backtop

Print 14 comment(s) - last by smokenjoe.. on Jun 27 at 7:03 PM
Video-sharing web site Guba will offer content from Warner Bros.

Warner Bros. is once again interested in using different technologies to try and offer consumers another way to purchase content.  This time around, Warner Bros. Entertainment is offering full-length films and TV shows via Guba -- a site that allows users to browse, download and share videos.  Customers will have around 200 films and TV programs that can be rented and/or purchased.  Movie rentals will cost $1.99 per day, while television programs will cost $1.79.  Newer films like "Syrianna" will cost users $19.99.  Older films from the Warner Bros. catalog will sell for $9.99.  All content will be protected by digital rights management software developed by Microsoft.      

Warner Bros. and the Motion Picture Association of America only agreed to do business with Guba after the site began cracking down on blatant copyright infringement by its users.  The site is also interested in offering other films from different movie production companies.

In May, Warner Bros. became the first company to offer a movie download service via BitTorrent.  The company is allowing users to rent content or download permanent copies of movies that can be burned onto DVD.  In contrast to the BitTorrent service, all content purchased on Guba can be burned onto DVD but will only be playable on the computer which it was burned.  The decision for Warner Bros. to find new channels for distribution is designed to offer consumers a new way to receive content and to help combat piracy.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
$20/movie will not fly
By brystmar on 6/27/2006 9:58:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Newer films like "Syrianna" will cost users $19.99.

I'm sorry, but this just simply will not work. I hope that's a typo. Why on earth would I pay $20 to download these new movies when I can usually buy them on DVD for $15 at Best Buy the week they're released? Not only do I get a hard copy of the film, I also get it in a higher resolution (since there's no way the downloads will be higher than DVD's 720x480) and (relatively) DRM-free.

$1.99 is a reasonable starting price point for daily rentals, but asking $20 for access to download one new movie laced with DRM is just ridiculous. Netflix anyone?




RE: $20/movie will not fly
By rrsurfer1 on 6/27/2006 10:17:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yea that is rediculous. I'd much rather own the physical DVD at those prices. $1.99 is pretty hefty too, maybe $1.99 for the week would be better. And that better be high-quality encoding with a very fast download speed. It's bad enough that the DRM won't allow it to play on other devices, which basically makes this media-center only.

They are pricing themselves out of the market. I don't see this taking off, not with that price structure.


RE: $20/movie will not fly
By IMPoor on 6/27/2006 10:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you guys. I think this is a awesome idea. And if you have your computer hooked to your TV (like I do) it is even more atractive. But $20 is setting this service up for failure. I sort of wonder if thats what the Movie Studios want. I think they secretly want video on the internet to fail so they can buy another solid gold mansion and bling their cars. If it was cheap enough wouldn't that sort of decrease piracy. Why would you download a crappy ripped movie when I can get a decent quality one by the studios for a few dollars. Or they could start making good movies.


RE: $20/movie will not fly
By rrsurfer1 on 6/27/2006 11:43:03 AM , Rating: 3
Yea I think they might be setting it up for failure too. It makes sense. They can say I told you so and point at all the illegal downloaders as the reason.


RE: $20/movie will not fly
By xKelemvor on 6/27/2006 12:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what we were all thikning too. They will roll this out, then they'll say that pirating hasn't gone down and they'll say that it's the publics fault and everyone is dishonest. Yet when I can buy the retail movie for less than they have it for on their website, it's actually them being stupid.

No making the DVD, no packaging it, no distributing it, no priting the booklets and such.... And all that leads to a HIGHER price. Whatever....


Like a Book
By TomZ on 6/27/2006 1:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
I maintain a view that this DRM is inadequate until I can use it like a book. In this case, I want to be able to purchase or rent a movie and play it when and where I want to (possibly time-limited in the case of rental). Any restriction less than this is unacceptable to me. I don't think we consumers should give up this value, without a corresponding drop in price, just because the technology is becoming available to enforce such restrictions.




RE: Like a Book
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/27/2006 3:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
Eh doesnt really matter, It takes all of about 30 seconds to blow past any copy protection on the market. Only people getting screwed by DRM is the less tech-savy majority of the market, and they arent the ones pirating in the first place :P The real pirates crack DRM like its a walnut.


RE: Like a Book
By TomZ on 6/27/2006 4:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
You could be right. And maybe the next car I purchase won't come with any keys, and the car dealership will refer me to a local petty criminal who will make a key for me so that I can drive the car.


RE: Like a Book
By rrsurfer1 on 6/27/2006 4:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
HAHA. That's good. More similar would be a car you could buy (or lease, which is really the case with DRM) that would only take you from home to work. Any attempt to drive anyplace else would require additional cash. Unless you flashed the cars firmware at your local shady mechanics, that is! But it's fine right, just break the law and you can use the product as you see fit... unless you get caught that is... then I'm sure the auto equivalent of the MPAA would sue your a**. What, you expected to be able to use the product ?


Distribution method is irrelevant to DRM
By MercenaryForHire on 6/27/2006 12:39:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In May, Warner Bros. became the first company to offer a movie download service via BitTorrent. The company is allowing users to rent content or download permanent copies of movies that can be burned onto DVD. In contrast to BitTorrent, all content purchased on Guba can be burned onto DVD but will only be playable on the computer which it was burned. The decision for Warner Bros. to find new channels for distribution is designed to offer consumers a new way to receive content and to help combat piracy.


Attempting to draw a parallel to BitTorrent with respect to content control is irrelevant.

That's like saying "Music bought from ITMS over cable can be burned to a CD for playback a limited number of times, in contrast to music pirated over DSL."

BT is the distribution method, and that is all. If I decide to sell my software over BT, I can make a torrent of a 3DES passworded RAR archive, and make people pay for the unlock code.

Of course, it will only work once, and then someone will post the password to leet-warez-doods.com, but that's not BT's fault. :P

Cliffs: wtf? learn2journalism

- M4H




RE: Distribution method is irrelevant to DRM
By The Cheeba on 6/27/2006 1:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
If you looked up WB's competition, they are all BitTorrent based. These competitors don't let you burn the media to a disc.

learn2read


By MercenaryForHire on 6/27/2006 1:46:53 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps you've been smoking a bit too much of the leafy green substance implied by your screen name.

Again, what does the distribution method have to do with content control?

Allow me to dumb down the analogy further, since it seems to be required:

I have a padlock that one person, say, Mr. MachFive, has the key to. Does it matter worth a damn if I ship it to him by FedEx, UPS, DHL, USPS, Canada Post, or dogsled? (Wait, I already said Canada Post.) The answer, of course, is no. Even if it gets misdirected, stolen, or lost - no one will be able to open that padlock other than the keyholder.

Figured it out yet? The reason all the distributors are using peer-to-peer vs server-centric is to save on their bandwidth bill, not because it introduces any manner of content control.

"learn2think"

- M4H


By RyanM on 6/27/2006 1:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
M4H FTW


By smokenjoe on 6/27/2006 7:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
digital rights management software developed by Microsoft.
Yes this will likly fail- they will have to use one of Microsofts's formats and they suck compaired to Xvid and others. They could make the movies better if they wanted and went driectly to a XVID from the master. Personaly I would rather have a nice high quality file on my hard drive than a another DVD to loose if they price was the same. If hollywood ever got tec savy they could start making some serious cash they cold be making the money instead of HBO, blockbuster, cable companys etc. If they were willing to put real quality in it I would pay more.

It is hardly impossible to have all the best movies avalable in HD without the inconvience of going to block buster or sufring cable why is this such a difficult concept to embrace?




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki