would have been a worldwide smash if the publishers had the brains to properly promote it.
6. Quality is sane: The vids had better not be the size of a postage stamp. And perhaps, offer the viewer the vids in a variety of formats and codecs.
People Don't Like to Steal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Piracy for the Sake of Piracy. A.K.A. hoarding (Score:4, Insightful)
For instance, when i was in school there came a time when 5 1/4" floppies fell below a dollar a per disc, in bulk. At this point it became extremely reasonable to make a copy of every single program that anyone had. A floppy, though a neat little utility called disk muncher, could be spread throughout the school in a day or two. It did not matter what the program did, or if you would use it, just that you had it. Students left high school with hundreds of floppies.
So i don't think it is because access to conent is new. I thinkmany people like to hoard, and if one takes the time to download, one might as well burn it to a $.20 CD. I agree that taking the time to rip a movie a every movie one gets to DVD might indicate additional concerns, but the concept is the same.
Also, I think this is one of the places where piracy is a term best not used. The content owners really need to focus their defenses on the firms that utilize stolen software for administration of profit. I mean once i got some cash, and grew up, the piracy went way down.
Re:It might decrease piracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is probably the case where they'll make huge amounts of money, but your point shouldn't be discounted completely. I recall reading a report about which genres of music saw the biggest spike from being made available on the iTunes store versus their sales in conventional CD outlets and the survey said that it was Polka. I thought that was a joke, but thinking about it made sense. The genre is practically dead in regular CD outlets and the simplicity of the iTunes interface makes even a grandmother able to figure things out. I bet they probably get a LOT of impulse buys from people who are fans of obscure artists or genres.
There are a lot of things I think the iTunes music store could improve, but this ability to provide obscure music is a unique service. Let's hope a movie model like this can do something similalry worthwhile.
How much and how soon? (Score:2, Insightful)
These movie services may force some ISPs to upgrade their service and increase their usage caps if enough customers want to use a legal paid service(not pay for kazaa/bit torrent/other), especially if there's ever an unlimited use monthly subscription.
It would have be very high quality, far enough before the dvd release and cheap enough for me to cancel my Blockbuster Online membership, $15/mo 3 at at time and 2 coupons for free in-store rentals.
Apple + h.264? (Score:3, Insightful)
Damien
We have got to take these decisions from them (Score:4, Insightful)
The interesting movies/TV shows/records/content never get made because they aren't going to be block-busters and the studio system has gotten so bloated and expensive with the hangers-on.
We need a distribution channel (like an IMDB with iTunes-like media distribution) for movies that aren't and will never be block-busters but that are good anyway.
The studios used to produce quite a few a month but that got too expensive. Then came the indies but the studion and distribution companies own all the distribution channels, ergo, I don't get to see any interesting films.
The theater chains and the multiplexes can never run the movies long enough for me. By the time that I'm ready to see them, they're already gone.
But if I could pick 'em up off the net, legally, when I want to see them, I would.
Yes, Shhhh! People overreact to threat of piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, I wish that entreprenuers could gloss over concerns of encouraging piraacy.
Isn't that the argument so many pirates use to rationalize their actions? IE, "If only the RIAA had offered music online for my convenience and pleasure, I wouldn't have to use Kazaa!"
At every turn, the **AAs (and those who fund the production of media)oppose most any digital content distribution system because of fears of piracy. I say that creators of convenient digital content distribution systems should flat dismiss such fears of piracy. Piracy will always occur, partly because of the hacker desire to grok most anything that's interesting or a challenge. The consumption of such readily available digital content would far outpace any ancillary piracy. The success of legitimate online music stores is a good example. Despite the continued easy availability of pirated content, millions of people prefer to purchase and receive their music through their choice of many competing online music stores.
Producers need to push piracy out of their mind. When companies make quality content conveniently available, people will gladly pay, and such revenue should outstrip any "missed" (not "lost revenue", IMHO, b/c would a pirate buy the content anyway? Maybe, maybe not)revenue.
PS: A good implementation would discourage piracy. For example, AFAIK, the only way to strip WMA 10 audio files of their DRM is to record them in real time, in analog. This means that the same could be true for video; that pirates could only rip movies in real time, which is a pain in the ass. I think that's an acceptable detterent.
Re:Will this make it easier to pirate movies? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that hackers are smart, but that DRM simply can not ever work. "DVD Jon" is only successful because he understands this obvious fact.
The only question is will the content be sold conveniently and cheaply enough that no one would want to bother pirating it.
Re:Piracy for the Sake of Piracy. A.K.A. hoarding (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, there are people who archive useful websites, because sometimes, these websites change (become less useful) or disappear completely. You and I would probably not devote much time to this, because we know that we can usually rely on the Internet Archive or Google's cache to make snapshots (not always, but that's the risk we're taking). However, if it was information that had a reasonable chance of not being preserved due to external influence (ie, internal Diebold memo on how to fix elections for the highest bidder), then people would hoard it just for the sake for hoarding it, due to its potential value in scarcity. Ironically, because of that potential value, it would probably be less scarce than if it was a run of the mill technical document.
Given the movie/music industry's more or less stated goal of converting all of their "property" into licensable forms, preferably forms that expire on you (remember Divx - not DivX;), but the DVD you could rent to view for 24, then throw away?), hoarding what you can get, while you can still get it, isn't as crazy an idea as you might think. Of course, there's always the other explanation of hoarding specific items - some people are just natural-born packrats.
Re:Piracy for the Sake of Piracy. A.K.A. hoarding (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a nice feeling when you have a "complete" set. Like hockey cards, coins, stamps, TV episodes (back when you had to try to record reruns to get em all). Or even reconciling your credit card bill with receipts and having everything match up...
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this shortsightedness is just a sign of the times, though. Everyone seems to be looking to mazimize short term gain at the lowest risk. Sadly, greatness is rarely born out of such a world-view.
Re:Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
So you've heard it from Jefferson, but now let me ask you something. Suppose we lived in a world where Star Trek-style replicators were as easy to come by as computers are now. Anyone who wanted to could point their replicator gun at a car, a house, an air conditioner, a steak, or anything else they wanted, and instantly have a free copy without taking anything away from the person who owned the original.
Such a device could end poverty and hunger as we know it. No one would have to live in a run-down apartment, eating top ramen and setting a fan next to an ice chest to try to stay cool; they could have a fine home, fancy meals, and all the modern amenities simply by pressing a button.
Now, this would naturally reduce demand for manufacturing and construction. Some people might find themselves out of work and try to get this device banned. But wouldn't the benefit to society be worth keeping it? In fact, wouldn't it be immoral to deny everyone the standard of living this technology would give them, just so a few people could keep making a buck the way they always have instead of changing with the times?
Free sharing of copyrighted works, similarly, might reduce demand. But I believe the benefit of giving everyone access to decades' worth of material would greatly outweigh the cost, and furthermore, it would allow us to concentrate on rewarding people for creating new material in the first place instead of just for producing copies.
Re:Music industry Suffering? (Score:2, Insightful)
IIRC, shortly after they lost innovation, healthy competition, and interest in the music.
Re:Why would this help piracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Type movie name into search box, click enter.
2. Download movie.
3. Watch.
P.S. Video capture card + Winamp plugin to capture output to DirectSound and write to disk + editing/compression software of choice = digital quality piracy.
P.P.S. You never need to "crack" the encryption when someone gives you the cyphertext, the cypher specification, and the secret key.
Right-Entitled to victimhood. (Score:1, Insightful)
I got a $100, that says that's at best wishful thinking. At worst it's outright deceptive.
Everyone like's to have a scapegoat, as for why they can't "help themselves", and "I just can say no". Yeah, yeah. If you had the ethics to get into the situation? You're not going to suddenly develop the ethics to get out of it.
Just another "It's all your fault I'm the way I am","we can get you the money you're entitled to","were's my welfare check","the man's trying to keep me down" victimhood/entitlement mentality that's infected the past couple decades.
Re:Piracy for the Sake of Piracy. A.K.A. hoarding (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to download, burn and spindle every game that ever game out, in thoughts that "I'll want to play it some day". Now I barely play games at all, and I have 7 spindles of games from 5+ years ago that are collecting dust.
What a useless obsession...
- shazow
Re:Great Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People Don't Like to Steal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SHHH!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Now we are coming to a time where video codecs are shrinking the size of movies further and further without a big hit to the quality, hard disks are continuing to grow in size, and broadband connections are increasing in speed. While I doubt that this service will do very well in its first year, I see it as being something that most of us will use within the next 2-3 years. My broadband connection just got upgraded from 1.5megs to 6megs, a little faster and I'd gladly download all of my movies. I wouldn't even mind some DRM if there were a place to "rent" movies. I pay blockbuster $24 a month for unlimited rentals, I'd gladly pay that to a different company if I could download movies and play them with their special player.
Re:Piracy for the Sake of Piracy. A.K.A. hoarding (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it wants to be free?
Re:Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
The same way you reward someone for designing a house or cutting your hair. You pay him for his labor, and then he doesn't have to worry about what you're going to do with the song he wrote (or the house he designed, or the stylish 'do he gave you) because his job is done.
If he asks more than you're willing to pay on your own, then you get your friends together, tell them about what a great artist he is, and ask them to chip in.
For us to reward people for creating new material, we'd have to actually pay the band/record producers -before- they even made the album. I suppose that could work though--as you pay your 20 bucks and reserve a CD. Actually, that might work as the company would be able to collect all the money, and -then- release the album.
Exactly, and if there are any concerns that the band might take the money and run without producing anything, that's what escrow is for.
No longer would artists have to worry that something they spent months or years creating won't sell. Instead of working for free to create something and then trying to sell it, they'll know ahead of time how much demand there is for it.
Then again, I bet you'd wait for it to be on the internet so you could just pirate it.
First off, it wouldn't be considered piracy, since it would be released for anyone to use as they see fit.
Second, if they can't convince me their work is worth paying for, that's their problem. If their first album comes out and I'm blown away by it, I'll chip in for the second one. Like many (if not most) people who download stuff from P2P, I have no problem paying for something if I know it's going to be good, and I've bought many albums purely because of hearing the band's other work via P2P.
This isn't about trying to benefit society or some other dumb-clucky thing; this isn't even about freedom from corporate america. This is about selfishness, greed, and people thinking the world owes them something.
You're right.. but not in the way you think. What you're describing is the motivation of those who support copyright. They think the world owes them something--not just money, but control and deference--because they wrote a song, or a book, or drew a picture. "You can't read it unless you do what I want, and neither can your friends! It's MINE! I demand the right to tell everyone what they can do with those words!"
They're too greedy and selfish to actually keep working; they want to make something once and then milk profit out of it for decades to come, by selling copies long after the real creative work has already been done. They think there's something magical about their job that entitles them to special treatment, when really they're just using their skills to perform a service like millions of other people.