Print 68 comment(s) - last by Drexial.. on Nov 29 at 11:44 AM

IBM's plans make some fans of rental movies queasy

You microwave your popcorn, you curl up on your couch and you fire up the latest DVD release, hot out of your local movie rental joint.  As the story begins to take off, all of a sudden the movie freezes.  There is no more movie, just a blaring commercial filling your screen.  You blink in confusion, wondering what just happened.  You reach for the remote, but you cannot fast forward through this commercial.  Only after a few long moments does your movie resume.  Over the course of the movie, you are forced to endure this process multiple times.

This is the concept behind a new patent application from IBM, which is either a genius business ploy or maniacally evil abuse of the consumer, depending on how you choose to look at it.

The patent details a scheme where the user could rent and purchase movies at either a standard rate, with commercial interruption, or pay a few extra dollars to avoid the annoyances.  When a DVD is inserted into a player, the player will automatically check if it is commercial-loaded or commercial-free.  If it is the commercial-loaded version it will either play embedded ads on the disc over the course of the movie, or connect to the internet to download new ads to embed in real-time into the film.

Though not exactly trumpeted by IBM, the patent, if granted could seriously shake up the movie industry.

Could the result be a miracle or would it be a disaster for all parties involved?  The possible results from such a technology could be a very intriguing observation on human behavior, and the mindset of the average modern consumer. 

On the one hand it could be a win-win situation for consumers and the film business.  Movie studios could make a bit of much needed extra cash from advertisers or customers willing to pony up the extra fee for the ad-free content.  Consumers might like it as they might be able to save a couple of dollars on the versions with ads, and it might not be worse than watching a tv show, if properly timed.  Imagine renting new movies for $2.99 instead of $3.99 -- it is attractive proposition, despite the downsides.  And movie studios could elect to front-load the advertisements, as is done in the theater to make sure the consumer sees them, but to provide less interruption.

On the other hand it could be seen as intrusive, and greedy in the consumer eyes and cut into sales and rentals, erasing any potential profit gains.  Movie studios could implement the feature sloppily and ruin the watcher's experience and turn them off.  They could also elect to ad commercials to releases of the current price and only have a higher priced version without them.  And advertising companies might get poor reception from consumers who go to their fridge to get a soda or beer whenever the commercial comes on.

This technology poses a question similar to Fox and NBC's buzz-generating free TV episode online service, detailed at DailyTech, which includes embedded ads, similar to a traditional TV broadcast.  However this technology goes one step further, by seeking to introduce ads into a niche they did not typically occupy. How these technologies, and others, such as Walgreen's new DVD burning kiosks, will effect the lives of movie lovers is yet to be seen, but it almost certain that they will bear an effect.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By aharris on 11/27/2007 11:42:07 AM , Rating: 5
Hate it. I rent DVDs so I don't have to endure the cheesy commercials that plague TV.

RE: ...
By retrospooty on 11/27/2007 11:46:26 AM , Rating: 5
It will really suck if they lock out menu functions so you cant skip it, like some do with the FBI warning and launch screens.


RE: ...
By erikejw on 11/27/2007 12:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure this move will further increase the huge trust we already have in the movie industry :))

When they hunt down 12 year olds and threaten to sue them for millions. Well kid, you cough up 10k$ or we'll sue you for millions.

RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 11/27/2007 3:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
I can stand the FBI warning and the launch screens. But I refuse to have commercials in the middle of my DVD movies. Otherwise you're just paying separately to watch more TV.

RE: ...
By hrah20 on 11/27/2007 9:34:49 PM , Rating: 3
This will further help Piracy, I will not tolerate this, if something like this happens when I bought a dvd, expect me to start ripping those movies to my hard drive JUST to take the security out of it !!!

RE: ...
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/27/2007 11:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
So I'm expected to think I'm getting a deal from this? To save a lousy buck I have to sit thru commercials that I can't even FF on my rented DVDs? My question is, will this be offered as a discounted DVD to purchasers, or are they going to jack up the cost of "non-commercial" DVDs and you'll pay the regular rate for those with commercials? Either way, this is pure crap, and I can only hope that it never sees the light of day.


RE: ...
By AstroCreep on 11/27/2007 12:40:38 PM , Rating: 3
First IBM provides equipment and service to Nazi Germany, now this...
What has this world come to?

RE: ...
By eman7613 on 11/27/2007 12:59:08 PM , Rating: 4
godwins law....

RE: ...
By 3kliksphilip on 11/27/2007 12:58:35 PM , Rating: 5
Of course, people who pirate movies don't have to put up with any of this stuff.

RE: ...
By exanimas on 11/27/2007 4:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
And if something like this does become mainstream, the revenue they'd gain from the advertisement will be lost on the customer's who've had enough of this type of crap and switch to piracy.

RE: ...
By darkpaw on 11/27/2007 9:36:05 PM , Rating: 3
Which is typical, honest people like myself get bent over by DRM and other crazy schemes that have zero impact on pirates.

I've just about given up on PC gaming due to the insanely intrusive DRM schemes. I refuse to pirate, but I can chose just not to buy at all.

RE: ...
By ADDAvenger on 11/27/2007 1:20:17 PM , Rating: 1
Definately, but at the same time I wouldn't be opposed to putting ads in DVDs where the previews normally are in theaters. That wouldn't interfere with the actual movie, it would get me a cheaper movie, and my mute button works great, thank you very much.

RE: ...
By Moishe on 11/27/2007 2:03:59 PM , Rating: 5
Why would you be willing to put up with more crap?

See what we're getting is less control for PAID content.

That's the rub. I have the intrusive TV popups, but at least it's all free. When I rent or buy a movie I expect to be able to skip the garbage and get right down to business. This concept is smart on IBM's part... they're not the jerks, they're just making sure they will have future income by building their patent portfolio.

The real problem will be if the MPAA decides that they can fleece their current PAYING customers. This is not an enforcement solution, it doesn't stop piracy, and it only hurts those who are legally paying for the product. I don't pirate, but having this as my only option would make me instantly go buy AnyDVD and CloneDVD and every movie I would rent or buy would be "pirated" so that I could watch my own movies the way I want.

When it comes right down to it consumers would have four choices:
1.) stop watching movies (consumer loses entertainment)
2.) accept the ads (consumer loses control)
3.) pay extra $$ for a movie w/o ads (consumer loses money)
4.) pirate (consumer is a criminal)

The consumer loses in all scenarios. If I'm going to be treated like a criminal, I may as well just be a criminal and get something out of it.

RE: ...
By JKflipflop98 on 11/27/2007 2:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
You, Sir, win the smartest post of the day.

You know what really scares me? How some people are already bending over in anticipation for this crap.

RE: ...
By Alexstarfire on 11/27/2007 6:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
It is a smart post, but even so it would only affect me a little. Even if I bought a movie that had the ads, more than likely I'd just use DVD Shrink to get rid of them or at least let me be able to skip them.

If they want them cheaper that way, then fine by me. I'm not gonna be watching the commercials on the DVD either way.

If I ended up being forced to watch them, then they would no longer be getting my money. Why would I pay twice to watch TV?

RE: ...
By numbnuts on 11/27/2007 8:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
But you are forgetting that MPAA is pushing for the closing of the "Fair Use" loop-hole and the banning of copying your own DVDs on to any other media (ie re-burning to another DVD w/o the ads, or to your hard disk and streaming) .. so you still become a criminal.

RE: ...
By Alexstarfire on 11/28/2007 12:14:21 AM , Rating: 2
Well, then I guess I'll either be a criminal, but who isn't these days, or they won't get my money. I don't usually buy DVDs anyways. So many of them are crap. I mean, if you can only stand to watch a movie once then it's pretty bad.

RE: ...
By ADDAvenger on 11/27/2007 10:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
The article was vague on whether we'll be charged more for ad-less movies, or simply pay more relative to the ad supported versions.

If they jack up prices on adless movies just so they can make us think we're getting a discount by going ad supported, I'll scream right alongside you.

But, if adless movies stay the same price, and ad supported rentals come in at a buck less, I would be perfectly fine with that.

RE: ...
By Moishe on 11/28/2007 9:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
I hear you, BUT I see this as just a temporary method to get into our wallets and then jack the price. They simply introduce "cheaper" movies with ads and wait until you get used to it then raise the price of the adless movies. But one way or another you're still paying .

It's easy to raise a price from $1 to $2. it's more difficult to raise it from $0 to $1 because what was free (paid for by ads) is not still paid for by ads, and no longer free. I'm against any entertainment where I pay and am still forced to watch commercials.

RE: ...
By omnicronx on 11/27/2007 1:41:07 PM , Rating: 1
Well i like it! If they keep current DVD prices the same and have a low cost rental with advertisements, you have nothing to complain about. Its not like they are taking away the option of having commercial free movies. Maybe if the movie industry does this, they can stop whining about pirating, as this could shoot profits through the roof.

So before you bash the idea, realize that this really wont effect you, it sounds like it will be aimed (if its ever implemented) towards those who want cheaper rentals.

Of course if they start charging more for non commercial rentals, I would be a bit pissed, but that will only drive people to downloading more movies.. so once again I really doubt this would happen.

RE: ...
By Spivonious on 11/27/2007 2:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
If I want commercials during a movie, I'll just wait for it to be shown on TV. If I'm paying for a product I expect to get the product and nothing more. Commercials ruin the flow of a movie. I wouldn't be surprised if directors and others involved in the film-making process (creatively) are outraged over this.

RE: ...
By omnicronx on 11/27/2007 2:47:41 PM , Rating: 3
And if I knew your comment totally disregarded everything I just said, then i would not have wasted my time reading it..

If this model ever comes to life, there will be two tiers. Non commerical rentals, and commercial rentals. Normal rentals should remain the same price, where as if one wants a cheaper rental, they have the 'choice' of renting the commercial version for a dollar or two cheaper. Notice how the keyword here is choice ...

Everyone on this forum is overreacting to something that will not effect them in the slightest, as the majority of you obviously prefer commercial free content (then again who doesn't). As long as I do not have to pay a premium for commercial free movies, I could not care less how others view their movies.

RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 11/27/2007 3:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
As long as it was a choice between which version you get, I would be fine with it. But if that became the version the movie studios required rental companies to rent, I would be pissed. And I could see the MPAA doing it.

RE: ...
By sviola on 11/27/2007 3:18:08 PM , Rating: 4
I think you're being naive here. EA did add ads to BF2140 (not sure of the year, but I know it's in the future) and the game had no reduction in price...still was $50 at launch.

Do you think movie studios will lower pricing (remember Sony is a big player in the movie market and they stripped the PS3 of the EE and still charged the same price of the PS3 with it)?

It's much more probable that they'll increase the price of the non-ad version.

RE: ...
By omnicronx on 11/27/2007 4:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
I find it funny how you all compare the big bad 'MOVIE INDUSTRY' or even the gaming industry with that the movie rental industry. And who is 'They' anyways?

Of course if the MPAA controlled the rental business I would be afraid of dramatic price increases, but the fact remains they really dont. Movie rentals are at an all time low, the chances licensing prices for movies raising significantly is very small because of this.

Amazingly the MPAA has no authority on pricing other than licensing fees, so what do they have to do with it? Companies like blockbuster will set their pricing to remain competitive, as they now have the competition of movie pirating and Movies on Demand.

It just does not make good business sense for a company like blockbuster to raise their prices (more than inflation) especially when as many of you noted, the reason you rent videos is because they do not contain commercials. Unless they plan on shooting themselves in the foot, I do not see this coming any time soon.

I am not even going to counter the video game comment,
compare apples to apples, or have some sort of relevance linking the two. Did EA make two different versions and charge more for the non commercial version?
Theres no reason to bring in commercial rentals at the current rental price point, its just not going to happen not anytime soon at least.
When people stop renting movies, this may become a possibility as it will be a necessity to stay in business.

As for the ps3, There was NOT a ps3 at the 399 pricepoint before the 40G model came out, the lowest price before the 40gig release was 499.

RE: ...
By Drexial on 11/29/2007 11:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
2 days late but i dont care

Movie studios could make a bit of much needed extra cash from advertisers or customers willing to pony up the extra fee for the ad-free content.

do you see anything in there about the rental company? and the words "EXTRA FEE" for the ad-free version?

granted this is still all speculation.

RE: ...
By JKflipflop98 on 11/27/2007 2:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
Thats just the thing - back here in reality, studio executives are greedy asshats. The cost will never, ever go down. The cost of the "premium" commercial-free media will go up. Guaranteed.

RE: ...
By omnicronx on 11/27/2007 2:59:55 PM , Rating: 1
The cost of the "premium" commercial-free media will go up. Guaranteed.
Now thats a big 'guarantee', you should open a big box store.. While normally i would agree with you,

Video stores are struggling in sales compared to what they used to be, and it is only going downhill. Most of the time, raising prices on already inflated prices for a product that is on the decline is not a good idea. Video stores need a way to bring people in, not scare them away.

Having cheaper rentals has the potential to do this, where as raising prices on products that the majority of people rent does not. Even with the higher margins, I really doubt they would see any higher profits.

Although i do agree 'eventually' they could raise the profits through the roof, that will probably be so far down the road that Video on Demand will have taken over the movie market by then.

RE: ...
By wallijonn on 11/27/2007 4:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
If they keep current DVD prices the same and have a low cost rental with advertisements, you have nothing to complain about.

Unless you're the person doing the rental. Do you really think that Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, Netflix, et. al. will even bother buying commercial free movies to rent if they can save money buying the cheaper commercial laced DVDs?

I hate cable, I do not have cable, I pay $16 a month to rent from Hollywood Video. I learned a long time ago that I do not need cable TV. If they throw in commercials I will probably find that I no longer need to rent movies. If they raise the price of commercial free DVDs beyond what I am willing to pay now (everyone has a ceiling they are not willing to cross) then I just won't buy them. How many times have you paid $22.98 for a movie only to see it go down to $9.99 a few months later?

I now refuse to buy DVDs that have Full Screen and WS versions on the same disc or movies that are recorded on a single disc (Freightners, $7.50, WalMart). I refuse to buy Disney movies because they usually have over 20 minutes of trailers. Now they're (DVD movies) starting with fast food restaurant tie-ins.

I figure that if someone starts a rumour that Blue-Ray or HD-DVD has signed on to carry in-movie commercials then Blue Ray or HD-DVD will die overnight. As it is I refuse to buy HD-DVD combo discs. When you can get an HD-DVD movie for $19.98 and the SD DVD for $13.88, why pay $36.99 to $39.99 for a combo disc? Throw in the prospect of in-movie commercials and they'll kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

RE: ...
By omnicronx on 11/27/2007 6:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
you have nothing to complain about.
I take it back.. there is always something to complain about.. I was just not expecting a list..

RE: ...
By inperfectdarkness on 11/27/2007 4:03:15 PM , Rating: 3
as if it's not bad enough that you can't buy a dvd today that actually has the movie's own trailer included(unless you shell out $10 extra for the special edition). or the fact that when you put dvd's like "family guy volume 5" in, it forces you to wait through preview after ad after preview that you can't fast forward through.

at least when i game (for now) there's no stupid holdups that force-feed me advertisements. at least, not until some genius decides to sell the rights to load-screens...then we're ALL screwed.

Error me thinks
By SandmanWN on 11/27/2007 11:51:55 AM , Rating: 2
The patent details a scheme where the user could rent and purchase movies at either a standard rate, with commercial interruption, or pay a few extra dollars to avoid the annoyances.

Don't you mean a reduced rate with commercial interruptions vs standard rate for the no-commercial movie. With all the competition in the rental business between brick and mortars versus online netflix and downloading I sincerely doubt they would raise prices. It would only serve to push the user to the online options.

RE: Error me thinks
By TomZ on 11/27/2007 12:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, since the current market rate for rental movies prices in the assumption that they are commercial-free.

What this type of "invention" does potentially enable, however, is free DVD rental, at the expense of commercials. This business model has of course been in use for many, many years with broadcast TV.

RE: Error me thinks
By afkrotch on 11/27/2007 12:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
If it holds the same price, I see piracy increasing again. Why? It'd be the best way to get an ad-less movie, cause you know the pirates would remove them.

I'd be more inclined to go along with it, if it were $1 for a 5 day rental with ads, while maintaining the same old price scheme for non-ad movies.

RE: Error me thinks
By Master Kenobi on 11/27/2007 12:49:34 PM , Rating: 3
It takes me only a few seconds to remove current adds, FBI warnings, INTERPOL messages, and other stuff from a DVD and make a fresh no BS copy. I guarantee those more skilled than I could easily come out with a program that can find these places on a DVD movie and cut them out. "DVD Commercial Free" will be the product, and we will stick it up on torrent sites. If they make it free movies that are add supported, this is great, since we can get new releases, rip out the movies in a few minutes, burn to disk, and pop some popcorn. Good times indeed!

RE: Error me thinks
By TomZ on 11/27/2007 1:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious...what software do you use to do this? We've purchased a number of DVDs for the kids that require you to watch a number of commercials when the DVD is first started. Drives us (parents) crazy in the van since we can't just put in the DVD and have the movie start. I've been thinking of remastering them with just the movie itself so that it just starts playing when the DVD is inserted.

RE: Error me thinks
By Lightning III on 11/27/2007 1:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
it's called AnyDvd coupled with clone dvd from slysoft

RE: Error me thinks
By Lightning III on 11/27/2007 1:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
it's a favorite of copiers and pirates everywhere although your consistant high moral stance against any form of piracy should preclude you from purchasing it.

I use it to do a software upconvert with my HTPC on my non hdcp compliant pre hdmi 48in widescreen tv.

in other words it get's around the copy protection and wich includes the fbi warning lock and the trailers or commercials.

when a HD Dvd & Blu Ray combo rom under a hundred dollars comes out it should work on them too.

RE: Error me thinks
By TomZ on 11/27/2007 1:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't have a moral objection to using software like this to make a copy of a DVD that I already own, for my personal use.

Thanks for the info...

RE: Error me thinks
By JKflipflop98 on 11/27/2007 2:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't have an objection to entirely ripping off a movie if it really hurt some sleazeball studio executive. But instead, they'd just fire one of Lindsey Lohan's three ass-powderers.

RE: Error me thinks
By Master Kenobi on 11/27/2007 2:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, AnyDVD with CloneDVD is what I have used. It makes perfect copies of originals. I generally use it so I can take a copy to work and not have to worry about getting it lost or scratched up, but it doubles for removing stupid stuff like the advertisements and the like.

RE: Error me thinks
By SocrPlyr on 11/27/2007 6:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
Just as something to try, often I have found this can be skipped by either hitting the menu button, or hitting stop and then the menu button. You might as well give it a whirl.


RE: Error me thinks
By theapparition on 11/27/2007 1:06:49 PM , Rating: 3
What this type of "invention" does potentially enable, however, is free DVD rental, at the expense of commercials.

That's the point I was going to make.
If it enables free rentals, I'd certainly support this technology. Not much different than TV (that's before DVR days-kiddies...), as long as both options exist. Free commercial rental or paid commercial free rental.

One thing is certain for me though, once you start putting in obtrusive advertisements, I will not pay for it. That includes games. Is OK if your playing a Dora Explorer game with a Nickelodean billboard, but if the game suddenly stops and tells you to tune into Spongebob tonight at 7:00pm, then it's over the line. (Sidenote....please kill me........or lock me away until my kids are older).

The only business model I'd support is that the obtrusive ads are revenue self-supporting such that it now becomes free for the consumer.

Watching on TV for free is one thing
By theslug on 11/27/2007 12:00:55 PM , Rating: 3
But if I'm paying for a movie (whether it be on-demand, rental, or buying), there is no way I would tolerate commercials during it.

By Screwballl on 11/27/2007 12:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
agreed, as soon as this takes hold, I will refuse to buy anything close to these type of movies, I will just become a pirate at that time as will millions more. RIAA and MPAA think they have problems now? wait until this takes hold.

By Spyvie on 11/27/2007 12:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
Years ago I ponied up for a Tyson PPV fight on cable, back at the peak of his career. (I'm old)

A living room full of my buddies and I gathered to watch Mr. Tyson dispatch his latest victim in the first couple of rounds, but we were extremely disappointed to see the broadcast cut to a commercial the instant the bell rang! Even as paying viewers we were not privy to the action in the corners between rounds.

I felt ripped off, I called the cable company and complained bitterly to no effect.

I have never considered ordering a PPV sporting event since that day, and likewise, I can't imagine ever paying for a rental DVD with forced commercials.

RE: Watching on TV for free is one thing
By Haven Bartton on 11/27/2007 2:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Right, but I (and many others) pay for cable, digital cable, or satellite, and we still have to sit through commercials while we watch our Lost, House, and BSG.

So I can see why studio execs might be thinking, "Well, they put up with it on paid cable, why not rentals?".

By Oregonian2 on 11/27/2007 7:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'd take it the other way around. Cable/satellite guys like HBO, Cinemax, etc should love this idea. It would drive folk away from DVD's to them in droves.

Not worth it
By BrownJohn on 11/27/2007 12:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
"Imagine renting new movies for $2.99 instead of $3.99"

I'd much rather pay the extra $1 to get the ad free version, and I think most people would. This technology would probably be better on movies that are availabe to purchase. How about blu-ray or hd dvds for $10 with ads? I'd be much more inclined to go for that. Standard dvds for as low as $5.

RE: Not worth it
By mmntech on 11/27/2007 1:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
The place I go to is $2.99 for new releases. Go independent folks for your movie rentals. Better than Lackluster.

I remember when DVDs first came out and one of the big advantages they had over Beta and VHS was the fact that there were no commercials at the beginning of the movie. Now I have to skip through trailers and I can't just go to the menu, even if I "own" the movie. Now they want to put commercials in the middle of movies? Simple solution. I just won't rent or buy DVDs anymore. Most of the stuff they're releasing now is garbage anyway.

RE: Not worth it
By Haven Bartton on 11/27/2007 3:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
You guys only pay $3.99 for new releases...? It's usually $7 after tax here at Rogers or Blockbuster in Canada. Another reason I don't rent movies.

RE: Not worth it
By Oregonian2 on 11/27/2007 7:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
Netflix new releases are maybe a dollar or two depending upon how fast one turns around one's discs. And that's cheap U.S. dollars, not the spendy Canadian ones. :-(

By bpurkapi on 11/27/2007 12:20:26 PM , Rating: 5
Entertainment is a luxury, as soon as these ads appear I won't buy dvd's. Boycotting Hollywood and the entertainment industry becomes easier everyday. I can live without this crap but these companies can't live without my money and yours. If you don't like the way a company treats you don't consume their product.

By Azsen on 11/27/2007 4:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
Just like IBM likes to get lots of patents and just sit on them, they could just sit on this one too. By having the patent for this kind of thing and not licensing it to anyone, they can effectively stop the movie companies using In-DVD advertising. If I were a top-level exec I'd do the same thing as this would ruin my home theatre experience.

RE: Possibly...
By TomZ on 11/27/2007 4:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's possible, but most corporations exist in order to create a profit. Therefore, we would expect that IBM has some profit motive behind filing this patent.

By Oregonian2 on 11/27/2007 7:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
Still seems odd that they can "invent" broadcast TV. Sounds pretty much the same as using a DVR and recording a TV show -- with the only change being that the ads aren't fast-forwardable. But that non-skippable'ness is an existing technology used on the FBI warning and sometimes the studio logo unwinding thingie (I assume there's probably a technical name for those). So at best it's a composite patient, which is something that I thought wasn't supposedly patentable. And for that matter, broadcast TV (watched real-time) already has non-skipable ads. :-)

RE: Patentable?
By hostyl1 on 11/28/2007 2:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
Just wanted to point out that the referred to document is a patent *application*, not a valid, granted patent. It may very well be possible that the application is denied for the reasons you stated (or a myriad of other reasons). But that has never stopped people from trying.

won't end with rentals
By Chernobyl68 on 11/27/2007 12:04:10 PM , Rating: 3
most rental DVDs wind up in a second hand market anyway. So saying that these will be intended for the rental market is Bull. There's no WAY I will ever buy a DVD (or HD/BR) movie that has ads embedded in the film. What, blatent product placement isn't enough? How long will it be before the DVD's get the crummy "splash ads" (ads that started as tiny little remarks near the logo in the corner, and have become full features with sound and special effects themselves) that TV networks are using constantly now?

Likely what will happen is that this will become a standard feature on a DVD. I can't see any reason for the sutdios NOT to include this on every thing they make. Its money in the bank for them. So claiming that it will offset movie studio costs is just another way of saying that its more and more profit for them.

I'm not against studios making money - if they didn't we wouldn't have any movies to watch. But I'd rather they made money by making good movies - not selling ads.

By Dfere on 11/27/2007 12:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
IBM would not develop a business model and market it to others if they did not think they couldn't increase a customer's business stream's income. I think they hope to have a oligopolic market effect- if enough sellers or renters adopt this, prices increase. The hard sell is to get the renter or even a movie studio or other seller to market this. They take the risk, not IBM. Gotta love IBM for it (from a business perspective, all royalty and no risk, just sales effort), though.

Additionally (and in part of the above comment), I thought Phillips had a patent on anti- commercial skipping technoloy for DVR type systems that was supposed to work with ads on recorded images (like TIVO and Dish DVR). Did Phillips forget to include all recorded media on the patent and IBM waded in?

I have a better idea
By BrownJohn on 11/27/2007 12:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
They need to make a technology that seamlessly feeds ads into the movie. A company can pay for ads in a movie, say Coke for instance, and now whenever the character is drinking anything, it shows up as coke. Filmakers could film an entire movie, not worrying about the ads, and when a movie is played at home, it'll download the movie properly. Companies could sell yearly licenses for ads. For the first 3 years the movie is out, those drinks will be coke products, for the next 3 years, pepsi will step in. That would be a much better idea.

Time to stop renting
By Mitch101 on 11/27/2007 12:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe its time to stop renting movies and just wait for them on HBO-HD or Showtime HD.

Disney is the worst offender when it comes to advertising. When my kids want to watch a movie they are forced to sit through 20 disney plugs before they can watch their movie.

By 1078feba on 11/27/2007 12:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
EA with in-game ads. Can't skip past the anti-piracy notice and some trailers on DVDs. Someone else already mentioned splash screens on stations like USA and TBS, which have become so intrusive that I won't even watch those statons anymore. Not to mention how frequently they air commercials. Haven't timed it, but it seems like 3-4 minutes of commercials ever 10-12 minutes of show time. A little off topic, but tangential: anyone else old enough to remember when you could flip on your TV on any given Sunday and catch the NFL games of your choice from, say, 8-12 that were going to aired that day? Last Sunday, for the entire day, there were three...THREE?!!?

There comes a limit. When I pay for something, like seeing a movie at the local plex, or a DVD or a damn game, I do not whip out the wallet salivating at the thought of an ad. It's quite the opposite. I pay the money with the expectation that I won't have to endure them, because, you know, I PAID for it.

This takes hold, and before every sentence I speak will be a hearty "Yaaarrrgh!", and even now, I only follow college football.

wait untill...
By Souka on 11/27/2007 1:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
wait until they start scrolling advertistements on the bottom of the screen...throughout the entire film!!!

or put a product logo in the bottom corner for the entire movie..ehehhe

Timing and a rant
By jhinoz on 11/27/2007 10:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no marketing guru but how effective are adds on a rental DVD going to be at moving product? TV / Cinema / Radio adds, you have more control when the consumer is exposed to the add. If you run a cross media add campaign, what good's it going to do to have someone see your add on a rental DVD 2 months after your push when your product may no longer be available in it's advertised state.

Say you advertise on a new release DVD, 1 day rental, assume 2 people watch it each time it's viewed, assume it never spends a night at the video store and assume the add is relevant / effective for 6 weeks. That's 84 hits of your add per disc. Assuming you get on 100,000 copies of that movie, 840,000 views. 1 TV add would get you that, and it would take 30 seconds, not 6 weeks.

So long for DVD
By raldrich on 11/28/2007 12:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
Forcing commercials into DVDs is exactly what the HD-DVD/Blue-Ray DVD market needs to become mainstream. Have the studios force standard DVD viewers to watch commercials and leave the commercial-free versions only on HD!

Patent Does Not Fly
By teckytech9 on 11/28/2007 1:21:14 AM , Rating: 2
First off, the patent describes a networked DVD player that gets a special certificate from a Service Provider to play specific advertisements while watching a DVD. The OEM's would not make any profit in upgrading their DVD hardware (HDMI upconvert is a good thing), to connect to the net for this purpose. There is a better market with red-laser HD-VMD format to get HD content "as-is" at a much lower price point. What is at issue is the cost required to manufacture the DVD's.

Secondly, as far as embedding ads into MPEG2 VOB 1GB files, this will only encourage use of the latest DVD ripping tools, to filter out the ad content, on these movies after purchase. If one watches any movie lately, there are plenty of products, with brand name recognition’s represented which are already embedded into the screenplay.

the core problem...
By Moishe on 11/28/2007 9:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
The root of the problem is a fight over the pricing of a movie.

The basic premise of ads are simply to ensure that the entertainment is paid for (plus profit) without putting the entire cost on the consumer.

Basic economics.
The fight is always over how much things cost and the consumers not wanting to pay that much. On one hand, the manufacturer has a risk and a cost that they want to recover and the consumer has a limited amount of cash to allocate to entertainment.
The maker can price an item too high and it won't sell, or too low and it won't make profit and the maker will go under. Balance is required.

So legally the movie companies are allowed to charge $5 for a rental WITH ads, and $10 for a rental W/OUT ads. Consumers will run the other way and makers will reduce the price to something reasonable (if they want to make any money).

The only situation where this fails is where there is no competition. Consumers can simply go without movies... but once we're hooked (and we've spent thousands on equipment) it's hard to simply stop using entertainment. I have no problem with paying for 50% and having 50% paid for by ads.
The more technology we have less freedom we will have because technology makes it easy to control large numbers of people.

By iFX on 11/27/2007 5:43:29 PM , Rating: 1
Just wait and see if this ever gets implemented. There will be more downloading that you can imagine...

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings
Related Articles
NBC and Fox Go Hulu-ing Together
November 1, 2007, 11:19 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki