Internet Movies Before DVD release

[BJ_M]

"Actor Morgan Freeman and Intel are starting a company that will sell movies over the Internet before they are released to DVD. "We're going to bypass what the music industry had to come up with, and that's to get ahead of the whole piracy thing," Freeman told reporters at Sun Valley after making his presentation, which was closed to the press."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_en_mo/intel_movie_downloads;_ylt=ArSDbPND9Fj...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl




Wouldn't this just make it easier to pirate movies?

[waheed]

Wouldn't this just make it easier to pirate movies?

Maybe. Especially when movies will be released:

sometimes even on the day of their theatrical release

It doesn't mention what format it will be in.

[Xylob the Destroyer]

I read something about this a few months ago...
I don't think it'll fly -- especially the whole deal with releasing movies on the day of their theatrical release. Seriously now, what studio is gonna buy into this idea? It costs between $6 and $10 per person (depending on where you live, average is $8.50 here) to go to a theatre and watch a movie.
How much will they charge to download it? I doubt people will pay much more than what the price of a ticket would be, AND, what's to stop me from downloading it and then having 10 people over to watch it with me (all for the price of only one "admission")?

[thecoalman]

How much will they charge to download it? I doubt people will pay much more than what the price of a ticket would be, AND, what's to stop me from downloading it and then having 10 people over to watch it with me (all for the price of only one "admission")?

What your not taking into consideration is all the expense asasociated with distributing the movie. Theatre expenses, etc. Not only that your cutting out all the middlemen, I've oftened wondered why music groups haven't embraced this themselves especially ones that are already established since the publicity provided by company's such as Sony is no longer a huge factor.

I think in the future your going to see this and many other things like it. Those that don't are going to get left behind.

[Xylob the Destroyer]

...What your not taking into consideration is all the expense asasociated with distributing the movie. Theatre expenses, etc. Not only that your cutting out all the middlemen...

good points
this would even reduce/eliminate some post-productions expenses (especially with more & more movie-makers using digital cameras) such as trasnferring to the various sizes of film for all the different theatres/projectors or even putting it on film at all.

[BJ_M]

theaters only use 1 size of film and projection setup for standard theatrical releases .. even for different audio formats - they are all on the same film 4 perf 35mm


only a few studios are using digital cameras yet -- though for scan or cine to digital - if not HD, the cost is pretty low ..

[leebo]

My guess is WMV. Thats the only format I've heard the studios trust.

As for me, as much as I USED to love going to the movies, I now have to pay over $10, pay for parking, and then hunt for parking once I return home. So for me to go to a theater these days it had better be a huge production. I'd pay to download movies IF, and it's a big if, the viewing period is long enough. Screw this 24 hour thing Movielink does. They could start the clock once you're like 15 minutes into the movie.

For something like WOTW I'd still want to go to a theater.

[whitejremiah]

i hope (though i KNOW this wont happen) that they release them in divx/xvid/some other non DRM'ed to heck and back format........i dont quite like the whole pay per view idea...or the divx rental idea either (im a busy person, i have NO idea when i will be able to watch a movie.......sometimes i only watch one movie in a month, sometimes i watch five in a week..it all depends) If they did actually use a non drm'ed form, i would DEFINATELY go for it, even at ten bux a download...because then i could watch it whenever i wanted to and heck, even dvdr it and watch it on a tv properly.

[leebo]

If they did actually use a non drm'ed form, i would DEFINATELY go for it, even at ten bux a download....

Then maybe you could email a copy to me ; )

[thecoalman]

If they did actually use a non drm'ed form, i would DEFINATELY go for it, even at ten bux a download....

Then maybe you could email a copy to me ; )

A 1.5 hour movie compressed to 2-5 MB's should look great. :P

Probaly look great with no Macroblocking if it follows in the footsteps of this: https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=273599

[painkiller]

But there have been instances of movies that were direct-to-video before.
I've seen them on the rental store shelves (noting that I never saw that title advertised before for theater release).

So why should this be any different?

Even so, I think the real competition is with the dvd mail rentals (Netflix and others).

Having a price point below $20 per month and renting upwards of 3 dvds with no penalty for late returns (by mail yet) - that is pretty hard to beat.

The sensible consumer will know which is their better deal.

Netflix-type rentals or d/l - whichever is convenient for them.

[junkmalle]

What your not taking into consideration is all the expense asasociated with distributing the movie. Theatre expenses, etc. Not only that your cutting out all the middlemen.

That's not the way the movie industry thinks. They want additional income, not to eliminate the middlemen to provide you with a cheaper product. The way they'll do this is to provide downloads at prices just as high as theater tickets. That way the only people they sell to are those who wouldn't or couldn't take the time to go to the theater anyway.

[thecoalman]

What your not taking into consideration is all the expense asasociated with distributing the movie. Theatre expenses, etc. Not only that your cutting out all the middlemen.

That's not the way the movie industry thinks. They want additional income, not to eliminate the middlemen to provide you with a cheaper product. The way they'll do this is to provide downloads at prices just as high as theater tickets. That way the only people they sell to are those who wouldn't or couldn't take the time to go to the theater anyway.

Well if they charge an arm and a leg, guaranteed they are going to fall flat on there face. As I see it this is the future of home entertainment, if prices are too high and piracy is negated they'll have no choice but to lower the prices because there won't ne enough people to afford it.

[junkmalle]

What your not taking into consideration is all the expense asasociated with distributing the movie. Theatre expenses, etc. Not only that your cutting out all the middlemen.

That's not the way the movie industry thinks. They want additional income, not to eliminate the middlemen to provide you with a cheaper product. The way they'll do this is to provide downloads at prices just as high as theater tickets. That way the only people they sell to are those who wouldn't or couldn't take the time to go to the theater anyway.

Well if they charge an arm and a leg, guaranteed they are going to fall flat on there face. As I see it this is the future of home entertainment, if prices are too high and piracy is negated they'll have no choice but to lower the prices because there won't ne enough people to afford it.

"future of home entertainment", yes but not for several years yet.

Actually the real future will be subscription pricing. For $20 a month you'll be able to watch just about any movie every made any time you want. There will be no reason to keep your own collection. The music industry will do the same but at $5 a month.

[thecoalman]

Actually the real future will be subscription pricing. For $20 a month you'll be able to watch just about any movie every made any time you want. There will be no reason to keep your own collection. The music industry will do the same but at $5 a month.

I've been saying that for years, ever since I saw my first internet video coming across Real Player back in 97 or so. I said it then and everyone thought I was nuts, some still do. 8)

[Xylob the Destroyer]

it will be a while, broadband still only has about a 50% market penetration in the US, much less than that elsewhere.
whereas many cable and satellite providers are now offering such an 'on-demand' service for movies and television shows & it's "free" (so long as you're already shelling out for digital service).

[BJ_M]

it will be a while, broadband still only has about a 50% market penetration in the US, much less than that elsewhere.
whereas many cable and satellite providers are now offering such an 'on-demand' service for movies and television shows & it's "free" (so long as you're already shelling out for digital service).

If it wasnt so expensive in some countries - more countries would have broadband ...



Definition: Broadband access per 100 population


Country Description Amount
1. Canada 6.2 per 100 people
2. Sweden 4.1 per 100 people
3. United States 3.2 per 100 people
4. Netherlands 2.7 per 100 people
5. Austria 2.4 per 100 people
6. Belgium 2.3 per 100 people
7. Denmark 2.3 per 100 people
8. Japan 1.1 per 100 people
9. Germany 1 per 100 people
10. Switzerland 0.8 per 100 people
11. Finland 0.7 per 100 people
12. Norway 0.7 per 100 people
13. Australia 0.6 per 100 people
14. France 0.6 per 100 people
15. New Zealand 0.5 per 100 people
16. Italy 0.4 per 100 people
17. United Kingdom 0.3 per 100 people

[thecoalman]

If it wasnt so expensive in some countries - more countries would have broadband ...

I'm shelling out nearly $50 a month for broadband advertiised as 4000/400 but is usually 3000/800 . Not extremely expensive considering the upload speed but if I didn't need it I'd probably still be on dial-up.

[BJ_M]

here i get 4000/400 for $40CND , about $35 US

still cheap(er) compared to a lot of other countries .


Now that the powerline thing is happening -- the compitition between PL, DSL , Cable should drive prices down ..

[thecoalman]

Now that the powerline thing is happening -- the compitition between PL, DSL , Cable should drive prices down ..

That's one of the problem's here ther is no competion. It's either pay the cable company or no broadband. The phone company offers DSL in some areas where I'm at but it's almost the same price and not nearly as fast as the cable.

[CrisCr0ss]

we only have shaw/rogers/sympatico as the big players i use sympatico dsl i get 3000/800 and im happy although i could use rogers 5000/800 but then that dl limit is gay.

[thecoalman]

we only have shaw/rogers/sympatico as the big players i use sympatico dsl i get 3000/800 and im happy although i could use rogers 5000/800 but then that dl limit is gay.

I have no limits on anything, that's pretty much the norm in the U.S. The only thing I'm not allowed to do is set up a server which is kind of vague. Doesn't really state what, such as if you wanted to set up a game server. I'd imagine they monitor your account for activity that would point towards it being used as public server for something like a website. Wouldn't be very practical anyway because the IP isn't static, chnages as soon as the modem is rebooted.

[BJ_M]

we only have shaw/rogers/sympatico as the big players i use sympatico dsl i get 3000/800 and im happy although i could use rogers 5000/800 but then that dl limit is gay.

you have about 40 companies in Toronto you can pick from for DSL - many do not have any caps ..

rogers is 60GB a month - thats not so bad, sympatico has no caps

[Tidy]

I have 8Mbps/512Kbps and I pay around 90 a month or so. if I had a download limit every month i would die. I download well over 200GB a month.

[dcsos]

Morgan Freeman better call your ISP and have a word with 'em!

Seriously:
this is great... its iTunes for the eyes...
Especially if they keep the model "you can keep it 'forever' on the machine(s)
its authorized on"
This beats the offerings to date by a signifcant amount of yardage
Video On Demand up until now is like
"this tape will self destruct in 7 seconds"
remember mission impossible?
Microsoft DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT? great if you fancy handcuffs..

I think this could be a step in the right direction!

[bbrevolt]

The movie industry won't be interested in a cheaper product for us. Even though their costs would plummet if they released it for sale on the internet they still would not lower the price. It would still cost you about $20 to own the movie or $10 to "rent it".
The won't learn from the music industries mistake which was: The music industry had about 10 songs on a cd for bout $10 bucks. So they figured, hey we will eliminate virtually all costs and charge the consumer the same amount, they are idiots, they won't even notice. So they sold their "music" for 99c a piece.
If only they would learn...