Amazon Opens On-Demand Video Store 247
g0dsp33d writes "Amazon opened the doors on its new video on demand service. Some promotional videos are free and the quality seems to be good. You can preview the first 2 minutes of any of the offerings. Episodes of TV shows cost $1.99 and movies are $14.99. Movies can also be 'rented' for 24 hours for $3.99. Purchasing allows download to two machines and unlimited viewing online. The service claims 14.5K movies and 1,200 TV shows including pre-purchasing the rights to upcoming seasons. Considering alternative, ad-based, free online video sites such as Hulu, is Amazon's service too pricey?"
Mandatory short answer: (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering alternative, ad-based, free online video sites such as Hulu, is Amazon's service too pricey?
Yes.
Too Expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Referring to an article from yesterday... (Score:4, Insightful)
You bet. (Score:1, Insightful)
It's even expensive next to Netflix, unless you're sure you'll watch less than 3 movies per month.
Re:Wrong question! (Score:3, Insightful)
> Considering open access to ad-free shows and
> movies via BitTorrent, is Amazon's service too
> pricey?
When compared to that, anything is too pricy, if you ignore the potential legal hassles. This is for people who want to minimize their worry about the legal hassles (and would prefer to provide some compensation to the artists).
> I firmly believe that if content owners and
> distributors charged a reasonable rate to
> download a TV show (maybe 10 cents), piracy
> would be a thing of the past. For 10 cents,
> very few people would choose black or gray
> market distribution channels.
Who determines reasonable? What about different rental prices? What about the fact that credit card companies (which are about your only options charge so much to the vendor for using their services)? These things aren't free (even if they aren't as expensive as some of the retailers would like you to believe.
10 cents for a limited watch of a show, 30 cents for an unlimited download, say, 30 cents for a one-time of a movie, $1.00 for an unlimited download. That seems the lower end of reasonable to me (to allow the distributors and creators to both recover their costs AND get a little money for their efforts), while still making things cost effective for the end users.
> Of course, that would have the negative effect
> of MTV's Cribs not being quite as exciting.
> Instead of 5 Bentleys and 2 Cadillac Escalades
> they'd have maybe a Ford Taurus and a Honda
> Accord.
How can droll and boring be any less exciting?
Re:Too Expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of good speed runs [wikipedia.org], which are more entertaining than modern Hollywood bullshit anyway.
Re:Too Expensive (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not true. The DMCA copy protection provisions don't apply to items with negligible security and format shifting isn't a form of distribution anyways.
It's mostly just FUD to scare people into over paying for multiple copies of the same product.
Internet download Caps (Score:5, Insightful)
See this is where those fun download caps come in to play. Say Rogers standard 45$ a month internet is caped at 65 gigs a month. But I want to start doing more multi-media online like this my internet works against me. I thought the future was suppose to be cheaper unlimited faster internet so movies I can rent through the internet and smiler stuff can be done.
I mean internet providers working against what the rest of the world are trying to do with the internet. All these great new tools/services become pointless as my internet provider puts a cap. Now the 250 gig cap of comcast is not to bad but its still a cap, in Canada even on expensive services its a 95 gig cap which my family blows through monthly as there are 6 computers online at my place. So when will services like this be actually usable because with caps its easier to go and rent the dam thing.
Re:Wrong question! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think that the asking price to view/read/listen to copyrighted content is too high, then don't pay it and don't view/read/listen to it. But don't try to justify your illegal activities because you're trying to help the industry revise their business model. The truth is that you want what they have to offer, you don't feel like paying for it, and you don't want to admit that you're a criminal. The way to combat their broken business model is boycott, not copyright infringement. Piracy tells the industry that you want what they have to offer but want to avoid paying.
In short, pirates are the reason that we all have to deal with DRM BS. Pirates are not Robin Hood - They're just people too cheap to pay for what they want and too weak to just go without it.
Arrgh! Pirates with mod points off the port bow! Ack - I've been struck with a -1 Troll!
=)
Re:The quality is awful. (Score:4, Insightful)
At least you could. I'm outside the US so it didn't work for me.
I no longer buy DVDs since I'd prefer blu-ray, but definitely don't want to wait for stuff to be released here (I don't want dubbed audio, or translated boxes, etc) and they refuse to let me buy outside Europe. Region-free blu-ray players are incredibly expensive, and because firmware updates may be needed, they may stop working completely.
So basically there's stuff I cannot get *at any price* (even if I'm willing to put up with shipping, import tax, etc). However, when the news talk about piracy they say "this was downloaded a million times, and the estimated lost revenue caused by piracy is XXXX". Fuck off.
Re:Wrong question! (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay $16.99 a month for Netflix's 3 at-a-time plan, enabling me both to rent as many physical copies of movies and TV shows in a month as I possibly can and watch an unlimited amount of their online content as I desire. I could pay $8.99 a month and achieve near the same thing--only giving up 2 at-a-time physical rentals.
Yes, Amazon's service is too expensive.
Re:Too Pricey (Score:3, Insightful)
well how can any price compete with your model of 'pirated then owned'. Even at $1 its still infinitely more expensive than just pirating it.
The idea is to price it as reasonable value for money, not to compete with people prepared to break the law and pirate it.
I think this is a bit too expensive, but not by much, I also guess that I can't get that same price here in the UK where (if its even offered) the price will be jacked way higher.
Stupid DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
Once I buy it, I should be able to download it all I want. If my hard drive crashes, I should just be able to re-download it.
If bandwidth is a problem, then charge me a one cent redownload fee. I could cope with that. But having to pay 15 bucks again is stupid. We live in the digital age, and these vendors really need to get with the program.
Re:Wrong question! (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, pirates are the reason that we all have to deal with DRM BS. Pirates are not Robin Hood - They're just people too cheap to pay for what they want and too weak to just go without it.
So, when hollywood paid congress to enact retro-active copyright extensions, essentially stealing from the public domain, that's OK because hollywood is not too cheap to pay for what they want, eh? But when little guys take the matter into their own hands instead of paying off congress they are just a bunch of gutless bastards.
Yeah, you've been drinking the kool-aid alright.
Re:Wrong question! (Score:3, Insightful)
The availability might be. There are many, many movies not available via BitTorrent, which tends by its very nature to only offer what's currently popular.
price (Score:3, Insightful)
SCREW the MPAA!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry. Way too smart to pay $14.00 for a movie without the packaging and physical disc and original goodies. And *then* they go and say I can only put it on two machines? What happens when that crappy piece of chinese electronics I call a computer goes down? There goes one of my allowed storage locations? Forget these licensing methods. They're crap! If I'm going to spend that money, I'm sure as hell going to rip the DVD, make a backup copy, compress it for my MCPC, recompress it so I can watch it on my Windows Mobile Phone on the go if I want, and any other device I have at my disposal that's capable of playing that movie.
If I pay to own something, it's mine isn't it? If I buy a hamburger, I get to choose how and where to eat it. If I really want to, I can throw it on the floor and sit on it. What makes the MPAA think they can tell us how we can and can't use the product they sold to us? Are they the law? How many of us are REALLY going to tolerate the MPAA's micromanagement of our personal viewing habits/preferences?
Then, if it wasn't bad enough I paid $15 for this DVD, it gets worse... now I get to sit through a dozen or so more advertisements for other movies and products I don't want before I can finally access the part of the dvd I actually paid to see, and to make it even worse, after I've selected play movie from the menu, I'm greeted with EVEN MORE DELAY in the form of pointless FBI warnings telling me I'm not allowed to copy MY PROPERTY!
Well... I get PISSED god damnit!
wrong answer (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, pirates are the reason that we all have to deal with DRM BS.
Bullshit. Companies don't implement DRM to combat piracy, they implement DRM to limit fair use. Without DRM, within a decade, there would be so many perfect, legitimate copies in the market that they couldn't make any more profit.
Of course, the real reason we are in this mess to begin with is because copyrights have been extended far beyond the 15-20 years they should be; that's only been possible because of massive bribery and corruption of Congress. Turn back the clock on copyrights and most infringement goes away automatically.
The way to combat their broken business model is boycott, not copyright infringement.
It's not clear that non-commercial sharing should be copyright infringement at all. We pay a blank media tax (yes, even in the US).
The dirty secret is that we're supposed to pay for the same content over and over and over again. That's what we need to fight.
Re:Wrong question! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when hollywood paid congress to enact retro-active copyright extensions, essentially stealing from the public domain, that's OK because hollywood is not too cheap to pay for what they want, eh?
That was pretty sleazy. I guess that, as long as you're downloading material that was re-copyrighted under the Copyright Term Extension Act [wikipedia.org], it seems just fine. But if you're downloading anything made in the last 50 years, that argument seems pretty unrelated [wikipedia.org].
But when little guys take the matter into their own hands instead of paying off congress they are just a bunch of gutless bastards.
I never said that they were gutless, although I fail to see how it takes any amount of guts to download a movie. I'd respect someone much more who had the conviction to just refuse to deal with the industries they're objecting to rather than partaking of their wares, refusing to pay, and trying to puff themselves up as a "little guy taking the matter into their own hands". You're not striking back at the industry - You're expressing interest and encouraging them to inflict DRM on the rest of us. I also never said they were bastards - I know nothing about the average pirate's parental lineage.
Yeah, you've been drinking the kool-aid alright.
No - I really dislike the RIAA/MPAA and they get very little of my $$ - Most of what they put out isn't worth what they're charging for it IMO. But it does sound like you're deluding yourself into thinking that you're somehow striking back and standing up for the little guy when in fact you're just too cheap to pay for what you want and too weak to just do the right thing and go without it.
Subscriptions (Score:3, Insightful)
I know there are people who want a subscription-based music service; but I think what the typical person really wants is a reasonably priced subscription-based television service. After all, (unlike with music) that's really what we've been already doing for the past 60 years. For most TV shows, one viewing is all anyone ever wants - so why attempt to charge us $48 to watch a season of a show that, once viewed, we'll never watch again?
I do think this is priced too high, as well. As others have noted, I can buy a DVD movie for less than what they're charging for online delivery.
Video Playback Not Authorized (Score:1, Insightful)
We have detected that you are not located within the US. Due to licensing restrictions Amazon Video On Demand customers must located be in the United States (the 48 contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia) when viewing videos online. (What's This?)
well there goes the whole point of the Internet
instead ill choose Bittorrent and Piracy, its not like i didnt try
Re:Mandatory short answer: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong question! (Score:3, Insightful)
Downloading isn't copyright infringement, distribution is.
They like to call it 'piracy' and lump them all together, but read the code. Distribution is what it is about.
Re:Oh my fucking god. (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of whether one is a criminal in the eyes of the law, the fact is this is breaking a rule. Now I know rules are meant to be broken, but come on... the parent's point was very well made. Piracy is stealing/infringing/hurting the IP owner in some way and he's trying to justify it. End of story.
Re:Mac! (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon and iTunes carry the EXACT SAME MOVIES. One cannot complain about the selection of one without also complaining about the selection of the other.
Re:Mandatory short answer: (Score:5, Insightful)
And this demonstrates exactly why the MPAA is struggling against piracy. $14.99 to DOWNLOAD a movie that comes crippled with DRM? Are they really that disconnected from reality? (Yes, that is in fact a rhetorical question.)
Sadly, I guessed this is exactly what they would try to force if/when someone actually tried to offer such a service. And anyone here on /. could have told them it will be an abject failure.
If they actually want to be relevant in the digital age, they will need to sell their products at real market prices. Which would probably be about $8-10 for hot new releases, $5 for most movies, and $1-2 for older bargain-bin dross.
At $15 each they won't even sell enough to pay the electric bill for running the servers.
Re:Wrong question! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, let's see. If a 25 minute TV program is $1.99, then a 150 minute movie should be about $11.99, and a 100 minute movie should be about 9.99. So the movie price is definitely unreasonable. $1.99 for a TV show seems to be about the going rate. When you compare it to 0.99 to 1.99 for a 4 minute song, it seems pretty reasonable. As a consumer, though, I think reasonable would be about 25 to 50 cents for a song, a buck for a TV show and 7 bucks for a movie. You can't make it cheaper than an actual movie ticket. That would just kill the movie industry completely. In fact that's probably why the movies are so expensive in the first place. They're being priced in comparison with theater tickets, not in comparison with TV shows.
Re:Stupid DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you buy a DVD, if your DVD gets eaten by a wayward snapping turtle, you have to buy it again.
Only about $1 of the purchase price goes toward the actual cost. Like the materials cost of a DVD, the bandwidth cost of the download is really incidental to the price.
Same thing with any other random purchase, whether it's a screwdriver or a dinner plate. If you lose it or destroy it, you have to buy another one.
That said, it would probably be a popular feature to market downloads such that your purchase record is stored, allowing you to replace lost copies for a nominal fee (or built-in to the initial purchase price). But simply because such a feature can exist does not mean it must, especially when, from their perspective, it's not their problem. Everyone else gets to charge you again, regardless of their actual expenses for replacement--and who really thinks the big entertainment corporations are going to lead the way toward consumer nirvana?