digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warner Bros. to sell films via BitTorrent

msnbc.msn.com — Warner Brothers sees the light and embraces the best file trading system out there. Here's the link:

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • tomee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11BitTorrent said that?
    • keane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.bittorrent.com/2006-05-09-Warner-Bros.myt
    • rewritable, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Not interested until I can get newly released movies like Silent Hill or MI:III via legal bittorrent. At least its a start though.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Johndoe777, 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....
  • 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. :)
    • Johndoe777, 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
    • TeacherOfHeroes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@Johndoe

      Nerdy folk like you should be able to handle multiple partitions or physical drives when reinstalling your OS of choice.
  • 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!
    • 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.
  • 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?
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • 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?
  • synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Great move on Warner Bros part, definately a step in the right direction!
    • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah two steps forward, one step back (drm) ... they need to remove the one step backwards - I mean, people will decrypt or otherwise copy the normal DVD - why not sell the drm-less copies and let me burn to DVD AND play in an normal dvd player at home.
  • 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?
    • 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.
    • 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?
  • toosas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That gets my applause. A right thing to do, maybe we will see some interesting changes towards fighting piracy in the next couple of years. Much better than running around sueing everyone (riaa)
  • 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
    • 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...
    • shillbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They should give store credit for having a good share ratio.

      Oh, and remove the DRM. (Can't play on a regular DVD player? WTF!)
    • buckyboy314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My guess is that the client would automatically seed while you're watching in their proprietary player :-/.
  • 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.
  • navvvv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6they're charging you to download a film using other peoples bandwidth???
    • PBoiIceBerg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If it lowers the purchase price why not? But only if.
    • klang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3that is inherent in the BitTorrent system, yes. For people (like me) who don't have a bandwidth cap, it's actually the ISP that pay for the bandwidth, not me.

      Personally, I would rather have my downstream bandwidth maxed out, so the file is delivered fast. What the upstream bandwidth is used for is the price you pay for speed. When getting another linux distribution, the upstream bandwidth can be considered part of the price for the product.

      For people who have a capped plan; you chose that, choose another plan if you want to participate in the future.
    • lieb39, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not everyone has a choice about capped plans. In Australia, only very small companies offer a full unlimited uncapped plan - and that has it's down falls. The main companies such as Telstra, has a "unlimited" plan that caps at 10GB up AND down.
    • shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ha! Welcome to corporate functionality.
  • 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!
    • ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hope so, but I have a feeling it's an attempt to say "Hey, we tried to play this their way, and it failed. Obviously they're irredeemable pirates." I mean, there's no way this can work at these prices. Maybe that's deliberate.
    • shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the pricing is obviously deliberate... they're trying to make an insane margin by cutting down on packaging costs, using VERY LITTLE of their own bandwidth, and not having to share profites with retailers.

      boo.

      I bet if they just passed on the discounts from not sharing profits, packaging, or bandwidth the movies would be $5-$10, which is a reasonable BT download price for new releases.
  • barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12It would be cool if you uploaded enough you could earn free tv shows/movies
    • shillbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Damn, I said the same thing somewhere above before reading this far...
  • 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.
  • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So isn't WB using Bittorrent to avoid upload costs, effectively "Stealing" bandwidth?

    • 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.
    • 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.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The bandwidth is effectively a "hidden cost" of purchasing the movie. When you buy the movie, you're actually paying less than you would for the actual good itself because part of that cost has been offset by the amount of bandwidth you contribute.

      Think about it this way: full length downloadable movie without bandwidth sharing, $30, DRMed to hell and back. full length downloadable movie with bandwidth sharing, cheapish ($5?), allowed to be burned to DVD for storage. Which is a better deal is totally up to you, I'm personally going to continue renting DVDs.
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • klang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yes, yes .. I can see a reduction in price because of savings on theese accounts.. NOT
  • fodi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm in 2 minds about this one. I love torrents (sharing, weee) but if I'm paying I'd prefer the option to download direct.
  • Syntaxis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well I'd certainly be using it if they provide the stuff in DVD format with subtitles in multiple languages. At least in English, preferably in German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Dutch etc. too, perhaps optionally. Either way - it could work. As long as they don't go overboard with lame attempts at "security" (ie: "so we can't copy the files and distribute them ourselves") - that will inevitably happen anyway.
  • 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?
    • ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2IT'S ON TEH INTERNETS!1!11!!!

      Honestly, it's a lot worse than DVDs, and it'll sell horribly. But they don't realize that or care.
  • 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))
  • syko21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If they had it for half the price of DVD's with lets say a 2 dollar option to make it burnable that would probably be ideal for everybody. They save a bunch on distribution, album art, burning the dvd themselves, and all the niceties you get on a purchased dvd, so why not pass the savings along?
  • Danathar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Quality Quality Quality...


    If they are going to offer movies at RETAIL prices they had better (at the LEAST) be as good in video and audio quality as regular standard DVD's.

    If they want to PULL people from downloading they should offer Hi-Def movie quality.
  • Pimptastic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now they just have to hope people will seed. A good idea would be the more you seed the less you pay per movie.
    • Elohir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's a completely intuitive and worthwhile idea, unfortunately people like this rarely go in for positive reinforcement strategies. I'd imagine it much more likely that they'd force you to use a bespoke (and probably fairly awful) tool for downloading, viewing and force you to upload within their restrictions - i.e. residing permanently as a startup app, disabling it violates Terms Of Service, etc etc.
  • 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.
    • kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I love the idea of the bit torrent downloads. But I don't think anything will ever replace the 'experience' of going to the movies. It's an 'experience' which I don't happen to think is overrated at all.
    • 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.
  • rtphokie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Best" system? I disagree. I prefer multiconnection USENET personally. I can get content much faster than bittorrent that way. Bittorrent is probably the most efficient but "best" is in the eye of the beholder.
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • redbanktom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Deals like this may end up being the best way to push Net Neutrality. If Warner wants to distribute content via bittorent then they will want to make sure that the telcos are not throttling back bandwidth. With Apple building in torrent functionality into the next release of their OS and more media companies embracing distribution via torrent or direct streaming then we may actually see a point where the market itself could enforce Net Neutrality.

    As a side note, another way to push for Net Neutrality is to get involved locally. Ask your local town council to make AT&T and Verizon address Net Neutrality when they come to your town and ask to be a cable TV provider. We’re trying that in our town: http://www.redbanktv.org
  • kevbryant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This equates to if PirateBay just started chargin for their torrent links. Retarded. And of course only the newest and extremely popular movies and shows will be seeded enough not to take 5 days to get. Bittorent blows unless you want something that came out that day or that the whole world wants non stop. and WHY would I pay for a torrent when more than likely the SAME torrent is out there for free.

    All of you who say this is a "step in the right direction" so what. Its all baby steps. It costs too much, bittorrent is flawed and horrible for on demand downloading. I can't wait to spend five days downloading a show because it isn't a sci fi show or 24...oh wait, Im not gonna. And Im certainly not going to PAY for it.

    Ooh, but I could go watch it through a web browser if its brand new! yay! Thanks to all of these companies who pussy foot around. Go ahead and waste all your money coming up with these little control-freak methods of distribution. In the end you're gonna dammit lose. You can't beat a market that gives it away.

    Look at itunes. why is it so sucessful? Because though it may be about the same price as cds (sometimes lower, sometimes higher depending on if you buy a la carte.) At the end of the day, what I buy on itunes I can listen to anywhere I want. The drm doesn't stop me from putting that stuff on a standard cd and taking it where ever the hell I want (including right back into my pc to rerip for drm free)
    • shillbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Heh... reripping introduces generation loss, sucker! :p
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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...
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hellsadvocate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think I just heard Hell Freeze Over.
  • 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.
    • rileyjt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Baby steps. I know pricing them the same as a DVD is ridiculous, but simply having a major studio releasing media through a torrent is actually a big step. The TV episodes for $1 actually sounds like a decent deal. As they become more comfortable with it, they will start exploring other pricing structures.

      Keep in mind the main reason they have been so gunshy about this form of distribution is because it undermines the retail distributors like Walmart. Conversion to online distribution is going to be a slow process.
  • dignick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lol. They should employ pirates to advise them if they want this to work, instead of getting them arrested, 'guns drawn'; because they obviously can't figure it out.
  • ccisat1dxj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How about this: An entertainment company is formed with the intent to give GREAT movies away for FREE. Sound impossible? Here is the model, which is already happening, just not publicized yet: A hip producer(s) and a hip advertiser(s) produce compelling stories with embedded ads (and I dont mean the exaggerated star drinking a Coke everywhere within the movies seens) but more realistic embedding of products, services, and brands. They give away the digital movies online FREE, and if you must have a hard copy you are merely charged for shipping and media cost (about $3). Anyone have an interest in that? I do. Feel free to email me at DavidJemeyson@ClearChannel.com
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Congratulations, you've got spam!

      That'll learn you to post your full email address on message boards...

      As for your idea, there's no way show scripts could be made flexible enough to incorporate random ad placement for all companies. In the end, you're just going to make shows and movies suck ass, and people are going to just switch to indie content and video games, as they are now.
  • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hate these download services. They think they can go and charge customers the EXACT SAME amount that they would pay anyway for something that usually has lower quality and doesn't come as a physical copy which will outlast your HD or anything burned. Now they're also going to be using the bandwidth of the sheep that buy their movies and not even paying for all of the distribution on that end. It's just ridiculous!
  • MattH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Peer Impact offers users a system credit for re-distributing content over their closed managed p2p network .Peer Impact will have Movies and Video from NBCUniversal in the near future .They currently sell Music and games over their p2p network

    The tech community and early adapters will not let their upstream bandwidth to be used without some sort of incentive.

    http://www.peerimpact.com

    • instabil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Seemed interesting until I saw the system requirements: "Windows XP/2000"

      Just great.

  • 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.
  • DiggerTheDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A step in the right direction but...personally, I've bought very few movies costing over 10 dollars. It's just not worth it to me to pay $15 to $20 when I can go to a real cinema and enjoy the huge screen and big sound.

    Count me out if they are > $10 and I'd bet that many people feel the same.
  • alf86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They are so close, yet so very far. They just don't get it. This will flop in the proposed system. They probably think that since people are willing to download lower quality, we are willing to pay as much as a regular DVD for it. Its just over charging for a movie of lower quality, and no bonus stuff, that can only be viewed on their terms.

    This will fail and they will think its because people don't want it. "People don't want to pay to download movies. They want to keep stealing from us." No, we don't mind paying, we just don't want to be ripped off. When this flops we won't see it again for a long time. Why can't they just get it right? It could be a huge success. Maybe they don't want it to be.
  • obiwankenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A pirates life for me!
  • AngryPenguin47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds like all they have to do is put someone who knows something about technology in charge of creating these sort of services instead of letting the Yes-men create these things using focus groups, polls, and their "gut feeling" for what the market wants. A bunch of bumbling idiots. We can complain all we want about this stuff on digg and other sites, but the fact is that these money grubbers aren't going to listen, even though we are telling them EXACTLY what we want.

    One of us should create insanely successful services based directly on the business models outlined by digg members in the comments section, this *****'s gold, simply for the purpose of blowing these ***** away on their own playing field. Welcome to the real world......bitch.
  • barata, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How about we sell the movie studios our bandwidth too!? I'm suggest we charge $1 per mb.
  • leohart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Verizon: "Dear Warner Bro, your latest attempt to distribute your movie on the internet has incurred an extra cost on your internet connection bill due to a recently passed bill"
    Warner Bro: "Dear customer, to recoup our increased cost, we are going to charge you more"
    Customer: "What did I do?"
    Me: "You didn't do what you need to. Stop that stupid bill."
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1at least their intelligence is increasing slightly from douchebags to.. just plain douches
  • zeeta6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1weren't they already doing that =P
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.