New Movie Download Pay Service

SailorBob writes " After nearly two years in production, Hollywood-backed Movielink is giving the green light to its online movie rental service. The Web site, a joint project of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros., will debut Monday with a limited selection of first-run and classic films from the five major motion pictures studios, in a test of the technology to select U.S. residents. Though the film studios have licensed content to other video-on-demand sites, it is the first time they've introduced a service of their own. Of course, just like the new music services, this is also only available to US residents. "

Interesting..

[glh]

Here is the jist according to me:

1. You can download certain videos that are probably like the "new release" section at the video store, but also some classics (examples- A beautiful mind, harry potter, ..)

2. You can view it within 30 days of the download, but once "play is hit" you can only watch it within a 24 hr period (but as many times as you want).

3. Cost will be between 2.99 and 4.99

My question is- Why not save yourself 1 1/2 hrs and possibly a buck and drive to the video store? The only thing I can think of is no late fees. A little more convenient in that sense. But what about video quality? Who wants to watch a video on their pc as opposed to the big screen tv upstairs?

EVERYBODY!!!

[dupper]

Sorry to schout, but it's ridiculously important that we support this. If we can show them that the internet is a useful communications tool. If the movie executives can see that they can exploit it for their own good, they'll stop painting those who use it as criminals.

I may not have articulated it very well, but I'm sure you all know what's at stake here. So go there, look for a movie you like and pay for it. And don't put it in a shared folder.

Re:Microsoft Windows only

[Anonymous Coward]

Severely limiting their audience to 90+% of all users on the internet? Obviously a usage of the word "severely" I'm not previously familiar with.

Before the rants and flames start...

[gregwbrooks]

Lacking in clue content on the movie industry's part? "Maybe," says Joe Public and "Damn straight!" says the average Slashdot reader. But all in all, we have to view this as A Good Thing(tm).

Yes, someone will crack the DRM. Yes, the adoption rate will suck because most non-geeks really do want to watch movies on their televisions. But all in all, movie-industry suits have shown themselves to be more adaptable in the face of change than their counterparts in the music industry -- CDs cost what they cost a decade ago, but DVDs are probably about a tenth or twentieth of what the first VHS movies cost when you factor in inflation.

Bottom line: I'd rather have the movie industry experimenting and learning than have them go into siege mode the way the music industry has done. They both have a lot of money to throw at Congress -- money and influence we can't ever match -- so signs (even dull glimmers) of cluefullness are greatfully appreciated.

Why bother

[locarecords.com]

They try to protect these films so much and then you can only watch them for a short while, why would anyone bother?

I think the possibilities for actually storing *bought* films on you HDD (perhaps as part of an iTunes like library) which can be watched direct to TV will be the answer.

Download to your PC is just *not*. Who wants to watch a film on their computer, crouched over on an uncomfortable office chair? Or maybe they still believe in the convergence of the PC and TV... er... nope

Anyway the download times are so horrific it would be quicker to nip to the shops...

In fact the only advantage I can see is that Hackers will break the code in.. oh... seconds and then peer-to-peer distribution will take off for film ;-)

Rent films at your public library

[migstradamus]

It's a bit low-tech, but since I moved to NY I've been getting four or five movies a week from the public library. The selection is vastly larger than my local Blockbuster, you can request things online (telnet lives!) and they send them to your local branch and then e-mail you when it comes in, you can have up to 15 requests active, you get the movies for a full week, and it's all completely free! Most films even come in DVD now. (The system is for books, too. Remember books?) It's amazing. Plus, when you pay your dollar-a-day overdue fee you get a warm fuzzy feeling for giving to the library, as opposed to handing four bucks to some mumbling chowderhead at the video megalopoly outlet. The NY site is here [nypl.org].

Same old problems

[parliboy]

We already know what's wrong with these sites. But to summarize for latecomers:

• $3.00 to rent a movie for 24 hours, versus $5.00 to rent it for a week from the shop down the road.
• It's not portable. I can only watch it from the downloading computer.
• Forced, automatic "updating" of their software.

For any lurkers: Charge me $5 to $10, depending on age, for a permanant copy which I can burn to DVD myself. Charge me extra if I want the "value added" version (the retail DVD, versus just a movie.) Afraid I might pirate your stuff? Please, if I have broadband, I already can. So, take my money, the way I want you to, or I'll get your product somewhere else. Get over it and get with the economy.

Re:Microsoft Windows only

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I don't mean to start a war here, but, personal choices of the /. community aside, something like 95% of the world's desktops run Windows, in one way or another. Furthermore, and I would argue more importantly, the typical Linux enthusiast is very vocal in his/her choice of free (beer/speech, irrelevant really), therefore such a paying service would, really, just induce laughter in the Linux community.

I think that blocking Mac users is far more stupid. I mean, they are content on shelling out some $100 a year for .mac, I think that testing such a service would be a no brainer.

Only in the US

[oliverthered]

VGA out + MPEG2 in * DIVX = KAZAA.

Re:Windows only for now.

[Zigg]

Spoofing your browser & javascript settings will just hang your machine.

Do you really mean machine? If so, maybe you do need to upgrade away from whatever OS you're using, that permits a website to do such a thing...

$4.99, one day, low quality a/v, watch on PC only?

[rabbitpoo]

Did they make up a big list of things that would make the service suck and pick them all?

Okay, so lets review. You pay $4.99 for a new release, you get one day to watch it, it's lower video quality than DVD, you can only watch it on the PC (unless you have video out hooked to a TV) and to top it all off, you can't use the service without Windows let alone even browse the site without IE?

How this is even close to spending $3.99 to rent a DVD new release you can watch on a TV for two days with full quality video and sound is lost on me. Yeah, you don't have to drive anywhere to get it, but you pay more and get a lot less.

I can't imagine why this service would fail to catch the business of regular people, and of course those people trading DVDs.

Re:Interesting..

[mshurpik]

Sounds exactly like DivX, which failed miserably and was subsequently replaced with an altogether different meaning of the word DivX ;)

Of course, one could argue that the original DivX was not flawed but merely ahead of its time. That seems to be what they're counting on.

Wrong

[TheConfusedOne]

We're supposed to support something that has already failed in the marketplace? (Hint: Think Divx.) Just because they've added a bandwidth crippling download and locked it to your PC without all of the extra DVD-goodness?

Not to mention the charges are HIGHER than at your local video store. $2.99 for a 24-hour rental? Not to mention at lower quality and you can't even play it on your living room TV.

No, this does not deserve our support.

Netflix?

[Anonymous Coward]

With http://www.netflix.com around I don't see the point of this. 19 bucks a month and they will send me as many DVDs as I want a month (3 at a time) and I can keep them as long as I want. Not to mention I get the full DVD not some RealVideo crap. I can't see he value in wasting my time downloading.

linux lnthusiasts are necessarily cheap

[smd4985]

"the typical Linux enthusiast is very vocal in his/her choice of free (beer/speech, irrelevant really), therefore such a paying service would, really, just induce laughter in the Linux community."

i think this is a incorrect generalization. i'm a big supporter of OSS, GPL, free speech, etc., but i'm also very willing to pay for content i appreciate. not *everything* has to or should be free, and i gladly pay for content i could get for free (ie music). i do this because i understand that an efficient way to encourage content production (code, art, etc.) is through monetary support.

Re: public library

[No Such Agency]

Plus, when you pay your dollar-a-day overdue fee you get a warm fuzzy feeling for giving to the library, as opposed to handing four bucks to some mumbling chowderhead at the video megalopoly outlet.

I consider library fines to be one of my major modes of charitable donation. I don't deliberately keep books overdue, it just works out that way... a lot ;-) Yeah, paying late fees at Roger's or Blockheads^H^H^H^H^Hbuster really sucks. And yes, local libraries can have a surprisingly good selection, everything from arty European stuff to Kurosawa to four copies of The Matrix :-D

Collusion?

[SubtleNuance]

Does this strike anyone else of illegal collusion? to fix prices, distribution modes etc? really, i thought sony, MGM et al were supposed to be competing?

Sigh. Too true

[91degrees]

I want to like this system. Really, I do, but being UK based, having a pathological dislike of IE, and living 4 minutes walk away from a DVD rental shop, I just feel this doesn't give me what I want. Especially because it would tie me to Windows even more.

I don't object to the self destructing movies - really that's quite reasonable if the price is low enough. As long as this is done sensibly, will allow me to transfer the movie to a different machine, and reregister the same copy if I want to see it again, a few months later I'd happily pay a reasonable amount for a convenient download (although "convenient" implies it will take less than 3 hours to download).

It looks like I don't even have the right to buy a VCD version online. That's something I want. I want to be able to download it, burn to CD, and watch it on my DVD player. I want to be able to access it via FTP or any other open protocol. I want to be able to choose the software I download with. I like my text based FTP client. They should stop trying to force me to use what they think is better. I want them to accept that some piracy will happen, and stop punishing me - the purchaser - for other people's piracy. I'd willingly pay a reasonable amount. Considering the distribution and manufacturing costs aren't as high as for VHS, and the quality is worse than DVD, I'd expect the costs to be substantially lower.

Piracy will happen. If they can't pirate from the video files, they'll pirate from a rented DVD. Macrovision doesn't work as well as they like to think, and an MPEG 1 recode is good enough for most people. You only need one person to pirate it. Everyone else will just spread that copy.

Re:Wrong

[GutBomb]

this is the first step to officially sanctioned internet based mainstream video-on-demand. sure this is just a pilot, the prices will get worked out, quality issues will be tweaked, and tv playback options will probably appear if this is in any way succesful. most of the people who are downloading divx movies are probably the target group here. these people are already willing to either sit at thier pc watching a movie or are satisfied with the tv output of their video card in order to watch a downloaded movie, and this is even legal (too bad you don't have an option to save the file... a crack will come out soon after but that is another discussion). Even though this incarnation of it may not be the best, if it gets support bigger and better video on demand options will come along in the future.

i love it

[asv108]

<recording studios>
Lets make a site that is ridiculously restrictive so that when most people come to it, they will be forced to either upgrade or go away. This way when can point to movielink and say, "We tried, but the pirates do not want to pay for anything." Then we will be able to convince congress to force mandatory drm.
</recording studios>

Re:Well, since I'm not American...

[CommieOverlord]

Oh, but the error message they give is rather interesting:

Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers, but it is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States.

If you really wanted me take part, then you wouldn't stop me from entering.

Re:hmmmmm...only windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

you should getm modded down because you are an idiot.

handicapped people only make up a small percentage of the people, so lets add walls to the ramps so they cant get in.

i dont care if a site is designed for IE (although it is incredibly lazy and a sign of inept programmers/designers) but the fact that a site PREVENTS a non IE user from viewing it, well thats just plain stupid. if a site is not tested on a different platform, thats fine, if a site is designed for a certain platform, but there is a definite line between that, and PROACTIVELY locking you out because of those reasons.

and i like your "I love linux" crap on the bottem, what does that have to do with anything?

It's a start on the right path, that's the key...

[Masem]

A lot of posts are complaining about price, time, DRM restrictions, etc.

However, what's more important is that the movie industry is at least starting off on the right foot into the online digital distribution model, compares with the music industry. Here, yes, you have to watch the movie within a month, and then for only 24 hrs since you start it, it costs about as much as a rental (and takes more time), quality is not as great as a DVD rental, and a list of other problems. But this is the first trial of their service. Maybe later they'll add the option that for $5, you can keep the movie, possibly burn it off to some standard format, or have a quick order method to get the DVD shipping automatically to your home, offering a discount since you've watched it already. Maybe they'll eventually increase the time allowance on the movie, since 24hrs is awfully short. I don't know but this is certainly not an attempt to alienate customers (except for those outside the US, but someone pointed out the legal reasons for this regarding work-for-hires), but a chance to work with them, and to see if they can improve the service.

Of course, half the problem right now with this service is that putting 550megs downstream is slow and time consuming due to poor broadband adaption and dl caps for most consumers. This won't be a permenant situation, but will be with us for a while.

You are not Canadian...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are forbidden from drinking our beer, enjoying our music, skiing in our mountains, using our country to make your movies, Abusing our citizens at border crossings, entering our country to save money off the exchange, using our oil (Alberta), eating our food, using our lumber, selling stocks at the TSE and all respective provincial stock exchanges, visiting our websites, smoking our cigarettes...

I think that should be enough for now.

Damn Americans... self-absorbed pricks.

Re:Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding, right? I'm sure the resolution on these movies (to make the file size so small) is at most 352x240, possibly smaller. I can't see anyone buying a HDTV for $1500+ then paying $5 per movie to watch tiny, poor quality blocky films.

Netflix is certainly the better deal, you can get about 12 movies per month on the 3 out plan for $20 a month. These are all high quality DVD quality. AND you can watch them for as long as you like, as many times as you like, as many days as you like until you send them back.

Windows WiMP has DRM; Mac WiMP doesn't

[yerricde]

both Realplayer and Windows Media Player exist on the Mac.

But WiMP for the Mac probably doesn't support digital restrictions management, the enabling technology for online movie rentals. It can't support DRM because last time I checked, Mac OS X didn't have signed drivers or a "secure audio path", unlike Windows ME, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. In addition, Win XP appears to have a "driver blacklist" [cnet.com], purportedly for compatibility purposes, but which may help the DRM system.

So the only reason I can think of for not allowing Macs is pure laziness.

Or, perhaps, the fact that Apple doesn't believe in DRM?

Re:hmmmmm...only windows?

[yatest5]

andicapped people only make up a small percentage of the people,

I think you'll find that Linux users have a *choice*. Nice comparison though ha ha ha

Again, the Bandwidth of Blockbuster...

[nweaver]

These jokers charge $3 to rent a movie (roughly the same as Blockbuster), but you can only watch it in a 24 hour period. And even when done, it plays on your computer, not your TV. Do you want to pay $3.00 to watch Rollerball?

And, as I have mentioned before, you can't beat Blockbuster's bandwidth. Period. It is so much faster to walk to the video store and rent your movie then it is to wait for the download to complete.

Why it will fail

[joeblowme]

This will fail just like music industry sites. The rates are too high. Let's see for $3.99 I can rent it from blockbuster and watch it on my DVD player in high resolution and with dolby digital 5.1. Or for $3.99 I can go to this site and watch a low quality version on my computer with real player which means my computer will crash like 6 times because real player sucks. Which will I do? This is just a bad business model. Consumers want one of two things either like a low cost per view (Like 25 cents) or a flat rate like $10 or $20 a month. I'm more apt to deal with issues like studdering video or low quality or sitting in front of my computer to watch a movie if it's a good deal. These companies bring piracy on themselves because they are too greedy. There is incovience when dealing with digital files everyone of these companies needs to take that in to effect when setting thier prices. For music it's me taking the time to download the files then the time to burn them on to a CD. If it's gonna cost me $15 to do this I'd rather go to the store and just buy the thing. Same with movies, if I have to deal with downloading the video and it studdering, I'd rather go to blockbuster and spend the same amount of money there. Lastly, most cable companies already have something like this with thier on-demand service. Basically these companies need to really reevaluate thier business models online.

Re:"Work made for hire" is weaker outside the USA

[einer]

Which makes the parent's original post that much more important. Proxy servers based in the US could potentially throw a kink into this scheme. The studios are welcome to negotiate as many contracts as they like, but so long as a proxy server can negate their rights to a work being downloaded to a foreign country, they're screwed.

I wonder if the UN will soon become the new world copyright enforcement body. I'd love to see a dozen UN tanks parked outside my house when I get home tonight. Maybe I'll even get 'sanctioned.' If that doesn't give my W4R3Z dud3 street cred a bump, I don't know what will.

Re:24 hours to watch it all once downloaded

[sacherjj]

And I don't know about you, but my video rental place has even the new releases DVDs available for 2 days. What is with this 24 hour stuff? While I can see this useful for a laptop while traveling, I can just as easily use SmartRipper and start up the DVD directory in WinDVD. Voila, movies to go. When you are done seeing it, delete it.

The plot thickens.

[ahfoo]

I'm among those who suspect this will only lead to a faster shift away from the fortunes of video copyright holders and I think that's a Good Thing(TM)
I don't really know the wording of copyright law in all its many jurisdictions, but I do know that the original intent was to grant an exclusive right to profit from publication and that copyright was certainly not intended from the beginning to limit the free exchange of information which is how it is being re-constructed with all this language twisting and convenient redefinition of terms like piracy and theft.