Netflix Plans Movie Downloads

[Vanderlow]

Monday, 26 April 2004

Movie rental service Netflix plans to deliver movies via the Internet.
Money saved by sending movies directly to consumers' homes via the Web could be plowed back into buying more DVD titles to meet customer orders.

It is estimated that the service will have 5 million members paying $22 (£12) a month by 2006.

Another option would be to send digital movie files to existing set-top boxes like TiVo.

But delivering movies on-demand electronically will put Netflix in competition with some powerful, entrenched interests fighting for consumer and advertising dollars including cable and satellite TV operators and cable movie channels like HBO and Showtime.

Moreover, five of Hollywood's major studios have formed an online movie download service called Movielink, and a sixth studio, Lions Gate Entertainment, backs Web-based film provider, CinemaNow.


http://cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.asp?RelatedID=5384

[JohnnyCNote]

I'd be curious to see how this works out, and hopefully it won't be like Movielink, which has a very limited selection of mainly current movies. In that respect it's not much better than cable, satellite, or pay-per-view....

[paxromana]

It must be noted that Hastings has been consistently harassed by the Hollywood media monopoly. He is has been forced to negotiate larger royalty payments than Viacom Blockbuster and the other rental companies solely because he is NOT a member of the tribe.

On four specific occasions in the last 2 years, Wallstreet power brokers (all beholding to Hollywood and all elite members of the tribe) have falsely predicted Netlix's bankruptcy, and wrongly downrated its stock. When the stock split, they redoubled their efforts to destroy his company, so I have serious doubts whether Hastings can actually prevail in this new much needed venture.

IMHO, no non tribal member has much of a chance of ultimate success in marketing Hollywood's media products if they are not a member of the Hollywood pigopoly, and this is more the reason to support people like Hastings.

Here is more on Netflix's new plan.

""We're not interested in downloading to the computer," Hastings said, but rather expanding wireless connections in the home from a broadband Internet connection to the TV.

Another option would be to send digital movie files to existing set-top boxes like TiVo. TiVo CEO Mike Ramsey serves on the Netflix board.

"This is something we talk about all the time, when are there enough units out there and when are there enough (movie) rights," Hastings said.""

http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2004/04/23/rtr1345941.html

[gitreel]

It will probably make your computer explode twenty-four hours after downloading it. You know how quack valenti and his hollywood bafoons are. They would sell their own mothers if they could get away with it.

[glockjs]

i personally enjoy watching dvd's on my home system...surround sound (dolby or dts). on my comfortable couch vs an uncomfortable computer chair. and i actually enjoy watching extra's, previews with menu's and such. i wouldnt personally dub this download thing the wave of the future quite yet... but it'll be interesting to see how netflix does it, just might change my beliefs....but doubt it

[gitreel]

just like mission impossible....your computer will self destruct in ten seconds. Oh oh...time to reload winders....just kidding.

[RabidDog]

Well, even getting good speeds on 512k BB it would take a loooong time to download a movie of say 4.0gbs, and if you have a download cap then forget it! Also you can gtee the prce will be more than £12 in GB. NIce idea tho...how about they stick in some adverts or just make it another pay-tv channel??

[djelimon]

Well, even getting good speeds on 512k BB it would take a loooong time to download a movie of say 4.0gbs

what's the format?

[RabidDog]

wmv9.1 with full drm? probably..
Helix./ .Divx .possibly

[aero]

It will probably make your computer explode twenty-four hours after downloading it. You know how quack valenti and his hollywood bafoons are. They would sell their own mothers if they could get away with it.

Considering what everyone who copies films knows, which is, you do what you can get away with, Valenti has proven partially right. I don't say I like it, but any of us would do the same.

What they do is raise the legal and technology costs. if they didn't, they would be selling one copy of every film or broadcast it once and the whole planet would watch it for free.

sure they have been hamhanded, but even so, one can't expect them to lie down and give it away either.

Let's face it, it starts with "I bought the dvd and i want a copy in case I scratch it." fair enough. But we all know the rationalizations don';t end there. there are many people on this board who openly contest the idea of intellectual property.

There is a balancing point between a) the owners of the property being freaked out at the prospect of their rights being stolen on a wholesale level (as happned with music) due to their inability to understand (and parse) the threats and opportunities offered by technolgy and the rationaization and greed of some copyright violators; and the use of technology to bring product in new ways and still allow reasonable control by the owners. We aren't there yet but it will come.

you mentioned "explode." Here is my question: Would you feel ripped off if you paid to rent a streamed or dowloaded movie for two days and it did erase itself after two days?

[gitreel]

no but that is not the point. They are technically committing fraud. What they are saying is that when you bought the movie, you don't own it, you just bought a license to watch it. I totally disagree with you on the copying part. You must not have children. Things do happen. But their license argument is the same thing in the software industry, and they are committing fraud as well.

[SoCalMK]

Well, even getting good speeds on 512k BB it would take a loooong time to download a movie of say 4.0gbs, and if you have a download cap then forget it! Also you can gtee the prce will be more than £12 in GB. NIce idea tho...how about they stick in some adverts or just make it another pay-tv channel??

I really doubt that customers will have to download 4GB. They'll probably convert it into an xvid/divx type format.

[aero]

no but that is not the point. They are technically committing fraud. What they are saying is that when you bought the movie, you don't own it, you just bought a license to watch it. I totally disagree with you on the copying part. You must not have children. Things do happen. But their license argument is the same thing in the software industry, and they are committing fraud as well.

No offense but you write they are commiting fraud then write nothing to establish that assertion.

film transactions account of a tiny percentage of transactions invovling limited licence. you are rationalizing theft. if it makes you comfortable, fine. but don't try and sell it logically.

[gitreel]

no I am not rationalizing theft. If you bought something, you should do whatever you want with it. You paid for it. They are committing fraud, because joe blow thinks once he pays for that software or dvd movie that is his. The software and movie industry just states you bought a license to use that. The people are there to sell things, not licenses. I never said anything about theft. You are extremely closed minded on the subject. It is not theft when you pay for something. Pull your head out of your arse, and you might just realize that.

[aero]

no I am not rationalizing theft. If you bought something, you should do whatever you want with it. You paid for it. They are committing fraud, because joe blow thinks once he pays for that software or dvd movie that is his. The software and movie industry just states you bought a license to use that. The people are there to sell things, not licenses. I never said anything about theft. You are extremely closed minded on the subject. It is not theft when you pay for something. Pull your head out of your arse, and you might just realize that.

wow, you sound a bit childish there. If you don't have any idea how the legal system or markets work, fine, but you are making youself look more than stupid by stating things a five year old knows are false.

You bought a product under specific terms to use it in a certain way. if you don't like the terms or are too stupid to understand them, fine (indeed if you wish to cicumvent them, fine), but don't deny the terms.

you don't buy universal rights by renting or purchasing a product under copyright.

Dont confuse being to small to matter with being correct.

[gitreel]

i know more about copyright than you think I do, so I suggest you stfu. Copyright was never meant to be eternal. According to fair use, if you bought something, you could do whatever you wanted to with it. That is fact. You had the legal right to copy movies, when everything was analog. As long
as you did not profit from it, you could even legally make a copy of music and give it to your friends or relatives. So once again wtf is your point. You need to visit this link. Now you are being stupid.

http://www.boycottriaa.com/article/11921

[aero]

According to fair use, if you bought something, you could do whatever you wanted to with it. That is fact.

thanks for proving you haven't the slightest idea what copyright or "fair use" are. case closed. you are just making yourelf look iognorant of even the most basic issues.

[gitreel]

visit this link moron. stfu.

http://www.boycottriaa.com/article/11921

[gitreel]

House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:

"The recording industry has always maintained that home taping is illegal. The consumers and electronics industry have argued that home taping that is not for direct or indirect commercial advantage is not illegal. The ongoing dispute between the music industry, consumers and the electronics industry regarding the legality of home taping has left consumes [sic] in an undesirable position.

"To clear up this ambiguity, the reported legislation prohibits the brining [sic] of any copyright infringement suit based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital or analog audio recorder or medium, or the use of the recorder or medium to make copies. **In short, the reported legislation would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use.** The legislation does not insulate, for example, record piracy from lawsuits.

"As noted above, this prohibition of suits does not include spoken word recordings, certain computer programs and multimedia works."


Who is ignorant now, aero? u can stfu

[gitreel]

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
RECORDING v DIAMOND
June 15, 1999

"[10] In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose -- the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of[the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act."

[gitreel]

House Report on the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971
H.R. Rep. No. 487, 92d Cong,. 1st Sess. 1-19 (1971) at pages 7-8:

Home Recording

"In approving the creation of a limited copyright in sound recordings it is the intention of the Committee that this limited copyright not grant any broader rights than are accorded to other copyright proprietors under the existing title 17. Specifically, it is not the intention of [Congress] to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it. This practice is common and unrestrained today, and record producers and performers would be in no different position from that of the owners of copyright in recorded musical compositions over the past 20 years."

[aero]

again you just proved through your own citation your statment was wrong, you cant do anything you want.

just go open a tv sation and braodcast films you buy at wallmart. while you are whining that you "bought" it, we will all be laughing at you.

[gitreel]

u are such a friggin moron, the news even said you could make a copy for you friends or relatives.

[aero]

u are such a friggin moron, the news even said you could make a copy for you friends or relatives.

LOL!

[gitreel]

aero, lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. There is no way we are going to see eye to eye. My whole point was noncommercial personal copying is legal.

[Defcon]

Gitreel, don't even waste your time with this clown (aero)..... I think he works for the RIAA

[aero]

Gitreel, don't even waste your time with this clown (aero)..... I think he works for the RIAA

rkight and you keep on paying attention to the area 51 garbage the guy spouts. He thinks holograms are encryption.

[gitreel]

I do not you fool. I was just reporting on the latest so called copy protection method.

[aero]

I do not you fool. I was just reporting on the latest so called copy protection method.

You are a total fool for pasting some article writtren from a junk site stating that a package or media hologram is encryption

[mracer]

aero is an agent of the RIAA and the MPAA sent here by those organizations to spread lies and FUD over fair use of copyrighted material.

If he has his way your thoughts will be monitored so they can charge you $5 for remembering 10 seconds of a movie you saw last night and $20 for humming a Metallica riff you learned 10 years ago.

all your entertainment and thoughts are belong to us

AND YOU DAMN WELL BETTER PAY UP -MPAA -n- RIAA