Did 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.
I 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.
:::::::::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....
It's about time a major studio got with the program and realized that if they gave people the legal choice to download new releases into their home, where they're not overpaying for a seat next to a screaming child or a guy on his cell phone, the market would bite.In that regard, Steve Jobs should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for taking the chance on that business model first!
My last movie going experience (King Kong):1)$28 for tickets for two of us2)$64 for parking and food3)20 mins of wasted time before hand with advertising4)Extremely crappy sound from the speakers, sounded like the cones were blown, heavily distorted5)Sore ass from poor seat over 3 hour filmSorry, 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.
It makes sense they're using DRM. Otherwise they'd depend on the honor system to get their buck per download. It's a worthwhile mental exercise to think about how they could finance a movie in a non-DRM way. I think they could do this with a ransom model (<a class="user" href="http://www.theoretic.com/ransom,">http://www.theoretic.com/ransom,</a> <a class="user" href="http://www.danielsolis.com/meatbot/ransom.html)">http://www.danielsolis.com/meatbot/ransom.html)</a> by encrypting chunks of the movie with different keys, distributing the encrypted chunks, and collecting ransoms to publish the keys. I wonder whether they could make back $10**7 or $10**8 this way, since that's what it costs these days to make a typical movie. If they plan the production intelligently, they might be able to use the ransom statistics to determine that a movie is a bomb before fully investing in it.
isepicMay 9, 2006
Did 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.
barataMay 9, 2006
How about we sell the movie studios our bandwidth too!? I'm suggest we charge $1 per mb.
Closed AccountMay 9, 2006
They should give store credit for having a good share ratio.Oh, and remove the DRM. (Can't play on a regular DVD player? WTF!)
kbarrettMay 9, 2006
I 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.
Closed AccountMay 9, 2006
:::::::::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....
misterfuriousMay 9, 2006
It's about time a major studio got with the program and realized that if they gave people the legal choice to download new releases into their home, where they're not overpaying for a seat next to a screaming child or a guy on his cell phone, the market would bite.In that regard, Steve Jobs should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for taking the chance on that business model first!
mlkmnzMay 9, 2006
My last movie going experience (King Kong):1)$28 for tickets for two of us2)$64 for parking and food3)20 mins of wasted time before hand with advertising4)Extremely crappy sound from the speakers, sounded like the cones were blown, heavily distorted5)Sore ass from poor seat over 3 hour filmSorry, 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.
wwareMay 10, 2006
It makes sense they're using DRM. Otherwise they'd depend on the honor system to get their buck per download. It's a worthwhile mental exercise to think about how they could finance a movie in a non-DRM way. I think they could do this with a ransom model (<a class="user" href="http://www.theoretic.com/ransom,">http://www.theoretic.com/ransom,</a> <a class="user" href="http://www.danielsolis.com/meatbot/ransom.html)">http://www.danielsolis.com/meatbot/ransom.html)</a> by encrypting chunks of the movie with different keys, distributing the encrypted chunks, and collecting ransoms to publish the keys. I wonder whether they could make back $10**7 or $10**8 this way, since that's what it costs these days to make a typical movie. If they plan the production intelligently, they might be able to use the ransom statistics to determine that a movie is a bomb before fully investing in it.
sfacetsMay 11, 2006
This account has been closed by the user