Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Leaked Screenshots Show Netflix Downloads 267

Posted by CmdrTaco from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.
Mike1024 writes "US DVDs-by-post company Netflix appears to be planning a service that will let users download movies over the internet. Hackingnetflix.com has some accidentally-revealed screenshots, and the Netflix jobs page includes a product manager position, saying "The Electronic Delivery Service (EDS) will augment Netflix's current DVD delivery model with high quality movies delivered to consumers' home TVs through the Internet, on a subscription basis". Apple's iTunes demonstrated many people are willing to live with some DRM and hardware/vendor lock-in."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked Screenshots Show Netflix Downloads More

Leaked Screenshots Show Netflix Downloads

Comments Filter:

  • Goodluck... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Afecks ( 899057 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:48AM (#13041589)
    As long as it's better than http://www.cinemanow.com/ [cinemanow.com] Nothing worse than watching bad movies AND having to buffer every 5 minutes.
    • The problem with efforts like this is that they tend to be overzealous with the copyright efforts to make sure nothing is copied. Ultimately their efforts sabotage the product and no one buys.

      What is interesting is that they are claiming internet downloads to be watched on TV - which is quite different than internet downloads to be watched on a computer.

      • Not necessarily (Score:4, Informative)

        by sterno ( 16320 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @12:09PM (#13043286) Homepage
        DRM only becomes a problem when it inhibits the actual use of the product. ITunes and the IPod have been wildly successful because the average person is almost totally unaware that there's DRM involved. They download music, it plays on their computer and it plays on their IPod so what do they care.

        The most recent effort I saw for this was a service where you could download a movie file for a fee but could only play it within 30 days and once played it would only remain playable for like 24 hours. That's problematic. In this case though, I should think the downloads would be consistent with the NetFlix style of movie watching where you can have so many movies available at a time but for an unlimited time. If that's the case it will be far more viable.

        My ideal would be if I could take a netflix downloaded rental and play it on my TiVo. If I have to hook up a computer to my TV, it's a bit more of a hassle. I haven't been a NetFlix member for a while now because I got tired of discs piling up that I never got around to watching, but if I can download a movie in a few hours I may resubscribe.

    • Re:Goodluck... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Halthar ( 669785 )
      I have used both CinemaNow and Movielink, Movielink simply downloads the whole movie, and then allows you to watch it using their software for a period of time, so there are no buffering issues at all. CinemaNow allows for some movies to be downloaded, however most of the movies you get access to with a subscription seem to be stream only. That having been said, I have never had a movie start trying to buffer on me, unless I have tried to move forward or backward to some other point in the movie. Unfortu

      • Re:Goodluck... (Score:2, Informative)

        by bobcat7677 ( 561727 )
        Yeah, I tried them too. I found waiting for my movie to download from Movielink was more painful/annoying then just driving to the video rental place. The price difference was negligible. The selection is MUCH better at my local Hollywood video (I won't go to the blockbuster...they suck and have a poor selection). The kicker was when I downloaded a movie and then had the DRM tweak out and tell me it was expired before I even got to watch the movie. Oh and don't forget the compression artifacts interfer
    • Let's see... Bad movies, and they stop every 5 minutes or so for a couple of minutes.... Sound a bit like TV doesn't it?

  • Wow. (Score:4, Funny)

    by neodude88 ( 799799 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:48AM (#13041601) Homepage
    It's a screenshot of a login box. Exciting stuff.

    • Seriously. (Score:2, Funny)

      by artemis67 ( 93453 )
      How do we know this isn't a Photoshop hack?
    • Actually I don't think it's a login screen.

      I like the part which says "By clicking the Save button, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to the Terms of Use". It's quite cool since that button doesn't even appear in the image :)

  • anyone surprised? (Score:5, Informative)

    by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:50AM (#13041610)
    This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone, since it was announced last fall [slashdot.org] that Tivo and Netflix had worked out some sort of agreement for downloadable movies...

  • That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DanielMarkham ( 765899 ) * on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:51AM (#13041618) Homepage
    Downloading movies seems like a lot of bits to push over the average consumer's pipe. Tie in a pre-constructed box for it (and who exactly wants to buy yet another home appliance when the computer will do?) and it sounds like an infrastructure mess.
    I wonder if consumers will be happy waiting for hours while their movie is delivered? Especially if the Blockbuster is just around the corner. Of course, it beats going out, but at what price? Something about the business model just doesn't add up to me.

    Night Of The Living Parrots [whattofix.com]

    • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pcidevel ( 207951 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:56AM (#13041672)
      I currently wait two days for my Netflix movies instead of going to the Blockbuster around the corner (1 day to ship to Netflix, 1 day for the movie to come back), so I don't see why waiting a couple of hours would be a big deal.

      And no, I don't use Netflix because I'm lazy (it's really more of a hassle than going to Blockbuster). I use Netflix because they have a HUGE selection of movies. Their buisness model provides for a much larger selection of movies than a brick and morter store. And going to a "movies on demand" format can only help to increase their selection, it sounds great to me (since I don't tend to watch the normal summer blockbuster style movies and instead watch more obscure stuff)..
    • I agree. What is a DVD movie in Gb? If it takes anywhere on the order of 24 hours to select and have a movie downloaded to your machine over broadband at DVD quality, it seems a wash to me. I can go 48 hours and have a DVD sent to me in the post and use the bandwidth on my cable modem for my Vonage and PC web traffic.

      If, however, there was an option to stream movies using WMP9's last codecs or some Divx technology, something really high, like a 1Mb/s stream that looked good in a box, and that would start

      • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:5, Informative)

        by irc.goatse.cx troll ( 593289 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:29AM (#13041976) Journal
        For a full dvd disk image, its 4 gigabytes. They'll most likely use compression, but even if they didn't its still doable.
        The average download speed I'm seeing on residential cable is now 6megabit. google says:

        (4 gigabytes) / (6 (megabit / second)) = 1.51703704 hours

        Or, roughly a little longer than it takes to watch it. Buffer for 30 minutes or so and you could stream the rest.

        With FIOS and other closer to true broadband internet connections becoming much more common, it makes even more sense(FIOS's common package is 15/2):
        (4 gigabytes) / (15 (megabit / second)) = 36.4088889 minutes

        Most good codecs can squeeze a movie down to 1.4 gigs or so, so downloading is entirely an option. Streaming VOD as yous uggest would work just as well, but theres no reason you couldnt keep a copy.

        • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:5, Interesting)

          by iainl ( 136759 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:34AM (#13042009)
          For a full Dual-Layer disc (and I really can't remember the last time I saw a retail movie come on a single layer) it's 9Gb, not 4, so the numbers are even worse.

          Besides, basic broadband packages in the UK usually have monthly download limits in the ~3Gb range. So it's not the 24-hour wait for the download, it's the 30-day wait until your ISP will let you have the next one.

          • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:2, Informative)

            by LetterJ ( 3524 )
            True, but it's a REALLY rare DVD that uses even 6GB of that for the main title. Other than the Superbit and other such collections, it's pretty typical for the widescreen movie, 1 AC3 soundtrack and the appropriate subtitles to take up right around 3.5-5Gb with a really large number fitting under the single layer limit or just over.

            Of course, why on earth would they use straight MPEG-2 for delivery when all of the other new services (like the new DirecTV setup) are going with MPEG-4, which pulls the number
        • Most good codecs can squeeze a movie down to 1.4 gigs or so, so downloading is entirely an option.

          Have a look on any bit torrent site, and you'll see stacks of movies encoded using DIVX / XVID clocking in at around 700 MB. Say a few hours to download a full copy?

          • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:3, Informative)

            by cdrudge ( 68377 ) *
            A 700MB Divx/XviD version of a 2 hour movie isn't exactly DVD quality, plus you are likely to lose any type of dolby digital/DTS sound in favor if just a stereo MP3.

    • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:3, Informative)

      by cthrall ( 19889 )
      I briefly subscribed to Real's movie download program...it was $14/mo, and it took about 1hr. to d/l a movie (Comcast cable modem). I don't think realtime streaming was an option when I tried it a month ago.

      I unsubscribed because they didn't have anything that I wanted to watch...but it was close to acceptable as far as d/l speed goes.

    • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Radak ( 126696 )
      I wonder if consumers will be happy waiting for hours while their movie is delivered? ... Something about the business model just doesn't add up to me.

      Funny, Netflix seems to doing just fine with the "be happy waiting a few days" business model. Why do you think a few hours is a worse one?

      • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:5, Informative)

        by robertjw ( 728654 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:11AM (#13041820) Homepage
        Funny, Netflix seems to doing just fine with the "be happy waiting a few days" business model. Why do you think a few hours is a worse one?

        I use Netflix, and the thing is they send you more than one movie at a time (depending on your subscription). I can set up the list of movies I want to watch, and I almost always have one on hand when I want to watch something. The other great thing is no more wandering around a movie store looking for something to catch my eye. Currently I've got over 100 movies in my queue - I'll probably never see them all.

        I imagine any kind of download service will be the same way - I can download multiple movies, so I always have something available. After I delete the last movie I watched the next one in my queue will be downloaded. Probably a lot like their current service, just faster.
        • Parent post makes a lot of sense. Think about it- can you even _buy_ a disk drive smaller than 40 gigs right now? maybe on eBay, but that's no way to run a business. If your typical dvd-quality movie is, say ~10gigs, including letterbox/fullscreen formats and the voiceover commentary by Tom Cruise and Xenu, there is no financial reason preventing Netflix from having 4 or 5 movies available for download at any given time.

          The real test here is: will there be any kind of p2p functionality to offset heavy de

    • Since this will likely work with TiVo, as it's been rumoured for a while, all I would have to do is log into my TiVo account from work and pick out a movie or two. By the time I got home, it would be there. TiVo already gives me the ability to log into their site and program my unit from there, so it's not too much of a stretch.
    • "I wonder if consumers will be happy waiting for hours while their movie is delivered? ... Something about the business model just doesn't add up to me."

      What I don't understand is why people put up with going to the store to rent a movie that turns out to be unusable so much of the time. I simply cannot stand regularly loosing at least one scene to a scratch and having to rerent at least 1/4 of my movies because of multiple scratches or they won't run at all. I don't even bother renting DVDs anymore, we ei
      • What I don't understand is why people put up with going to the store to rent a movie that turns out to be unusable so much of the time.

        You should probably find a better video rental store. Our local stores (NOT a nationwide chain) do a *great* job keeping their DVD's in good shape, and giving refunds when any of it is fucked up. So, I don't know how big of a problem it is, or how difficult it is for a store to work around, but we have a local chain that handles it just fine.

    • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BioCS.Nerd ( 847372 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:26AM (#13041954) Homepage

      I don't think there's a problem with bandwidth. What does your computer do all day with the bandwidth? Nothing. Most everyone has plenty of bandwidth to spare.

      Especially if the Blockbuster is just around the corner. Of course, it beats going out, but at what price? Something about the business model just doesn't add up to me.
      As another poster mentioned, Netflix is in cahoots with Tivo. As such, I'd expect TV and movie delivery over the 'net. I'm intrigued to see how they'll price it out. I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to pay to rent a show or movie via this mechanism. I would, however, be interested in purchasing movies and TV shows.

      O/T Addendum: it just occurred to me that the Xscale processor would be more than able to handle video playback on a PSP-like device. Could this be further impetus for Apple's IBM -> Intel switch? i.e. a forth coming "Apple PSP", if you will, with ensuing iTMS service for movies/TV/games?

      • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LurkerXXX ( 667952 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:33AM (#13042006)
        I don't think there's a problem with bandwidth. What does your computer do all day with the bandwidth? Nothing. Most everyone has plenty of bandwidth to spare.

        I think your ISP may disagree when half their customers start saturating their pipes 24 hours a day so that they can watch a new movie each night.

    • you ever used netflix? you understand that queue thing? so lets say for this hypothetical download to a tivo box dealie, you can have 3 'active' movies at a time. once you delete one, you get the next one... which was already downloaded, since netflix already has your queue, so as long as they buffer a couple movies ahead on your queue list, the consumer would never see the actual downloading, and without extra (behind the scenes, audio tracks, etc), the basic movie would be still be large for decent pictur

    • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis@@@ubasics...com> on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:42AM (#13042067) Homepage Journal
      Using mpeg4 and supply barely broadcast quality (not even DVD quality, nevermind HDTV) means a typical 90 minute movie would run between 1/2 and 2 GB. At today's brodband speeds this will range from 40 minutes (500M @ 3Mbps) to 5 hours(2G @ 768Kbps).

      The sweet spot will likely be right around 1.5Mbps broadband and under 1GB movie size. Delivery would take less time than watching the movie, and so you order the movie, let it buffer for 10-15 minutes while you pop popcorn, etc, then start streaming the movie.

      Delivery isn't a concern as long as the bit rate of the movie is about half your download rate, and a 300Kbps bit rate is bearable, a 768Kbps stream is about what you expect for ok cable TV.

      While they won't be delivering at great quality, they will be getting consumers by the ability to get content on demand, for low cost, with a huge selection. Even home theater buffs will use the service simply because it's more convenient than waiting for the disc in the mail or leaving the house to pick it up - especially if the local video store is out of copies. Further, it'll probably be similar to the current system, but limited somewhat since the mailing delay is not built in. Pay $17.99/mo to get 12 movies per month (about 3/week). You can only have up to three movies on your player at a time, and can watch them at any time until you fill the slot with another movie.

      What would be really nice is if one could select the quality and trade off downlaod time for quality, as well as queuing up movies so they are available on the player at the time of release (new movies are released on tuesday - download starts at high quality monday afternoon and unlocks at midnight).

      And if they get large enough to push at the movie studios they may even be able to get movies before video store release dates, and possibly simultaneous with theater release. But these are very unlikely, due to the huge video store market.

      But the biggest change for NetFlix will be that they can (if they work out licensing correctly) get around the limitation of their current list system. Right now you won't necessarily get the movies you want in the order you prioritized them. With downloads there's no limit - you can get the movie you want, when you want it.

      -Adam
      • No, I think you underestimate the "average home theater buff." The home theater buffs I know (including myself) would be appalled at the quality of a recompressed DVD movie, nevermind the fact that you lose out on any extras the disc might have in almost any standard consumer-viewable, downloadable format. Most home theater buffs are waiting for one of the two High Def DVD formats to really take off so they can get content for their HD sets... not waiting to feed it subpar standard def video that's poorer q

      • Re:That's a Lot Of Bits (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Damek ( 515688 )
        Hey, I'm Adam, stop that!

        Back to the topic, if Netflix did this, pretty much as you described, I'd actually stay with them. I joined up with them when I got four months free as an xmas gift last year. I've been enjoying working through a list of movies I've wanted to see, but once that's done I plan to cancel; I'm not a big movie watcher and hardly rented more than 3-4 movies a year before Netflix. I watch more with Netflix, but because of the slight delay, I find that upon receipt of a new disc I'm usu
    • It adds up when speeds at home are rising and rising. Verizon is rolling out Fiber system in select areas and I imagine part of the reason to run 10MBPS to someone house is not just for internet. I see a day when verizon offers On demand TV, VOIP, and internet packages when you get fiber in the home. It's close for some people then you think.
    • My feeling is that a viable model for movie downloads is similar to the Tivo model.

      When I search the Tivo schedule for interesting movies coming up on cable, I generally look for recording time slots buried deep into the wee hours of the morning.

      If download times for movies can be reduced to 2 to 4 hours, and if a respectable library can be built up, I think an audience exists right now. People will still be able to go to the video store for an impulse movie, but niche movies, or people planning their

    • very realistic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SethJohnson ( 112166 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @11:21AM (#13042627) Homepage Journal


      If Netflix and TiVO work this out correctly, this is going to jam a sharp stick in the eye of pay-per-view AND Blockbuster. It may not seem convenient to you at a quick glance, but I'm guessing you haven't re-organized your TV usage through a Tivo or Netflix subscription. I'm not criticizing you, but pointing out that this makes sense to people who have.

      Sure, downloading a movie is annoying to satisfy an immediate whim craving for a film. That's where the local video store cannot be beat. The TiVO-Netflix partnership trounces the local video store in new releases, however. Blockbuster may carry 100 copies of Batman when it's eventually released on DVD and make a big promise about availability. But Blockbuster doesn't do this for the smaller movies that you and every other film nerd in your neighborhood want to see. It'll stock two copies that'll be perpetually checked out.

      Online Netflix means that you'll be able to create wish lists prior to the release of movies on DVD so that you'll be assured of getting them the day of their release. When you turn on your TiVO, you'll be greeted with a list of movies that have already downloaded, so it's not some deal where you have to actively select an online movie and wait for it to be transmitted. Besides, with Fiber-to-the-home looming in the future as well as IP-over-electric lines, our bandwidth future will speed up the download process for that scenario.

      Seth
  • Someone is going to post : matter of days before it get cracked but it's not really relevant. If you crack it let's say you're able to send it over the internet for free... guess what it's already there anyway. So what's the point of DRMing it anyway ? Obtain agreements to sale online probably... their protection being cracked is the best thing that can happen to them.
    • So what's the point of DRMing it anyway ?

      Because it's an attempt by the distributor to protect the MPAA's property. Yes, everyone knows the DRM will be broken by some (I'm sure it's not even worth it as DVDs are easy and better quality).

      As long as the majority of people out there aren't going to be able to do what they want w/the downloaded files it'll make the MPAA happy.

  • Unintentinal "publishing" ala Harry Potter? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:53AM (#13041650) Homepage Journal
    This reminds me of that Canadian Harry Potter injuntion: until the book has been "published", you can't do stuff with it. So a Canadian court issued an injunction to those who got it early, saying they can't copy/sell or talk about the contents --- until it gets "published" --- 4-real, in a few days.

    How is the unintentional "leaking" of information via a website any different? Can Netflix say they haven't "published" anything yet, and then have the DOJ beat you down for Copyright violations?
    • If I got one of those books the first thing I would do is talk about it all over the net.

      Rights of the citizens over the rights of the corporations. And if some book store [or movie or whatever] sold me something I thought to be in good faith then too f'ing bad. I'd rather go to jail then have some judge tell me my rights are less important than those of "Harry Potter Publishers Inc." or whatever.

      Now it would be different had I known they weren't supposed to be sold, or they were stolen, or copied, or w
      • I'd rather go to jail then have some judge tell me my rights are less important than those of "Harry Potter Publishers Inc." or whatever.

        sounds like you've never been to jail.

        just playing devil's advocate and all, but talking about it all over the net is potentially injurious to profit margins, so you can't blame them for trying to keep you from talking. I can't imagine that such an injunction is enforceable under scrutiny, but is that a fight you really want to get into?

        also, having a copy of the b
      • well, chances are the book is a gazillion pages long and the purchaser is in the 4th grade, so I doubt they'll be able to say much about it before the 4 days are up, and they're probably not old enough to make such ethical stands...
  • Ìt's good to see businesses actually try and use the advantages of the internet for content distribution, instead of trying to litigate to preserve an ancient business model.

  • DRM thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dakrin1 ( 220684 )
    As the poster suggested, with the huge sales of iTunes it seems that DRM isn't something that a lot of consumers care about too much. Interesting as a lot of slashdotters seem to feel the opposite.
    • I have no problem with DRM at the conceptual level. The government gives people and companies limited(supposedly) monopolies to promote the creation of artistic works. It's when they feel that that gives them the right to dictate where and when I enjoy, or not, their products that I get my hackles up. When I can purchase media and enjoy it whenever I want wherever i want, you'll get my money. If you tell me that I paid you for the privilage of being frustrated "no money fo' you."

    • Re:DRM thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:05AM (#13041757)

      DRM isn't something that a lot of consumers care about too much. Interesting as a lot of slashdotters seem to feel the opposite.

      DRM also isn't something most people understand at all, unlike most slashdotters. When someone tries to put a song they bought from the itunes music store onto their Sony brand mp3 player and can't get it to work, 9 times out of 10 they will blame the sony player. When a song bought from Napster 2 can't be transferred to an ipod, customers often blame the ipod. They don't understand that the behavior is intentional and if you explain to them that it is most people think it should illegal. Once someone understands DRM they dislike it, but very few people ever get to that point because it is a hard concept to grasp and as most americans know... thinking is hard.

    • More mindbuffling is the consumers reaction to only being able to play the media on VERY limited range of hardware. Take iTunes as an example.

      Apple DRM may be the least restrictive in the industry but you can still only play the songs on 1 type of portable player (And this is because of the DRM). Is that good enough for consumers. Maybe.

      I don't think it's good enough for me though.
      • This will eventually be iTunes's downfall. To me, it is just the new Betamax. It is cool and hip *now*, but competitive markets always win.
        • I agree with you. the DRM is acceptable because it is not acceptable to have a DAP other than an IPOD, but that will change.

          I suspect that Apple agrees. In fact, shareholders agree and the price has dropped a little; they feel that the IPOD bubble is about to burst.

          Apple is hedging their bets. They linked up with Intel for software licensing revenues to diversify revenue stream. Eventually, they'll open Itunes.... they'll have to.

  • Well, yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 'nother poster ( 700681 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:55AM (#13041664)
    Apple's iTunes demonstrated many people are willing to live with some DRM and hardware/vendor lock-in.

    People don't mind this as long as the DRM allows the consumer to do what they want with the media. As long as I can listen to my music when and where I want it's no problem. When the DRM is used to limit where and when I use what I purchased, that's when people get upset.

    It will be interesting if netflix learned this. If I pay a fee and can only watch the movies when, where, and on what netflix decides, they won't get my money. We'll see.

    • Re:Well, yeah. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aussie_a ( 778472 )
      Apple's iTunes demonstrated many people are willing to live with some DRM and hardware/vendor lock-in.

      What vendor lock-in? People are willing to put up with Itune's DRM because it's simple to "break" (merely convert it to another format, it's something even I would be able to do, and I know very little about computers), therefore there is no vendor lock-in.

      Unless Netflix's DRM is as simple, I doubt very much it will take off as Itunes has (even if it is as simple to break, I still doubt it will take o

      • Re:Well, yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @11:45AM (#13042941)
        "What vendor lock-in? People are willing to put up with Itune's DRM because it's simple to "break" (merely convert it to another format, it's something even I would be able to do, and I know very little about computers), therefore there is no vendor lock-in."

        I see these sorts of comments on /. on a daily basis, and yet they still surprise me. Don't you have any non-geek friends? Almost no one cares about Apple's DRM - outside of /. types. Heck, most people don't even seem to realize there is DRM present at all!
    • There is a difference between Netflix and iTunes. First off, with iTunes, the idea is that you have paid for, and now own, a single copy of the song purchased.

      This same does not apply to renting movies. I cannot see how you could justify any argument giving you the ability to keep a movie for longer than an allowed amount of time.

      And as far as your portability concern, please share with us your vision of a mobile player that will (with DRM enabled) only allow you to view the number of movies allowed at
    • If I pay a fee and can only watch the movies when, where, and on what netflix decides, they won't get my money. We'll see.

      You mean like if you pay $3.99 for a new release, but only get to watch it for two days, or $2.99 for an older movie and you can watch it for a week? Or like you pay a certain amount per month and you can watch a lot of movies, but only a certain amount at once?

      Most people hear 'DRM' and think 'when I buy something, they'll restrict my rights'. Well what about rentals? You don't *have
  • And you can garuntee that the population will accept it because the consumer population will have no choice but to accept CSS and Macrovision and other forms of DRM.

    They won't allow the viewing public to use the 1080i resolution unless they can lock in down as much as they can. However ethically repugnant and offensive it may be to someone informed.

    Because its convienent, becausee its easy.
  • the mail is what keeps me from using netflix. i know it sounds lazy but having to wait for the movies to arrive and then send them back is such a hassle.

    ideally i'd like to get movies through itunes, pay something reasonable like $4.99 for _just_ the movie no special stuff. IMO that would be as good a deal as the .99 per song thing.

    • Re:pretty cool (Score:3, Interesting)

      by treerex ( 743007 )

      ideally i'd like to get movies through itunes, pay something reasonable like $4.99 for _just_ the movie no special stuff. IMO that would be as good a deal as the .99 per song thing.

      So you think it is OK to pay $4.99 to download a 130 minute movie that you can then watch as often as you want? Weird.

      I would expect a different pricing model, similar to the iTMS "books-on-tape", where the cost appears to be a function of the length of the book.

      • So you think it is OK to pay $4.99 to download a 130 minute movie that you can then watch as often as you want? Weird. I would expect a different pricing model, similar to the iTMS "books-on-tape", where the cost appears to be a function of the length of the book.

        well i can pay 0.99 for a song regardless of its length and listen to it as much as i want. Is there a difference?

        • well i can pay 0.99 for a song regardless of its length and listen to it as much as i want. Is there a difference?

          Well, you can't pay $0.99 for a twelve minute song. You can only buy songs a la carte that are less than 8 or 9 minutes. Otherwise you have to buy the whole album.

          I don't know what the pricing model is in Hollywood: what percentage of ticket sales is distributed? Companies will want to make money on this.

  • Greencine doing this already? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:59AM (#13041700) Homepage Journal
    I subscribe to Greencine, and the little tear-off flier that you remove to convert the receiving mailer into the sending mailer has a little inset image of a DVD player with a "DivX Video" logo on it with the captions:

    "IF YOU OWNED A DivX® Certified DVD PLAYER, YOU COULD HAVE WATCHED THIS MOVIE YESTERDAY!

    "Download, burn, and enjoy GreenCine movies in hours with DivX VOD.

    "FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT VOD.DIVX.COM/HOW [divx.com]"

    Of course, when I try to go to that URL, it times out, so who knows?
    • VOD.DIVX.COM/HOW [divx.com] is borked because it redirects to a bogus destination. Fortunately going straight to the SSL version https://vod.divx.com/how/ [divx.com] works.

      Alternatively, you can go to http://vod.divx.com/ [divx.com] and click the How It Works button and you'll get to the right page.

      I noticed this address too my my DVD player. How it's supposed to work (as far as I can tell):

      You download the content on your Windows PC, then use your DivX player (which presumably has some sort of disc burning functionality) to create the
    • This article states that (I don't have Economist premium, so I had to read the summary) movie studios will not license much of their content to be web delivered. Why not? Is it some Lucas conceit, it has to be encoded in THX bullshit, I won't cheapen the experience thing?

      Studios need their arms twisted by this, and the way that will happen is when independants get a fair crack at using the distribution system to push their own films. There goes the box office trend, right in the toilet, when I can see th

  • I hope it is not exclusive to Tivo. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gannoc ( 210256 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:02AM (#13041731)

    I reluctantly dropped Tivo a month ago to switch to the cable company's offering. My new DVR can record two HDTV channels simultaneously, while the Tivo hadn't seen significant updates since 2001. (Besides their HEAVILY DRMed copy to PC. You need to enter in a password everytime you watch a show.)

    Hopefully someone will provide an inexpensive way to show these movies. Perhaps a small set-top device provided by netflix in exchange for a service contract that can download a movie or two for later viewing.

    • I wouldn't count on your cable company doing this. They wouldn't even have the DVRs if TiVo didn't force their hand. Even the DirectTV TiVos may not support downloading because DirecTV doesn't allow users to enable the home networking option on their boxes. In general, Cable Companies are very reluctant to embrace new technologies, especially ones that give you more freedom; there is a deep seated dread that they might be obsoleted by the next thing that comes along and the last thing they want to do is

  • Movielink? (Score:3, Informative)

    by clontzman ( 325677 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:06AM (#13041778) Homepage
    Movielink [movielink.com] has been doing downloadable Hollywood films for a long time now. Not sure why everyone overlooks them when talking about the iTunes Movie Store and NetFlix, but they've been in this game for a while.

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

      by no_barcode ( 840948 )
      I've been using Movielink for a couple of years. Their prices keep going up. In some cases a new release is over $5.00. Cinemanow was always $3.99, but with their latest site upgrade the prices are now up (for some titles) to where Movielink's are.

      Overpriced, but very convenient.
  • As much as DRM irks me, I don't think we can expect to live without it. With technologies like Bittorrent out there, content providers can't claim to have an exclusive on high-speed downloads, and the studios are never going to sign on if they're going to be willingly providing source material for unlimited transfer and reproduction.

    Now frankly I'm a bit of an anarchist. I don't like the big studios or the big record companies, and I think the quality of our entertainment would be improved a great deal i
  • You know, this service really could benefit by using BitTorrent technology ;)

    If cost is king to the operation, they would love nothing more than to have hundreds or thousands of people across the country downloading the movies from one another. Think about it.. Friday night, movie night.. parents still at work login and request a movie.. kids get home from school and kick off a download right on the TiVO. It'll be ready by movie time. Netflix doesn't get killed with bandwidth bills and passes the savings o
  • or will they cut their noses off to spite their faces? (i.e. or spend loads of money on the extra bandwidth they need).

  • Netflix Player (Score:2, Informative)

    by HackingNetflix ( 871785 )
    It's not a new story (and I didn't submit it to /.), but the fact that they are testing the product and it looks like a Tivo login is interesting. Netflix really hasn't said much other than they have a deal with TiVo and the service will be "underwhelming."

    The screen capture also has the name of the new device: Netflix Player.

    Mikek / http://www.hackingnetflix.com/ [hackingnetflix.com]

  • DRM (Score:2)

    by luna69 ( 529007 ) *
    > Apple's iTunes demonstrated many people are willing
    > to live with some DRM and hardware/vendor lock-in."

    Or are willing to pay for their music and then liberate it using Jhymn [hymn-project.org].

  • Old news.. (Score:2, Informative)

    by mr_typo ( 207426 )
    Netflix plans were also discussed in the economists this weeks issue. Here is a link to the an excerpt of the article :

    http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id =S'(X((RA'%25%20P%224%0A&tranMode=none/ [economist.com]

  • I download movies from Starz Ticket on RealOne [real.com] all the time. They don't have the latest or the greatest, but at any given time there are over 300 movies (plus all the extras you get on DVDs), and that's more than enough to choose from. A typical (500-600MB) movie takes about 25 minutes to download on my 10Mbps OptimumOnline connection. I play them on my PC, turn off the monitor and switch to the TV out display. Plus I can watch a live Stream of Starz (the channel) with more latest movies that aren't availab

  • Could be good for Netflix customers... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheRealStyro ( 233246 ) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:50AM (#13042168) Homepage
    This could be good for Netflix customers, if they work out the techical and structure issues.

    Personally, I want to be able to download certain shows and get the rest in standard DVD format. For example, if I rent an MST3K show then I don't care where I watch it - computer or TV - chances are good that I will only watch it once. A movie like Million Dollar Baby I want to watch on the large screen TV with the whole audio setup.

    If they let me specify what shows to download vs. mailed DVDs then I will be very happy with the service. Otherwise I'll just stick to mailed DVDs that I can watch wherever I want.
  • I love Netflix, it makes winter a little more bearable up here. I thought of an online business model that cement their hold on the movies-to-home market.

    The first step is a new, DIVX related codec that allows for two viewing resolutions for a movie. The files are distributed by BitTorrent or similiar, the more common the P2P format the better. The user can download any movie from the Netflix library/Torrent, and watch it at some low resolution (say 240x180 or 320x240) for free. If you want to watch the HD
  • .. so that this thing does not do an IP geographical check?

    Netflix is fine but it isn't "global" in the sense that you rely on physical transport. Netflix even has to setup local warehouses for faster deliveries.

    However this on-demand download is truly global.
    Sure they will require US credit card, fine I can do around that.

    However, Imagine being able to download movies from your living room here in Europe *before* they usually hit the theaters? All this semi-legally (no p2p but you might be infringing EU

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close