NBC To Offer On-Demand Movies Via P2P

RX8 writes "NBC Universal has signed a deal with Wurld Media to make some of their movies available for download via a secure P2P network in 2006. There hasn't been a price released yet, but the movies include what you would get on their existing video-on-demand and pay services plus around 100 older movie titles. Once the material is downloaded, users can only view it for up to 24 hours before it expires."

Note to MPAA and RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

If it expires, I won't be buying it.

Entertainment is to be done at my leisure. I choose the terms, not you.

Simple as that.

Standard Codec ? DRM ?

[Yoshy]

The 24 hours part is bad news, not because I'd like to keep the movies but because it means that it will only available to Windows.

TITO

[dada21]

(white) Trash In, (tv) Trash Out

Jerry Springer and the dating shows 5th Wheel and Blind Date

That'll be worthwhile... They could probably offer only one episode of those shows and no one could tell.

Anyone think they want it to fail so they could lobby Congress to DRM all TCP/IP transmissions?

Re:Movies available on P2P

[paranode]

No kidding. I don't think these execs really get it. P2P got huge because the downloaders were getting stuff for free. I mean it's good that they are tapping the resource and at least attempting to do something 'modern', but if I'm going to pay money I want real on-demand... not getting on their P2P network and waiting to download the whole thing from peers. I guess you might be able to get it faster than a subscription service like Netflix (considering mail time), but then again you don't have a DVD, you have a video file which you have to play on a computer (or output to your TV if you have that setup).

Plus the 24 hour thing. What if I can't watch it right away? I would be mad if it expired after 24 hours. I hate DRM but if they are going to use it they should at least protect it in such a way that you can wait to view it or even watch it multiple times on the same computer.

Old tech beats new tech

[johnlcallaway]

My 20 year old Toshiba VCR is looking better and better every day. I have yet to find anything it could not record when using the analog video/audio jack feeds....

When are they going to get it??

[Trolling4Columbine]

Didn't they realize that such rental schemes would fail when consumers roundly rejected DIVX? Why do they keep trying to force a product we clearly don't like down our throats?

Why Movies? Do TV.

[xstonedogx]

Why not their television programming?

If they posted the programming with advertisements intact, eventually they may be able to ask more for advertising, or treat it as a separate advertising space altogether. Plus, the torrents for their shows are going to be out there anyway. This way there is an official torrent that most people are going to want because: they can expect a certain level of quality and there is no risk to them. AND it also increases awareness and availability of their show.

Heck, if they did this I might even watch some of their shows.

To all the naysayers:

[jonnythan]

Everyone seems to be griping about the time limit. I know it goes squarely against the DRM-hating /. masses, but not only is it valid but people will buy into it.

They've already been doing it for years with movies On Demand, now you can do the same thing on your computer. There are time limits for On Demand and Blockbuster, now it's the limit for your authorized download.

Big whoop. Just because it gets downloaded to your computer doesn't mean you have the right to watch it as many times as you want, as often as you want, for the rest of your life.

Get over it already.

Re:Movies available on P2P

[Prophet of Nixon]

If the file expires in 24 hours, what incentive is there for peers to hold the expired file and seed it? This sounds dumb.

When does the clock start ticking?

[Morgalyn]

24 hours? Is that from the point of purchase, or the point of completed download? Because if the movie is of a quality worth paying for, that's a significant difference for a lot of users.

Besides, that's an awfully short period of usage. Why would anyone do that versus renting the movie? It would have to be very cheap. What about the ability to pause the movie, or watch it more than once? Is this going to be like those failed one-viewing DVDs that came out a while ago?

Repeat of history

[SuperKendall]

So it looks like we are headed for a repeat of history, where Apple has a store with 80+% of the market and actually makes money, while everyone else wonders why the hell consumers are unhappy with a video solution that is worse than VHS.

Since the movie/TV industry had years and years to learn the lesson, it's especially odd that they seek marginalization with such ferver.

24 Hours sounds reasonable

[sj88]

...except for the fact that downloading takes an unknown amount of time. It's like a pay-per-view, except you don't know when you'll receive the movie.

Rental is dead?

[dazedNconfuzed]

We don't want to rent. We want to own.

Which is, of course, why Blockbuster, Netflix, pay-per-view, and other business/services/technologies don't exist anymore. Er...waitaminute...

Seriously, most people only want to watch most shows/movies once; since rental is usually much cheaper than purchase, they rent (whatever the media). Sure we'd rather own, but seeing something a second time is far less important than seeing it once at low cost.

Of course, if they made ownership only slightly more expensive than rental (1.25x rather than >4x), they'd make more money, buyers would be happy, and most people would still rather see/buy something new than re-watch what they've seen.

Re:Note to MPAA and RIAA

[bmetzler]

If it expires, I won't be buying it.

If it needs to be returned, I won't be renting it.

Come on. Everyone knows that it isn't true that an expiration date will keep people from paying for a movie online on-demand anymore then people will stop renting movies from Blockbuster because they have to return the DVD. There'll be millions of people who will pay for a movie that expires. Just not you. And NBC doesn't care about you, so there.

-Brent

Will people give them their bandwidth for free?

[mTor]

If I pay for a movie/show, I don't want to give my bandwidth for free. They should pay me for giving my bandwidth to them!

Nice try, NBC!

Small step, but in the right direction

[bechthros]

To all those who said that P2P "pirate" networks would never bring about significant changes in the business models of big *AA... want some salt with that crow?

Sure, it's restricted, and it expires, but as long as the black market is out there, the white market will slowly bring itself up to speed until the need for a black market lessens more and more. Eventually the result will be something that works for picky consumers like us and for content providers. All file-sharers everywhere should not underestimate the significance of this move.

Why even mention P2P?

[TheRealFritz]

In this context, P2P is really meaningless, since it offers no advantage to me, the consumer. The only advantage it offers is for content providers, because they can serve more costumers because customers bear part of the bandwidth cost.

So since I'm providing bandwidth, do I get a download credit? If I keep files in my share long enough, I should be able to download more files without cost to me, since I'm providing a service to the content providers and they should be compensating me for it.

--
Innovation at play: http://www.gloryhoundz.com/ [gloryhoundz.com]

Re:Are you serious?

[Scrameustache]

Do you demand your rental fee back when you return movies to Blockbuster? [...] Don't think of this as buying a movie, thing of it as renting.

Can they rent the movie to someone else if I don't return it?
Don't think of it as renting, because it isn't.

Re:Starts fine...

[drewxhawaii]

i stopped reading at this "there hasn't been a price released yet..."

Re:24 hours?

[im_mac]

Users will be able to view the material for 24 hours once they begin playback on their computers; once downloaded, the material will be stored on the user's computer for 30 days to act as a resource in the Peer Impact network

Let me get this straight. I can only watch it for 24 hours but it'll remain on my harddrive for 30 days, 29 of which it is inaccessible to me? Sounds like I should be charging NBC a rental fee.

Re:To all the naysayers:

[Scrameustache]

There are time limits for On Demand and Blockbuster, now it's the limit for your authorized download. [...] Get over it already.

People can get copies of their stuff without paying them a cent for it. Get over it already.

No?

Then they should stop fucking with us by imposing arbitrary and artificial annoyances such as a 24h deadline.
You have to return the PHYSICAL media when you rent, that's why we accept that limit: We don't want others to hang on indefinatly to the stuff we want to watch, so we accept that we must return the disc/cassette so that it will be available to others, and so others do the same in order for the content to be available to us.

But we COPY the content when we download it. It will get deleted when we're done with it, when we need the space, not when they decide they don't want us to have it anymore. Not to mention that in peer-to-peer realities, keeping the copy makes it available to others, not the other way around.

Their DRM will be circumvented, their content will be redistributed, for free, without their stupid limit, on "pirate" p2p networks, and it will be their damn fault for being TOO GREEDY.

Re:Surprise - Too Little, Too Late

[Jeff Mahoney]

No, that's not the point of my post at all. I wasn't addressing the usefulness of a p2p network in this case - rather on the limited usefulness of the content itself.

There are a few separate issues with how they want to roll this out, and they all revolve around DRM.

1) The limited lifespan. Most people can deal with this, since as someone else mentioned the "On Demand" services and Blockbuster effectively limit the time you're allowed to enjoy the content.

2) Attaching DRM to the content means there is a lack of an open standard. I can't very well write a viewer for the content myself, and any attempt to do so would result in angry lawyers contacting me. While the average user doesn't need to be able to author their own viewing application, it means that the developers who write software for operating systems other than ones from Microsoft or Apple can't either, so everyone else loses too.

These don't seem like big issues to the average home user, but the fact is that most people who are downloading TV shows or movies now aren't average home users. Why would these users give up the freedom and functionality they have now, and pay for the privledge of doing so? This deployment isn't going to meet their demands, and thus the use of unauthorized p2p networks to distribute the content in a format more palatable for those users will continue.

Dear Ewhac

[everphilski]

Copy protection is a form of product defect, and I do not purchase products I know to be defective.

Do you consider your car to be defunct? Because it employes a form of protection - a key and lock. Very similarly, the video files employ a key and a lock... the files have a DRM lock and the video player can act as a key to a legitimate user for legitimate purposes. Its not broken, it does exactly what it claims to do - it plays in the media players described for the time period advertized.

-everphilski-

Re:Oblig. Linux comment

[dorkygeek]

Look, I'm a GNU/Linux fanboy myself, but this is a market driven company.

1. We want it to catch on fast, so we need low prices -> use P2P to save bandwith expenditures
2. It should not bring the pricing of the other forms to get the content out of balance -> limit view time to have it compete with the rental market
3. Hmm, this all needs DRM? I see, Windows users are the most widespread -> forget the other OS's, the Windows market is enough to render it profitable

These companies are not charities, and they do whatever they think they can get away with and make enough profit. They don't care about a minority of the market.

.