Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

'Harry Potter' Offered (Legitimately) on the Net 340

Posted by CmdrTaco from the step-in-the-right-direction dept.
Skyshadow writes "Warner Brothers is distributing several movies, including Harry Potter and Mars Attacks via the internet. The price is the same as I pay for Pay-Per-View from my satellite provider ($3.99 for a 24 license), and the movies are in the area of 700 megs. I'm sure that movies on demand will eventually take off as a legitimate and feasible distribution method, but given that a vast majority of US households are without broadband, is this an idea before its time?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Harry Potter' Offered (Legitimately) on the Net More

'Harry Potter' Offered (Legitimately) on the Net

Comments Filter:

  • Definitely before its time (Score:4, Funny)

    by number_man ( 543418 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @08:28AM (#4226950)
    I figure it would take me about, oh, 24 hours to download a movie...
    • That is exactly what I was thinking. I have highspeed, but coming from Europe sometimes things happen with the bits and bytes coming across the ocean. EVEN video rentals are two to three days before you need to return it.

      24 hours is simply too short.

  • Format? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TechnoVooDooDaddy ( 470187 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @08:31AM (#4226965) Homepage
    I see this ending as badly as the Circuit City DIVX attempt did. the "CinemaNow" software will be cracked, and we'll see these movies all over the newsgroups in a matter of days. Microsoft, who came up with the anti-piracy CinemaNow scheme, has admitted that they don't necessarily engineer for security, so I wonder what makes WB think they can start now?

    • Re:Format? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by snaggen ( 36005 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @08:40AM (#4227032)
      Yes, it will be cracked. But by doing this they can control the quality on the movies swaped. This means that people who likes the film will buy a good quality film on DVD since there are only bad quality films around.

      I think this is the way to go to control piracy, handout low quality alternatives for a low cost (or for free).

      • Re:Format? (Score:2, Informative)

        by killmenow ( 184444 )
        This means that people who likes the film will buy a good quality film on DVD since there are only bad quality films around.
        As long as there is DVD2SVCD [doom9.net], there will be quite good quality films around ripped directly from the DVD with nearly the same quality as the DVD, only it takes multiple CD-Rs to burn them. But if your DVD player supports SVCD [vcdhelp.com], you can make and watch fantastic quality copies.

        Me, I like to make SVCDs of the VHS tapes I own so I can eventually get rid of my VCR.
  • What the what!?! Amidst all this lagal brick-a-brack and industry association B.S. a company is actually doing something that reflects a real consumer market?

    Somebody please ask the flying pig if hell has frozen over.

    • Re:Are me eyes deceivin' me? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Eccles ( 932 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @09:29AM (#4227355) Journal
      What the what!?! Amidst all this lagal brick-a-brack and industry association B.S. a company is actually doing something that reflects a real consumer market?

      Nope, it's $3.99 for a video you can view for only 24 hours, after spending the downloading time. Compare this to a $4 5 day rental at Blockbuster, or buying it on DVD for $16.99, it doesn't look so good. Whose kid is only ever going to want to watch it once, and in most cases on a computer screen (TV out isn't *that* common)?

      Unrestricted, it would make sense. For a lot of movies, they'd make up in volume what they'd lose in per-copy prices. (The $16.99 includes distributor and vendor markups.) Harry Potter might be one of a few where this isn't the case, simply because so high a percentage of the potential purchasers are buying it already.

      I think this is just intended to fail. "Look, we offered stuff over the net, but they've already pirated it and refuse to buy it."
      • I think this is just intended to fail. "Look, we offered stuff over the net, but they've already pirated it and refuse to buy it."

        I don't think it is. The price may look bad compared to rental or buying the DVD, but I think it's near pay-per-view movie prices, which seems reasonable.

        Quite possibly they are more concerned about making sure it doesn't reduce the profit from other methods of distribution than maximizing the money they make from this method.
  • The studio said a key factor in allowing people to download digital copies of its films was CinemaNow's anti-piracy technology, supplied by Microsoft Corp

    Which will be hacked to allow unlimited playtime in... 3...2...1...

    -S

    • Which will be hacked to allow unlimited playtime in... 3...2...1...

      (Excuse me for a second while I climb on my anti-palladium soapbox... there.)

      And when it does get hacked, the studios will be crying for Palladium more than ever. I realize the current protection is being offered by Microsoft, but would it be too much to ask for this to NOT be hacked? Isn't this finally what everyone has been asking for, to be able to pay for entertainment on demand legitimately?

      Yes, I realize it's still in a protected format, but this is NOT DIVX (the late Circuit City format, not the codec). Divx represented the potential for DVDs to be replaced with movies that were ALWAYS pay-per-view locked and could never be licenced for unlimited personal use playback. Let's face it, the studios UNDERSTAND that not everyone owns a computer and they would NEVER stop selling DVDs. Supporting this format is NOT a threat to DVD, and respecting their rights by NOT hacking the format is a mature attitude to have, and it gives them less of a reason to force a "secure computing platform" down our throats.

      • Can I watch in on Mac? Linux? FreeBSD?

        • Can I watch in on Mac? Linux? FreeBSD?

          On the Mac you can run Windows in Virtual PC. I'm not sure if Wine supports Media Player 7 (I use Linux as a server/NAT box OS, not on my desktop), but one of my friends runs Windows 2k under Linux with VMWare. I believe VMWare also runs on FreeBSD.

          Of course, you could always drop CinemaNow a line and tell them you'd be interested in their movies if they were viewable with native player software for your favorite OS. If they don't listen, the best way to show them you don't agree with their choice of file format is simply keep your wallet closed.

          Hacking the format is just going to add fuel to the DRM fire and the entertainment industry and Microsoft have the money and the lawyers to let the inferno blaze. DRM is really a social/legal issue and is NOT something that will be addressed properly with hacks.
        • Check the site. They support Mac edition of Windows Media Player.


          As for Linux: I heard that Wine supports WMP.


          FreeBSD: It's for daemons, anyway... :)

      • I realize the current protection is being offered by Microsoft, but would it be too much to ask for this to NOT be hacked?

        Yes. You could create a site at pandora.org, wire it to a good intrusion detection suite, wire that to a series of nuclear weapons that would sink the eastern seaboard of the USA into the ocean, and hackers would be racing for that zero day hack that gives everyone from Maine to Florida a salt-water bath... just because they can.

    • Is there any point in "hacking" this? The DVD is already out, and that's be a better source to work from, both due to it being higher resolution, and (more importantly) due to it being in a semi-standard format.

      I would expect there to be minimal interest in this, from both pirates and nonpirates alike. The proprietary format makes it vastly inferior to everything else.

  • It would be really cool if someone who previously DL'ed the movie could cache the movie for others in the local network. This is where STB technology will really make things like this affordable/profitable. Imagine a box that anticipates your viewing and downloads stuff overnight...
  • Here in Canada, I don't know ONE PERSON who doesn't have broadband -- even among people who don't know how to use a mouse-wheel. Beyond ranting, it is my feeling that US broadband is far behind the times, and must catch up. Hopefully the new demand created by services such as this one will help to move the market forward.
    • Yeah. According to Statistics Canada [statcan.ca], 85% of homes with cable tv also have cable internet connections. That's a pretty big chunk of people.
    • In Canada, is there any sort of competition to offer that broadband? On this side of the border, pretty much the only company that can offer broadband is the cable company. This is called (local) monopoly, and the usual price-ramping effects can be assumed to apply.

      I know squat about DSL, so I can't say why that isn't being widely adopted, but I think this explains why cable broadband is going so slowly...

  • "The studio said a key factor in allowing people to download digital copies of its films was CinemaNow's anti-piracy technology, supplied by Microsoft Corp."

    I quess that points to Windows Media DRM [microsoft.com] which uses this kind of architecture [microsoft.com].

    • > I quess that points to Windows Media DRM [microsoft.com] which uses this kind of architecture

      And if it does, is the architecture so that clients for Linux can be easily created. If no, I can clearly see Microsoft's justification for doing this - another artificial way to tie people into using Windows. If it is open, is there some open source projects already going?

      • Re:Windows media DRM? (Score:3, Informative)

        by jukal ( 523582 )
        Hehe, one more comment on my own comment's comment :) From the licensing page [microsoft.com]

        " 1) If you are a content owner and want to protect content, then you need Windows Media Rights Manager SDK. 2) If you are a license clearing house and need to build a license server, then you need Windows Media Rights Manager SDK. 3) If you are an ISV and want to build a player application that can decrypt content protected with Windows Media DRM, you need to license Windows Media Format SDK and a key. "

        Does not look very open.

  • Only works for me if... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jvmatthe ( 116058 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @08:34AM (#4226991) Homepage
    ...renewals of the license are cheap. (Provided that the big honking file can actually be reused.)

    I don't think I'm ready to pay $2.99 or even $1.99 every time I want to watch the movie. Maybe $0.99, but even that would get old after a while.

    After 5-10 viewings, I'm better off having bought the DVD, since that's got infinite viewings (theoretically speaking) and resale value.

    As much as we live in a virtual world nowadays, humans still like shiny material things they can hold in their hands. Hard to see how a timelocked file can overcome that urge to "own". :^)

    • As much as we live in a virtual world nowadays, humans still like shiny material things they can hold in their hands. Hard to see how a timelocked file can overcome that urge to "own". :^)

      Which is especially funny when you consider that the newspeak for "purchase" in Hollywood is "Own it today!"

      • I noticed it too. Invariably a new DVD/video release is sold using the phrase "own it today" in the commercial, yet out the other side of their mouths, these guys are saying you only own the "license". Until you scratch the disc... then you "own" it again. Otherwise, they would have to replace the media for you at cost, instead of forcing you to buy it at full price again.
    • After 5-10 viewings, I'm better off having bought the DVD...
      That's the point. The industry doesn't want to do this because it believes it will lead to piracy/loss of revenue/pestilence, so it offers a format that is bound to fail. When it fails, it can point to the failure and then tell critics/Congress:

      "See? Legitimate online distribution of media doesn't work? Any fool can see that consumers are better off paying $30 per ad-encrusted, region-encoded DVD. Clearly we need mandatory DRM on all computers because there is clearly no legitimate place for legitimate online distribution of media."

      The best part is that consumers will never demand online distribution of videos because they'll "know" they're "better off" buying DVDs. So they'll continue paying way too much, getting too little, and happily thinking they've outsmarted the industry.

      (Note: the word "clearly" is reserved for use by politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, used car salesmen, college students who don't know what the heck their term papers are about, and other people who don't have one shred of evidence to back up their bold statements. "Clearly" is a form of intellectual bullying: "Clearly, you must be stupid if you can't see the non-existent evidence I'm not showing you!")

  • Why DRM (done right) will help consumers (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mithras the prophet ( 579978 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @08:36AM (#4227002) Homepage Journal
    I know it can be a foolish position to maintain on this site, but I strongly support the emergence of (open, cross-platform, fair) DRM technology.

    As someone who makes his living from what I write, I know that I wouldn't release my work to widespread, instantaneous copying unless I knew I could secure some of my own rights as to how that copying takes place. Many other individuals (as well as big, greedy corporations) feel the same. The fundamental idea is that before I hand you the keys to my car, I want to know whether you can run out back and give my car away to a dozen of your buddies - or strangers.

    So as long as DRM is reasonable about fair use, stops the majority of people from doing the wrong thing (and can more-or-less keep up with the bleeding-edge crackers), I look forward to it. This way I can get the downloadable movies, music, and text that I want, while actually supporting the person who made it all for my pleasure.

    But man, I wish that software was available for Mac or Linux.
    • But man, I wish that software was available for Mac or Linux.
      This is why DRM will never be useful. DRM must be proprietary and can never be standardized, which means you end up wishing for one specific piece of software, which may be garbage, instead of a class of software where there are many implementations to choose from.

      When I think of all the different players I've tried over the years, I know that I will never want all my eggs in one basket. Imagine how much it would suck, if there was only one DVD/VHS/CDaudio/etc player manufacturer that you could use.

      Standardized formats are in consumer interest, and proprietary formats are not. This reality is incompatable with DRM.

      As someone who makes his living from what I write, I know that I wouldn't release my work to widespread, instantaneous copying unless I knew I could secure some of my own rights as to how that copying takes place.
      In addition to having severely undesirable requirements, DRM has also been proven by history to be unnecessary. Your strange need for increased security, is a new and unconventional phenomenon.

      The print industry (books,magazines,newpapers,etc) got by fine for hundreds of years without DRM. The music industry got by for many decades as well. The software industry got by fine without it (the act of creating non-copyprotected software has gotten me a paycheck every two weeks since 1986).

      Perhaps the rest of the world knows something that you and the movie studios don't?

  • This is a test. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spudley ( 171066 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @08:36AM (#4227006) Homepage Journal
    I figure this is a test. They want to see if people will copy it.

    I would be willing to bet they've got something in there which they can look for to prove that any given copy of the film came from the download site. So then they can point to it and say "see - people do copy things and pass them round once they've downloaded them from the net". And it will make a great lobbying tool for them to use to get all the anti-piracy legislation through that they want.

    Hmmm... sorry... maybe I'm just feeling a bit pessemistic today.
    • Don't confuse pessemism with rational thought. Most folks will hem and holler saying "See, I told you it would work"; fact is, they are looking for a way to keep you from getting the chance to do just this. As I remember, there have been several attempts to do just this... but not by the publisher. They were all shot down by the litigation depts. of the respective publishers.

    • Harry potter dvd does not have macrovision protect (Score:5, Interesting)

      by leuk_he ( 194174 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @08:49AM (#4227092) Homepage Journal
      Ta add to you theory read this:

      Harry potter dvd does not have macrovision protection [com.com]

    • I figure this is a test. They want to see if people will copy it.

      Of course it's a test! Look at their choices of movies to release: The only major maovie is Harry Potter, which is famous for the fact that it doesn't have any copy prevention mechanism attached to it anyway. The others are movies that are making next to nothing in retail channels. You notice they don't have any other major titles, because they don't want to see those titles popping up on alt.warez three days after they become available online, after some 16-year old Scandanavian hacker reverse engineers the DRM on them. This way, they have little to lose if someone breaks the encryption earlier than expected (at this point, I have to think they know that eventually pretty much any DRM they throw out there is going to be cracked).
    • From the Article:
      The individual files are as large as 700 megabytes and can take as long as two hours to download even over high-speed broadband connections. They contain digital locks that prevent the files from being copied. The license expires after 24 hours, rendering the file useless unless the license is renewed.
      Emphasis mine. Have these wonderful "digital locks" already been broken? If not, then it will take some effort to copy these files, which would make me think that the average user won't be doing it.

      Strangely enough, I actually don't mind the use of DRM in this situation. It is basically an online video rental shop (remember when most video stores were only one day rentals?). Just as it was supposed to be difficult (too difficult to be worthwhile) to copy video tapes, it is supposed to be too difficult to be worthwhile to copy these files.

      Sure the determined user will probably find away around this, just as people defeated macrovision, and sure it will become easy, just as dual-deck VCRs made copying videos easy. But, even though it is possible to copy the videos that you rent from the shop, most people don't. Perhaps it will be the same with this system.

      Perhaps this is actually a viable business model for DRM.

      Note: I only say this is viable from the "video rental" standpoint. I do not and will not agree with the DRM-ing of anything I buy. Cheers. :-)

    • Everyone and their dog already has a pirated copy of Harry Potter. I just got a copy of pirated Harry Potter in the mail yesterday as a free sample. If I went into CompUSA I could probably buy a 10-pack of pirated Harry Potter for $6.99.
  • The studio said a key factor in allowing people to download digital copies of its films was CinemaNow's anti-piracy technology, supplied by Microsoft Corp.

    New studies indicate that Linux users never buy movies online, showing once and for all that linux users are evil h4x0rz who steal for fun and torture puppies. More at 11.

    (I'd go check the site myself, but I don't have a flash plugin for my browser so I was stuck on the front page)

  • Slashdot Comments (Score:2, Interesting)

    by smblion ( 89885 )
    I think it's hilarious that a company is, for once, not stepping blindly on the rights of consumers and experimenting with a delivery method that utilizes broadband in a way that slashdot readers and geeks all over have been asking for for some time, and all I see in the comments are people saying it won't work. What the hell is wrong with you guys? do you like ANYTHING?

    • Re:Slashdot Comments (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
      Because of the fact that one of the most common criticisms of the media industry is that of insanely overinflated prices.

      (Note: The MPAA is honestly nowhere near as guilty as the RIAA in this regard... At least not for video rentals. Don't get me started on the combination of jacking up theater admission prices AND subjecting us to advertising before the movie at the same time. A common bash of the RIAA is that the soundtrack for H.Pot is only $1 less than the full movie itself with all special features.)

      In this case, they are charging an insanely overinflated price for these downloads.

      They're charging $3.99 for one day, whereas most video rental stores give the full higher-quality DVD for $5 or less.

      So for $1 more (Probably the same price or even less if I go to a smaller, non-Blockbuster/Hollywood Vid shop) I get 5x the playing time and DVD quality. If I'm a Netflix subscriber I'm even better off.
    • What the hell is wrong with you guys? do you like ANYTHING?
      Sure, I liked mp3.com (though once MP3 was obsoleted by Vorbis, I was pretty disappointed that they didn't keep up).

      Here's the business model that won't draw much criticism: sell me files. The files must be generally as usable as a VHS tape or audio CD. Money for music or movies. It's not complicated, and it has been proven to work very reliably with lots of profit for them and lots of enjoyment for us. There are decades of proof behind this concept.

      Money for movies or music. Simple.

      But that's not what the studios are doing. They are selling content in weird, difficult-to-use format, in exchange for money and agreement to unusual and unreasonable restrictions. What they are offering is not what slashdot readers and geeks have been asking for, so it is natural that their offer will be declined.

  • Pruduct first (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sehryan ( 412731 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @08:38AM (#4227012)
    In this case, I believe stuff like this will drive the demand for higher bandwidth. Up until now, if you didn't game, porn or warez, then getting off of dialup had no practicle applications. As these sort of services start to take off, assuming high quality, having a better connection to view it might become more important to your average user.
    • Up until now, if you didn't game, porn or warez, then getting off of dialup had no practicle applications.

      I'll agree with anyone who can get away with using the word 'porn' as a verb. :)

      I porn
      You porn
      S/he porns
      We porn
      They porn
      One porns
  • ...but given that a vast majority of US households are without broadband, is this an idea before its time?

    A majority of US households were without cable TV in the early 1970's, too. Was HBO before its time as a result? I don't think it's too early to start this kind of service.

    Milalwi
  • Hmm... I estimate someone will have it cracked in under 12. :)
  • Well that 24hrs license give me just about time to donwload the film!

    $3.99 works out at about what £2.50 I can buy a video for £6.00, I watch my videos on average at least 20times total cost per viewing = 30p

    Why would I spend $3.99 and a day downloading somthing that I can watch for 24hrs.
    I would expect to pay no more than 20p!=$0.30 for that.
  • Entertainment companies shy away from online distribution and some people say they're falling behind the times. But when they release something online, other people say it's an idea before its time. Can't win.

  • Before its time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by g.a.g ( 16798 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @08:51AM (#4227103)
    I don't think so. Two reasons: this is what plenty of posters here are waiting for, and the other thing is: it's easy, and it's there for you.

    What do I mean with the second thing? It's the convenience, stupid. If I can download it always whenever I want it, for not so much money (okay, 3.99 is a bit steep, but that's new films - for older ones, consider 0.99 realistic), in guaranteed quality, then I might just as well not bother with cracking the stream (we're talking mass audience here, not hackers) and loading up my hard disk with something I might only watch another couple of times, if that. Downloading from P2P (in my experience) typically is hard work, trying to get the right stream, figuring out that the file is rotten, having no guaranteed feed and so on.

    Apart, this might just be the killer application that triggers the breakthrough of broadband. Who knows.
    • Some may download it for the novelty value, but a 700MB file for the price of a DVD rental? Even with a good cable connection and no transmission errors, I could go and rent the DVD and be halfway finished watching it on a real TV set before the file downloaded. Why would I want to wait the extra time and incur the wrath of my ISP for excessive bandwith consumption (one video is OK, but how about 5 or 10 per month?) so that I can watch movies in probably less than DVD resolution on my 19" monitor, hoping Windows survives the full two hours running time with no crashes?

      Plus, even Blockbuster now gives you 2 nights (was evenings; subtle but expensive difference) with a new release, so you don't have to feel so constrained as to when you watch the thing.

      Maybe this is a cynical move by WB to discredit the Net as a distribution means, but I think it is more of a pilot, proof of concept project. At this moment, at least for North American users, DVD, VHS, and even pay per view offer better value and greater convenience than downloaded video. Bandwidth has to become a lot cheaper and more plentiful before this sort of thing becomes viable.

      Now, if they wanted to release a 320x200 @ 11khz sound version for free or for a small download fee, that might be something; it would allow viewers to preview the movie and decide if they wanted to rent the DVD, or even go see the movie on the big screen, if the thumbnail version were released during the film's debut.

    • Re:Before its time? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @12:29PM (#4229030) Homepage Journal
      They probably don't expect this to catch on. But offering something online that nobody downloads is no big deal. It's not like they don't have the couple GB of disk to have this around.

      They want to get this in place before its time, because people will get used to whatever method is best when downloading movies becomes feasible. So they set it up and get people to use it as they get the necessary bandwidth. It's too soon to make money on it, but at least it's not too late to establish market share, and it will be really important to catch the early adopters, because they're who people will ask where to get movies when the masses can download them.
    • As many other posters have pointed out, $3.99 for one day is pretty steep compared to a four or five day rental at a video store for a similar price.

      But the real problem is convenience. A higher price might be worth it if it was more convenient. At 1Mb/s, however (which is a very common "broadband" speed), this movie will take between 1.5 and 2 hours to download, and that's if your getting the full bandwidth of your connection. Problem is, I can drive down to the local video store and back five times in that amount of time, and then have a movie I can keep for four days, not 24 hours. The convenience is just not there at today's broadband speeds. Change the speed to 10Mb/s and things might be different.

      Sure, sometimes the corner video store is out of the movie I want to rent, but that doesn't happen all that often, and I can always drive to the next video store (remember, I can drive to four or five in the two hours it will take to download the movie).

      The second problem is the cost of the broadband connection, as slow as it is, which must be factored into the cost of the downloaded movies. In my area, a DSL connection costs around $35 more than a dial-up. If, for many users, the only reason they need a broadband connection is to download movies, then this overhead must be added into the cost of downloading movies, which will make them look even more expensive compared to video store rental unless you watch literally dozens of movies per month.

      The overall problem is that with the current speeds and cost of broadband connections, the corner video store distribution model is still tough to compete with, both on convenience and cost. Again, when the bandwidth of broadband goes up by a factor of 10 and the price comes down as well (not likely to happen in the next few years at least), then things will change.
  • ...and now the big W has finally done it! Go Warner! Ok, so the price point is still slightly high (don't these guys do price-elasticity studies?), but the fact remains: this is how everybody here has been wanting the studios to update their businessmodel. And what do I see? Whining about how the security will be cracked. This proves that most people on /. are warez-ers and leechers. Because you should be giving them kudos for this step, not ragging them off. Hurray Warner bros for (finally, maybe even too late and too expensively, but finally nontheless) seeing the light!
  • everything. Bitch bitch bitch. I think that this is very encouraging. Leaving aside the pain of actually having to watch it on a small screen or having a tv-out card, I think this is a step in the right direction. Of course, a 700 meg download isn't exactly video on demand either....;)

  • But can I watch 'em in OS X? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @08:58AM (#4227140) Homepage
    DECSS was not an attempt to get free content, it was an attempt to play content on something other than a M$ box that had bought and paid for.

    Will this play on my OS X box or has M$ closed this off?
  • but given that a vast majority of US households are without broadband, is this an idea before its time?

    That's backwards. There need to be more things that increase the consumer demand for broadband. What broadband needs (and the Internet as a whole) is the next "killer app" to rekindle its growth and further legitimize. I spent much of the dotcom boom watching the pundits desperately search for this next killer app. One day it was "push" technology, the next it was Java. The next it was this and that and the other. Mosaic and the propogation of the WWW into the public consciousness was a killer app. MP3 was a killer app. Broadband is out there but there are a lot of "average users" who don't see much they can do with it.

  • This is an interesting article, interesting in a very bad (IMHO) way. These movies are being distributed using Microsoft's "DRM" "technology".

    Welcome to the future boys and girls. Divx (think circuit city) may have failed, but it's what media companies want, so it's what they'll make consumers "want".

    Pretty soon, EVERYTHING will be "licensed" instead of bought. I can't wait to get my Microsoft House(TM) with Human Rights Management(TM), this condo of mine is getting cramped!

  • They came damn close this time to actually using the internet well and giving their customers what they want. But the 24-hour license kills it, and proves once again that the movie studios just don't want us to own anything any more.

    Downloadable movies for $3.99 that the user then OWNS would be a great way to allow people to "try things out" or beef up my movie library for cheap...it would give people more value for their money. And I have NO doubt that it would have no affect on DVD sales - if someone is willing to pay for the movie but not the extras, they aren't going to buy a DVD version anyway!

    I have downloaded movies off P2P services before, but ONLY movies that I saw in the theater and I only keep them until the DVD comes out and then I throw them away. I'd LOVE to be able to do this without breaking the law, and I'd be willing to pay $4 a movie to do it - as LONG as I can keep the movie if I choose. Is giving the users that choice so anathema to the movie studios?

  • I'm concerned. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @09:16AM (#4227235)
    Sure, it's great to be able to download a movie anytime you want but, I frear that the net can't handle it.

    Lets fast-forward a few years. Everyone has xDSL or cable and everyone downloads or streams their movies. At 700+ MB per movie and possibly per person what is the internet going to be like? I know that there is presently excess bandwidth available and that there is supposed to be a fair bit of dark fibre but, is there really enough. How much bandwidth will be left for email and surfing, not to mention IP phones, when everybody is downloading their movies?

    Today, it is possible for several people in a household to be watching several different movies at the same time but, on different channels. What will it be like when those same people are all downloading a 700+ MB film? Remember that their neighbors will be doing the same thing with possibly different films at slightly different times. What will it be like when, rather than broadcasting 100 streams to millions of viewers, there are millions of streams. Many of these streams will be the same, as is the case with broadcast, but they will be separate because they will be out of phase time wise.

    It all seems grossly inefficient to me and I don't believe that the internet or even Internet2 can handle the kind of traffic that this will produce and still remain usable.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Real video on demand (Score:2, Informative)

    by mrj412 ( 153187 )
    I have Time Warner cable:

    We know have video on demand here which means I can order Harry Potter and watch it anytime I want for an eight hour period. This sounds much better than waiting to for a huge download and watching the movie on my pc!

    Its also a little cheaper... $3.95 for new movies and $1.95 for older ones.

    • About a month ago I had heard from a couple people inside my local Time Warner office that they were going begin a large scale roll out of video on demand. Where are you located? Do you live in a pilot area or has that roll out atually begun?
  • Considering that if things are crowded that day 8 of your 24 hour license is spent actually downloading the file. Echoing the bandwidth cost concern the only clever way I could see this working is if you ordered in advance and it downloaded the day before you wanted it... Pay Per View has so many more legitimate advantages and Idon't even use that. Does this maybe play into that crippled multimedia PC story I saw a few days ago?
  • The cost isn't that big, and this is EXACTLY what we've been asking for all this time. Don't think of it like renting a movie, think of it more like voting with your dollars, showing that this is the kind of system you'd like to have in the future.
  • Why would I choose to do this? Let's assume that their copy protection scheme works as planned and it is only good for 24 hours. What exactly is the value added against going to a video store

    Even on a broadband connection we're talking hours before it's downloaded and viewable. I can practically run to the video store and back before the popcorn is done popping.

    Quality wise it is inferior in both video and audio. Compare the video display on an hdtv (or standard for that matter) and a 5:1 surround sound system.

    Price wise, well, it gets me nothing. At least with videos my money is going towards supporting a local economy.

  • Everytime I buy a DVD I would like for them to also offer me a downloadable version of the movie. Sometimes I just need to have the movie on my computer to and sure I can copy it myself but why can't they do it for me?

    This way makes it a lot easier for me. I wanna be able to save the scenes I want, show a funny scene to my friends, etc. It comes in handy for Simpsons episodes.
  • click all features, then in the top 'sort by' column, click 'free'. click a film and log in as slashdot:slashdot. (I didn't make the account, someone beat me to it.) if you want to use your own acct (or if Mr. Slashdot changes his PW) the registration is just name, email, age, gender, password, and they don't require a real address--a@a.com works just fine. :-)
  • First of all, you buy broadband and start using up all of that bandwidth, they consider you a thief. They advertise unlimited access, but don't want you keeping that pipe full all the time. Watch one movie a day and that's what you'll be doing.

    Then there's the competition angle. A lot of broadband is provided over cable TV lines. Cable companies do their own Pay-Per-View.

    If this takes off, watch broadband providers start placing monthly caps on consumed bandwidth and start charging per gig over it, adding to the cost of the movie download. Hell, they are already wanting to do this...

  • As usual, the hearing impaired users get the shaft.

    There is no support for subtitling or closed captioning. This is a very scary trend as more movies are available using the internet. Even though MS's Media player and Real's RealPlayer support captioning, I have seen very little use of this feature. Now that these movies are available for download, how are the hearing impaired users going to be able to enjoy the movies? What about foreign language support? With DVD's, you were able to turn on/off subtitling at will.

    Sidebar: It took an act of government (as I understand it) and the FCC mandated closed captioning on 13" and larger TV's. Eventually, the FCC mandated that new programming (with exceptions) be closed captioned on the airwaves, phasing in to 100% by 2007 (barring extensions). More info is here [robson.org].

    Will the same happen for the internet content? I believe that subtitling/captioning support should have been done from the beginning because it's cheaper to add in features from the beginning than it is to go back later and add the features that should have been included in the first place.

    Alright, enough ranting. Blockbuster still gets my money because I can still can access captioning and subtitles from their DVD's and VHS's. God forbid should they try to copy Cinemanow's approach and do the same thing, discard subtitling/captioning support....

  • Other than Harry Potter, I've barely even heard of most of the other movies. This should keep the piracy levels down!


    A DOMESTIC INCIDENT

    Filled with dark humor, "A Domestic Incident" takes us on a roller coaster ride through a night of typically dysfunctional Americana.


    24 HOURS TO KILL

    Mickey Rooney plays an American smuggler stuck in Beruit in this exciting action thriller with several twists and turns.


    MR. BILL'S 20TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL

    Tune in for some of Mr. Bill greatest hits...plus several of Sluggo's, too. No fan should go without this compilation of greatest moments!


    A GLEAM OF HOPE

    A Hong Kong detective on assignment in China awakens to find his dead lover's body beside him. Knowing that he will be sentenced to death, he must escape arrest.


    ADDICTED TO MURDER (I II and III)

    Two vampires in one lifetime is not a coincidence. The more Joel's drawn into the vampiric vortex the more he becomes aware of his own horror.


    AMERICAN TRAGEDY

    The OJ Simpson trial. It was an epic trial. The outcome was controversial and the events that led to the judgement hold a sordid tale of their own. Starring VING RHAMES.


    AND YOU THOUGHT YOUR PARENTS WERE WEIRD!

    A couple of wiz kids build a robot, but when their dad's ghost winds up inside, this family gets really weird.


    ASIAN DOLLS UNCUT VOLUME 13

    China Doll (a 21 year old blonde), Tammy Lee (a 22 year old), Kimmi Kann (a Filipino cutie in her first video), Tina Toy & Mayumi will all show you what it really means to be an Asian Doll.....


    BEAUTY INVESTIGATOR

    In order to capture a serial rapist, two beautiful policewomen go undercover as club hostesses.


    THE BEL AIR BITCH PROJECT

    The life of a beautiful model, living in Bel Air, is cut short by an unknown assailant, but her murder may not be a mystery to the many men she teased along the way.


    THE BLACK WITCH PROJECT

    A group of military rejects go on a retreat to find themselves, while in the process they notice how spooky and strange the camp becomes. Point blank a mad killer is on the loose.


    I can't imagine paying for this crap (except ASIAN DOLLS UNCUT VOLUME 13). I'd venture this stuff didn't even maket it direct-to-video. Frankly, I couldn't go through 80 pages of CASTLE ORGIES (3,000 girls are hand-picked for the Shogun to satisfy his insatiable lust). On second-thought...

  • Like the 2 hours that you need to basically dedicate your broadband connection to download the movie, the 700MB of local disk space to store the movie, and the obligatory reboot that will be required somewhere along the way because it _must_ be a Windows machine.

    #include
  • This summary taken from their small NEW RELEASE page:

    BUG BUSTER
    The idyllic town of Mountview is infested and terrorized by a deadly mutant insect unknown to science. Their only hope lies in the wacky General George (RANDY QUAID, gung-ho military man turned militant exterminator)

    For just $9.95 a month I can get unlimited downloads of this and other B horror movies. Is this what we've been waiting for?
  • Miles O'Keeffe! [cinemanow.com] For free even. But alas, without the MST3k-ing that makes the movie watchable.

    "Not only is our prehistoric hero flying a hanglider... But he's doing it over a MODERN CITY!!" - Crow T. Robot

  • First, as others have stated, this may be just what broadband needs. Also, the high prices may be in the beginning- I know for the video rental business, prices have gone down a bit(at least relative to inflation) and rental periods have gone up as the business gets bigger. More volume, you get more revenues and can afford to cut prices to spur more volume. That may be part of the high prices here. If this turns out to be profitable, I'd expect to see prices drop a little or at least a longer rental period. In addition to more movies being available, and perhaps even a few really old movies available for outright purchase. If they add a link to purchase the DVD, this could take off even more.

  • a login (Score:3, Informative)

    by zephc ( 225327 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @11:57AM (#4228693)
    i tried a classic login/passwd: cypherpunks/cypherpunks
    and lo and behold, it works! enjoy.
  • The price is the same as I pay for Pay-Per-View from my satellite provider ($3.99 for a 24 license)

    ...plus the surcharge from your ISP for exceeding your bandwidth limit.

  • They are basically treating existing broadband users as a test market. What they learn now will inform how the procced along these lines in the future.

  • Each download should be unique (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Krellan ( 107440 ) <krellan@NOspAm.krellan.com> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @03:48PM (#4231039) Homepage Journal
    Since they are providing the movie as an individual download from their server, each download should be unique. I would be very surprised if they did not watermark each download in such a way that it could be traced back to whoever originally paid for the movie (credit card, or whatever). This should make it harder to pirate the movie, because of the danger of being caught if the pirate failed to strip the watermark completely (not easy, if hidden well and the original is unavailable).

    Also, I would be very surprised if they did not require an Internet connection to activate the movie once it has finished downloading. The 24-hour timer could then start at that point. It would be extremely unfair to start the 24-hour timer before the movie has completely finished downloading, as many of those hours could be used up by a slow download! Each viewing of the movie probably also requires an Internet connection, as pointed out earlier, if only to connect to an external trusted clock (it would be otherwise trivial to change the computer's clock to defeat the 24-hour timer).

    Think it will succeed? $3.99 is a competitive price with Blockbuster and other conventional video stores. However, the selection is very poor. HP is clearly an experiment by the studio, as they released it on DVD without Macrovision. They took a leap of faith there, and they are doing it again with this Internet download offer. They are waiting for results before offering any other major film (hence their padding of the service with only obscure B-movies).

    I'd be interested in knowing the piracy rates for HP versus a similiar major film; my bet is that the lack of certain copy protection measures doesn't make a difference, as the DVD format has already been cracked six ways from Sunday. Affordable downloads are the way to go to defeat P2P, making it easier and less frustrating to get the content legitimately!

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close