What is Digg?96 Comments
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32They still don't get it do they.
Bittorrent puts no strane on there server so the only people using bandwidth are the users and yet they still think it's fair to charge full price. They don't have to produce packaging, shipping, bandwidth and yet we have to foot the bill.
no thanks... next - TeacherOfHeroes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31So, they want me to contribute my bandwidth to help them move their product, letting them save money.
Yet I'm still paying as much for a movie as I would be if I just bought it in a store?
No thanks. Call me when movies are $5 (or some low low price) when you provide bandwidth in return. - jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32I'll pay good money for good quality films over BT if they let me burn em to DVD's!
- Kev585, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24"The companies did not specify a date but said the service will be offered starting this summer. Pricing is also undetermined, although individual TV shows could be priced as low as $1 and movies will be sold for about the price of buying a DVD, BitTorrent said."
I don't mind the sound of that. Okay, for me a feature film for a $8 legal torrent is worth it, that would be my ideal price. - Elohir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20So though I'm paying the full price of a full quality DVD, I'm:
1) Getting a copy at a fraction of the quality of the same price DVD
2) Sacrificing bandwidth to download it
3) Sacrificing bandwidth to upload it - to do their distribution for them
4) Getting a copy I can't lend to a friend
5) Getting a copy I can't play it a DVD player
Exactly how is this, in any way, a good deal? - mrpackrat42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20From article: "The studio also will sell permanent copies of films and TV shows online that can be burned to a backup DVD, although the copy will only play on the computer used to download the film and not on standard DVD players."
Yeah, and I've got a lovely bridge in Brooklyn to sell, too. :) - cube, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17sounds like a step in the right direction but not being able to watch it on a standard dvd player? after paying around the same price of a regular dvd? that's going to be rough.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Personally I think it's a bit steep to sell a downloadable movie at DVD prices. I'd buy 5 movies a week it they priced them around $6. So, they can charge $19, and I'll buy 1 movie a week, or charge $6 dollars and I'll buy 5. What sounds better to you Mr. Movie Studio?
- babbling, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Ahh... but the catch is that they are still using DRM. They are only using bittorrent to distribute encrypted files, and then probably using some other trickery to ensure that those files can't be played on just any computer.
I was getting excited until I figured out that they're not dropping the DRM. - marix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14So... Im gonna buy a movie for a price and then also dedicate a portion of my bandwidth for other to download if from me? Do i save some money by helping others dload it?
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12It would be cool if you uploaded enough you could earn free tv shows/movies
- babbling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12It still uses DRM.
- tomee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11BitTorrent said that?
- ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This vs. DVD
1) This is one-computer only, DVD is DVD-players, and any computer
2) This costs you your bandwidth, DVDs don't
3) This costs the same as a DVD.
I don't see what the incentive is to buy this way. And I don't see why someone is going to seed after they DL. What's the incentive? You already paid, and they aren't going to give you cheaper movies later... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8:::::::::So, they want me to contribute my bandwidth to help them move their product, letting them save money. Yet I'm still paying as much for a movie as I would be if I just bought it in a store? ::::::::::::::::
I completly agree.... I am *NOT* spending 15/20 bux on a movie, just to let it sit there in utorrent 'downloading' for 3 days....
I swear they are TRYING to make it fail, anytime they try to do anything internet related, they do something completly and utterly stupid like this. They are not paying for packaging / shipping / etc... so they should reflect that in the cost.
Why can't they comprehend that most people ARE willing to pay a decent price for a decent item.
::::::Attention *AA::::::
I am NOT willing to pay 20 dollars for a dvd movie that sucked too much for me to see in the theatre for nearly the same price.
I am NOT willing to pay 20 dollars for a movie that will take days to download, and be so crippled with C.R.A.P. (drm) that I cant watch it on my portable dvd player...
I am NOT willing to pay 15 to 20 dollars for AUDIO that will ruin my computer...
I am almost willing to drop 99 cents on a piece of crippled music that wont harm my computer.... make it run on any mp3 player i choose, or even the ability to burn to a standard cd for a cdplayer.. and bam... u got a deal.
I am willing to drop 2 bucks on a movie that takes days to download, and up to 5 on a movie with a constant and fast download speed, that I can buy and watch within 3 hours.
And I am NOT the only one that feels this way.... - PBoiIceBerg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I doubt we'll see this anytime soon, but I would prefer a one time viewing option for like $3. Especially, if they could implement a program for same day downloads of movies that have just gone into theaters.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8exactly
the only people who will pay for it is us and our ISP who will charge more if we all use too much bandwidth. The only reason broadband is as cheap as it is is because ISP's over sell there bandwidth in the hopes we don't all use as much as we can.
say they give you 40gb your average user will use about 1gb a month so they can sell your bandwidth 40 times. - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So isn't WB using Bittorrent to avoid upload costs, effectively "Stealing" bandwidth?
- Guy0510, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yes, they should be at a lower price point because their cost of manufacturing and distribution is less. I won't do it though until they remove the DRM. If I can't purchase a movie, burn it and watch it on different players then I'm not interested.
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I use between 60 - 80gb down a week (according to my ipcop router) so if they start charging on a metered system I'll be screwed.
- Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I agree, it's a good first step - however I hope if this doesn't wildly succeed (really - who from among the illegal pirates is going to suddenly jump at a chance to PAY for DRM-crippled video content when it's available for free now) it isn't taken as an explanation as to why the concept of online digital downloading can't work.
Digital downloads have to be more convenient than buying the dvd. If it costs the same...and you can't get it early...and you can't play it on other computers OR on a normal DVD player - who wants it? - navvvv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6they're charging you to download a film using other peoples bandwidth???
- mlkmnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I love this. Its obvious a DVD costs the movie companies more than something downloaded (by a significant margin), yet they price it the same anyway. For starters you have the manufacturing, ditribution, retailing, etc costs. Then there's the fact that with a DVD purchase you have the physical disk, its an archive, with a pretty packaging an extra features. To achieve the same finished product by downloading the downloader needs a PC, a dvd burner, software, knowledge, blank disks, time, etc. all paid for by the end user, not the movie companies.
This leads me to believe either:
A) The Studios are just plain ignorant about why people download. For me its not that downloading is "fun", the "hip new trend" and my preffered way to watch stuff. Its just that at the moment its costing me nothing but my bandwidth and I feel the cinema experience is overpriced and over-rated and DVDs are just a rip-off. I'm interested in legitimate movie downloads, but only if they're going to cost me in the region of $2-$3 dollars, especially when I will be having to bittorent them.
B)They want it to fail, price it high and then when the uptake rate is pathetic, say "at least we tried, the general public are theives, lets go back to suing the ass off them".
Dear lord let them see the light. What I'd go for is a $20 per month all you can eat download service for movies and tv programs, then they would have my money. And isn't that potential $20 a month better than the nothing they get off me now?
Oh, and as suggested make it HD, screw HD-DVD and BLU-RAY, those were both extremely old school even before their release. - ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They said nothing about "cheapish", they said DVD prices. That means that they don't have to pay for bandwidth, packaging, shipping, etc., and they still charge full price for a less-featured copy.
- coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It really is nice that they're stepping into the new medium, but It's really unfair that they can make us pay full price and essentially all we're getting is the film and they're not paying for anything, but If I want the DVD version of my old Goonies VHS, I have to pay full price.
- prab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Until they get these things right it won't take off.
1. Rewards for uploading
2. Quality at least a good as DVD
3. The ability to burn to at least one DVD.
4. Speed, have the download be able to start playing before it is done downloading. If I fan drive to buy it and be back before it can start playing, it looses lots of appeal. - synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Great move on Warner Bros part, definately a step in the right direction!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So if my computer crashes, and I have to re-install... I loose my entire movie collection? yeah thats a GREAT idea... especially for the nerdy folks like me that re-install windows every other month
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think I just heard Hell Freeze Over.
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Did you read the article? They said they will sell "permanent copies" allowing you to burn them to dvd - the catch that everyone commenting above you caught though, was that those dvds will only play in the computer you assigned using whatever DRM method they are going to choose.. it won't play in a regular dvd player.. maybe that's what you meant to say.
- Mads, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Indirectly. By saving WB money on bandwidth, ostensibly the price will go/stay down. Good for them, and good for you."
For the price of a DVD? - WB would normally blame bandwidth costs on having to keep the download artificially high. This method would cost them next to nothing, they fleece you £15 for a download that YOU are paying for in bandwidth (especially if your connection is capped as it is in the UK)
Is there any evidence to suggect that the download costs will come down? - yuriko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This kind of thing is not useless -- it's the future. Sure WB haven't got their pricing right - but at least they are moving forward and not being stubborn corporate pigs like some other big corporates who just continue to whinge and sue over piracy instead of embracing and experimenting with the digital revolution... it's here to stay so figure out a model that works, experiment and at least WB have begun to play!
- mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have a suspicion that they are doing it only for show off that they are doing something for techno consumers.
- MonkeyPhil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hmmm. So, this is aimed NOT at the people who think DVD's are too expensive, NOT at people with DVD players, but at the 5% (hmmm) of people who just love to bittorrent movies illegally or legally and are willing to pay the same price as for a nice DVD in a pretty box that you can just put in a DVD player with no DRM.
They need a better cost model...
Price = Min($5, DVD_shelf_price - DVD_production_cost - 20% - ($1 * (upload / download) ratio)) - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm game for this if they include the DVD box cover and the DVD lable that I can print out or lightscribe...
- XBackstabberX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3it would make sense for them to charge a lot less than the cost of a DVD, because they aren't paying for the disc, packaging, printing, distribution, or bandwidth for that matter.
- Trjn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just name the price.
Until then, we really can't say anything about this, although I'm really glad that a big name like Warner Bros is promoting BitTorrent. - boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Indirectly. By saving WB money on bandwidth, ostensibly the price will go/stay down. Good for them, and good for you.
- Edition, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If they only would of thought of this a couple of years back. But I really like the direction this is going.
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3$0.50 to $1 for a show is worth it if there isn't advertising attached
$5.00 a movie if there isn't any advertising attached
The reason is that they tend to suck so badly it's a waste to pay more, not because I obtain them in other ways. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"movies will be sold for about the price of buying a DVD"
A LOT of posters on digg have lapped this up at face value..... -_- DVD quality is far greater than the quality of downloaded material. Why aren't the savings passed on to the consumer? They don't have to manufacture and distribute a DVD, only pay for bandwidth. They must want more profit >< and like mlkmnz said above, might want it to fail. ***** they are greedy sons of bitches! - shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"TV shows could be priced as low as $1 and movies will be sold for about the price of buying a DVD, BitTorrent said."
DAMMIT!
Consumers need to stop paying the same price online as they would at a store for the actual media (ie: $1/song on itunes). Why pay WB to use your bandwidth and make millions of dollars when you can run to the store and get the DVD for the same price?
Also, online sales would make WB a higher sales percentage because none of the monies will go to companies like walmart/best buy for selling their movies.
Argh. - obiwankenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A pirates life for me!
- datagod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The price is foolishly high, given the following:
1. Hollywood needs seeders.
2. Hollywood needs our bandwidth.
3. We don't need their movies, since they are already out there for free.
4. DRM sucks.
For this to succeed, they need to charge about $1 per movie. Think of all the seeders and bandwidth that would be available if they sold the Matrix for $1, had NO drm, and was in very high quality! TONS and TONS.
I don't think they would not be hurting their traditional DVD sales, as 99.999% of movie purchasers DO NOT understand/use BitTorrent. They still buy their movies at Walmart, or rent them at BlockBuster. - shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ha! Welcome to corporate functionality.
- bytemaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think that they had to do something. Independent films are already starting to show up as legal downloads via bittorrent ( http://www.cactusesmovie.com ). Of course, it is free and doesn't have DRM, but hey, it wasn't on the big screen at your local theater where you could have saw it for $8 per person either.
- Drywall420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've only read the first few sentences but if it's going to cost as much as a DVD to download a movie what's my incentive?
- barata, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How about we sell the movie studios our bandwidth too!? I'm suggest we charge $1 per mb.
- jeromeerome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its great to see a major studio finally supporting BitTorrent as a means of legal distrobution for entertainment. If they use the latest codecs like H264 or MPEG4 to release their TV and movies they could push hi-quality videos over the web quickly and easily. I would love to see them support HD or near HD resolutions and blow iTunes 320x240 for $2 business model out of the water! Some podcasters like MacBreak are already offering 540p and 1080p videos of their shows via BitTorrent. Works well. Very fast downloads and amazing picture quality if you have a computer powerful enough to play it back.
- mlkmnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My last movie going experience (King Kong):
1)$28 for tickets for two of us
2)$64 for parking and food
3)20 mins of wasted time before hand with advertising
4)Extremely crappy sound from the speakers, sounded like the cones were blown, heavily distorted
5)Sore ass from poor seat over 3 hour film
Sorry, but I don't find that pleasant or value for money. I'd rather watch it on my couch, even if it is at a lower resolution. -
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is