×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Strikes Deal With Paramount

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the you-have-bad-taste-in-film dept.

Businesses 105

redletterdave writes about more movies being made available on Youtube's rental service. From the article: "Google announced a new deal with Paramount Pictures on Tuesday, which will make more than 500 movie titles available for rental on YouTube and the new Google Play platform. The deal was made even though Google is still embroiled in a four-year-old legal battle over copyrights with Paramount's parent company, Viacom. The latest deal means Google has rental deals with five of the six major Hollywood studios, including Paramount, Warner Bros., Disney, Universal Pictures, and Sony Pictures. The lone exception is 20th Century Fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Google will only make these titles available for rent; the search giant has not yet made a decision to sell any movies it licenses, despite pressure from major Hollywood studios looking to compensate for poor DVD sales."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

105 comments

I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (3, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#39572549)

I can watch *way* more movies and TV shows than that with no hassle on my Xbox and they don't expire or require some annoying separate login, weird PC-only DRM scheme, or any other annoyances. I just pay my $8 a month, click "Netflix" on my Xbox menu, and watch whatever I like.

Keep it simple, make it easy--then we'll talk.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#39572595)

Except netflix keep loosing content, and getting farther behind.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573225)

losing^

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#39573771)

Farther behind doesn't matter so much if you never bothered to pay attention to release dates to begin with. Netflix is great at fostering that kind of attitude and they have been doing well at it for over 10 years now.

The only content they are "loosing" is perhaps the streaming stuff.

The disk service is still going strong despite a number of factions that want to ignore it.

Yields better features and quality while not subject to network bandwidth issues, caps, or throttling.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39574707)

Since Netflix streams require Microsoft, I won't even rent the damned disks -- just out of annoyance that I have to have MS to stream. If I want a DVD there's a Family Video half a mile away and movies are a buck or two, and there's no way I'd rent five in a month.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39575821)

Um... what?

I stream netflix through Linux, Mac OSX, my PS3, and my Wii. Little to no setup required on any of these boxen.

It is entirely possible that you are spreading FUD, but I'll settle for you being ignorant.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39577347)

Freetards out of touch with reality, you say?

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39578063)

Uhmmm...You can use a Western Digital Live box to get Netflix, along with a bunch of other devices. The WD Live box even runs Linux and is hackable.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#39574383)

We all know the netflix model is definitely not what the movie industry wants, but so far it is the only viable alternative to piracy I've seen. People will pay because it's easier and legal. If there is one simple truth about humans it's that they are lazy above all other things, including "morality" if you want to call it that. So they can make it watching their movies in a way they disprove of as illegal as they want, but people are always going to chose the easier route. For most people netflix is easier than piracy, get rid of netflix and the next easiest thing is... piracy. Every other model they've tried has been harder, and therefor not an option.

The Media industry is about to bankrupt themselves trying to fight the internet all because they can stand the thought of their profit margins going from "Holy fucking shit I can wash my fleet of cars caviar" to "What do you mean I can't afford my own private jet with my name printed on the side anymore?" This has nothing to do with piracy and has everything to do with price gouging, market manipulation and price collusion.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (4, Informative)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#39572607)

Yea, I was looking at some online rentals and they were like $5 each.

Fuck that, that price is more then Blockbuster ever was, and I would only be able to watch it once and had to do it within 24 hours.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39572661)

Good or Bad blockbuster.. who gave this guy a rating?!

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39572703)

Google Play rentals on new releases are typically $2-$4 dollars. Blockbuster rentals on new releases have been more than $5 for over a decade. I will fully agree with you that the 24 hour window can be kind of annoying and pointless. If you were going to somehow rip/pirate the rental, the restriction is meaningless since it won't take 24 hours to do so. If you pass out during a movie and are busy the next night, you're just fucked.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39578757)

You are incorrect, Blockbuster's prices are(we're) 2.99 for brand new releases (first 6 or so weeks) 1.99 for the last year and $.99 for older movies. You also got them for slightly more than 24 hours depending on when you rented them, as they were always due the next day before the store closed. (So if you rented at 5pm, you'd have it for 28-30 hours)

When they cost 4.99 they were 3 day rentals, the same price as other comparable services if you kept them for 3 days. (redbox for example) Prices changed because people are terrible at math and STILL keep them longer and pay more. But they're getting a deal.

Yes Im a bit pissed, I just lost my job at Blockbuster.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573079)

Yea, I second that. $4 for 720p and no surround sound? Vudu is about the same price and you can get 1080p and 5.1 surround.

I'll stick with my usual Netflix for most of what I watch, Redbox for newer release movies, and Vudu for when I've got to watch it now.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (2)

crashumbc (1221174) | about 2 years ago | (#39573141)

Vudu is actually 4.99 for 720p and 5.99 for 1080p (both with 5.1) Now that is for same day as DVD rental, blockbusters. Prices generally start dropping after its been out awhile.

Note: you also have 30 days to start watching it, once you start you have 24hrs to finish. (or watch it again if you want.

I don't watch movies often so it works great for me because I get the quality I want with out leaving my couch.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (0)

StikyPad (445176) | about 2 years ago | (#39574377)

I don't watch movies often so it works great for me because I get the quality I want with out leaving my couch.

Here's the thing though: It's not only easier for *you* to watch movies, it's easier for *studios* to publish and distribute them. And yet you're paying more.

If you don't see something wrong with that, you're part of the problem.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

f97tosc (578893) | about 2 years ago | (#39576903)

Redbox for newer release movies, and Vudu for when I've got to watch it now

I used to do same, then I realized the saving in redbox vs Vudu really was not worth it. If you drive a few miles to nearest red box (back and forth, twice) you probably spent a dollar on gas, for a total price delta of less than $2. And you spent thirty minutes of your life to get this saving.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#39573973)

> Yea, I was looking at some online rentals and they were like $5 each.

How much you wanna bet that you can already BUY some of those Paramount movies for $5? Never mind renting...

Best Buy bargain BD bin anyone?

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39575951)

Indeed you can. I just bought the first 6 STOS movies for $40, that's six and a half bucks each. Paramount Studios. WalMart has all kinds of movies (good ones, too) for five bucks, including Paramount releases.

This must be for people with more dollars than sense, who are too lazy to go to the $1 Redbox kiosk.

Movies that become disc-only (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39572623)

I can watch *way* more movies and TV shows than that with no hassle on my Xbox and they don't expire

I beg to differ. Netflix's contracts with particular studios have ended in the past, forcing Netflix to pull movies from availability.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39572865)

You also seem to forget, though, that there was a time when Netflix OS/browser/codec support was absolutely horrific.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (2)

morari (1080535) | about 2 years ago | (#39573177)

Except that in this case your Xbox is the DRM. Furthermore, you're paying for Xbox Live on top of your standard Netflix fee for some reason. I wouldn't be so proud about letting Microsoft double-dip on me like that.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573255)

Yes, I love my netflix on the XBox. I love that random pausing, stopping of streaming, fast forwards and rewinds. I love the wonderful way it sometimes randomly returns me to episode one of a TV show while I am in season 9, requiring me to scroll through all the shows just to get back where I was. I love that wonderful way sometimes I will have a movie on my queue and netflix will lose rights to it so it will disappear. It's such a wonderful way to watch movies.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

Rasperin (1034758) | about 2 years ago | (#39575061)

Unplug your kinect and it will stop. My kinect kept picking up stray sounds in the room and doing all of those things. Don't get me wrong I still get the occasional stutter (much worse on my PS3) but overall I'm lovin' it.

And Boo Hoo, an online service doesn't have perpetual rights, however it's legals and it's mostly convenient. Movies, Music, TV, etc will never be free and it shouldn't be. It costs to produce it, so you should pay for it, but the prices they ask are just ridiculous (esp for TV series). And that's why you should be supporting services like Netflix, because they are trying to change the paradigm where you pay a minor cost and you get what ever you want to watch.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | about 2 years ago | (#39576625)

Don't get me wrong I still get the occasional stutter (much worse on my PS3) but overall I'm lovin' it.

What kind of bandwidth do you guys have? I watch my Netflix content through Wii, Roku, PS3 and a Sony IPTV. The only times I get significant stutters or repeated caching screens is either when we are trying to watch on multiple screens (in which case it will usually just give a network failure), or between 9 and 11 at night (in which case I suspect my ISP of throttling). I have basic Time Warner broadband, so ~5-7 Mbps.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

krept (697623) | about 2 years ago | (#39573411)

I have to login to Netflix on my PS3, IPhone, Wii... Also I'm not sure when Silverlight or whatever was first introduced on Netflix streaming it wasn't a PC only service.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#39577275)

I have to login to Netflix on my PS3, IPhone, Wii

I don't on the Xbox. I just click the Netflix button, it takes a few seconds to connect, and there is my queue (I supposed it's logging in transparently in the background, but I never see it). I think when I first set it up, I had to get a number and login to my account to tell Netflix that my Xbox was an allowed streaming device. But now it's a one-click operation. Can't get any simpler than that. I've even taken it with me on trips and used it in hotels and at friends houses, with no hassle.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

Pax681 (1002592) | about 2 years ago | (#39573509)

just pay $8 a month.. on top of your xbox live subscription you mean?

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#39577303)

I was already paying for that anyway. But substitute "PS3" for "Xbox" if it makes you feel superior. The point is that it's reasonably-priced, simple, and easy.

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (1)

Pax681 (1002592) | about 2 years ago | (#39577449)

I was already paying for that anyway. But substitute "PS3" for "Xbox" if it makes you feel superior. The point is that it's reasonably-priced, simple, and easy.

you presume much.. i don't do consoles

Re:I'll stick with Netflix streaming, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39574869)

What whatever you like is something of an overstatement.

More DRM from Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39572583)

Hurray !

Make your own alternative to Paramount (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39572639)

The digital restrictions management was dictated by Paramount and the other major motion picture studios. So the only way to escape DRM like this in the long run is to find some way to produce and promote an independent film comparable in production quality to those of the major studios. How is this most efficiently done?

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (2)

spikesahead (111032) | about 2 years ago | (#39572721)

Easy, Netflix could begin financing new films themselves and promoting them, until people begin joining netflix to get at the new series, then staying for the amazing catalog.

Besides, the vast majority of AAA movie titles are garbage anyways, date filler and explosion porn over and over.

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#39572907)

And so could Google. Viacom's market capitalisation is $27B, with a turnover of about $15B. Google currently has about $30B in liquid assets. If Google, Apple, and a few other companies got together they could easily provide $10-20B to a fund that would finance freely redistributable films.

Sumner Redstone (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39572987)

Viacom's market capitalisation is $27B

Are you describing a hostile takeover? I thought the publicly traded portion of Viacom was a minority stake, and Viacom and CBS were still majority owned by Sumner Redstone [wikipedia.org]. As for Apple, if Apple were to buy any movie studio, it would probably be Disney, due to connections between the companies through the estate of Steve Jobs.

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | about 2 years ago | (#39573535)

And so could Google. Viacom's market capitalisation is $27B, with a turnover of about $15B. Google currently has about $30B in liquid assets. If Google, Apple, and a few other companies got together they could easily provide $10-20B to a fund that would finance freely redistributable films.

Why would they do this? What's the business model? How are they going to make back their money? You don't expect them to simply throw $10-20B out the window, do you?

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (1)

jxander (2605655) | about 2 years ago | (#39573199)

Fun fact: The idea that most big-studio fare is garbage led to the creation of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." Quite simply, the main 3 stars said "everything on TV is garbage, we could make a better show with a camcorder and just us 3 cracking jokes."

So they did

And it's awesome.

I'm honestly surprised that NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc haven't picked up the concept and put together an exclusive show for their platform

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | about 2 years ago | (#39573499)

I'm honestly surprised that NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc haven't picked up the concept and put together an exclusive show for their platform

Netflix has. They financed "Lillyhammer" starring Steven Van Zandt (from Sopranos). He play a (surprise) mafioso who goes into witness protection and relocates to Lillyhammer, Norway. I watched the first episode. Not too bad, but it's been a couple weeks and I haven't gone back for more, so it's clear that it's not near the top of my list.

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (1)

jxander (2605655) | about 2 years ago | (#39575993)

Well then. Addendum to my previous: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc need to pick up the concept AND ADVERTISE IT. I'm a Netflix subscriber. I watch shows fairly regularly with them... and the first I hear about their exclusive content is on /. ?? Textbook: "doing it wrong"

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | about 2 years ago | (#39576473)

It showed up in the New Releases section (on my Roku) which I peruse once a week or so. They don't make a deal about it being Netflix-financed though.

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (1)

spikesahead (111032) | about 2 years ago | (#39578217)

This is tremendously lazy on their part. They could have a group header for things that are 'Netflix Exclusive' populated and propagated in less time than it took me to write this post!

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (3, Interesting)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#39572779)

Or buy Paramount and change their distribution

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573511)

Not everyone is named Conan.

Re:Make your own alternative to Paramount (1)

sowth (748135) | about 2 years ago | (#39582539)

Ask Darren Bousman. It looks like he just made a great movie funded by himself--The Devil's Carnival. Here is a sample [youtube.com]. I haven't seen the movie yet (they are touring through the country, but no where near me), but it looks at least as good to me as any movie from a major studio.

Gee, thanks. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39572619)

From the announcement:

to people in the U.S. and Canada

I know this is par for the course with this sort of agreement, but really? Are they under the impression nobody else might want this service?

Yeah I know the usual arguments, not actually interested in consumers, issues of control, etc. It still irritates me though.

Your own country's film industry perhaps? (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#39572655)

Google and Paramount are both headquartered in the United States. If you live in (for example) France and want to watch French film, look for a French streaming provider that licenses from French studios.

Re:Your own country's film industry perhaps? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39572745)

Google and Paramount are both headquartered in the United States. If you live in (for example) France and want to watch French film, look for a French streaming provider that licenses from French studios.

Supporting local industry is a nice point, but having reflected on my earlier whinge I guess that's not really what I was getting at. It irritates me that these are the international companies who complain incessantly that people are illegally downloading their products without giving a large chunk of the alleged culprits the legitimate alternative. They spend huge amounts of money advertising it and building hype and then won't give us all of the available options for watching it. They've pushed European nations into enacting pretty tough anti-piracy laws and then made deals that won't allow us to use the legitimate supply lines. Your point would be great if Paramount didn't advertise in France, but they do.

Re:Your own country's film industry perhaps? (2)

afidel (530433) | about 2 years ago | (#39574665)

The biggest problem is that Paramount US might not own the distribution rights to every Paramount film in France (or Germany, or the UK, etc), those rights might be held by a third party that is not a party to the negotiation. It's a pretty messy industry from a legal perspective so I can understand why they might not get deals done in other markets quite as quickly as for the US.

Re:Gee, thanks. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 2 years ago | (#39574333)

Par for the course? Absolutely not. I'm actually shocked to see that, for once, someone out there included Canada in the deals.

I still haven't read anything about the OS/hardware requirements, however.

Poor DVD sales? (4, Insightful)

sureshot007 (1406703) | about 2 years ago | (#39572673)

"...despite pressure from major Hollywood studios looking to compensate for poor DVD sales"

How about making movies that are actually worth buying? Instead of just remaking, or worse, re-releasing movies for a blatant money grab.

Re:Poor DVD sales? (1)

bonch (38532) | about 2 years ago | (#39572807)

That's a pretty subjective argument. I'd say there are tons of movies worth buying each year.

There have always been movie remakes and re-releases; that is not a new trend. Doing things for money is what a business is supposed to do.

Re:Poor DVD sales? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#39572935)

How about making the DVDs available in a timely fashion? I don't buy many DVDs anymore, but I rent a lot. I often have to wait 6-12 months between a film being in the cinemas or a TV show airing in the USA and it being available to rent. On the other hand, if I wanted to pirate, films are usually available within a few days of cinema release and TV shows within a few hours. If you say 'you can get our product illegally now, or legally in 6-12 months' then you shouldn't be surprised when a lot of people opt for now. Especially when you spend a huge advertising budget on telling them that they want to see it right now...

Re:Poor DVD sales? (1)

RyoShin (610051) | about 2 years ago | (#39575611)

Releasing DVDs soon after the theatrical release would also be a small boon to theaters. If the DVD were released two-three weeks after the theatrical release, the theaters would likely be still showing it and could put out displays for the DVD copies; if someone liked a movie, they're (probably) far more likely to purchase it immediately after seeing it than after having days/weeks to digest and perhaps lose interest. Supposedly theaters are hurting for cash, necessitating the $5 20oz drink, so even a small profit margin on DVD sales would be useful.

Re:Poor DVD sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39576817)

Interesting. That IS the most likely time that I'd ever want to buy a movie. But it's moot if people never actually go to the movie-plex to watch the movie. A great number of people are simply watching them at home, on DVD. The delay in the release is ENTIRELY to entice you to go to the movie theater to see the hot new movie.

Re:Poor DVD sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39581245)

So you only sell the DVDs through theaters for X weeks where X is a low enough number not to upset the regular retailers.

Re:Poor DVD sales? (1)

Rolgar (556636) | about 2 years ago | (#39575639)

Lets say there are 3 types of movie watchers

People who love the theater, and will go even if the DVD is available on the day of the premier.
People who hate the theater or theater prices, and will not go to the theater even if they have to wait six months.
People who would watch at home if available, but will go to the theater instead of waiting.

About this third group of people, some of them will go to the theater, and then buy the DVD. If the DVD is available on release day, or the following Tuesday, more of those people will wait, and only buy the DVD instead of paying for tickets at the theater and then buying the DVD too. Or maybe the guys who used to go see the movie 5 or 10 times at the theater for one of the big superhero/Lord of the Rings/Star Wars releases, will go 1-3 times and then start watching at home.

If you are going to skip the theater and download instead of waiting for the DVD, they'll continue tightening the screws to make sure you don't jump the gun.

I say this as somebody who waits for my turn to get it from my library usually months after it's in the video store. I'm usually not in any hurry to see the movie, so I don't mind the wait. I'll just let other people tell me what's good by the reviews on metacritic and imdb, and save myself some time if a movie is not worth the time.

.

Re:Poor DVD sales? (1)

Nethead (1563) | about 2 years ago | (#39579123)

Type 4: Those that don't watch TV and ad-block the Internet and don't have a clue about what new movies there are. Maybe once every two months re-watch a classic (Space Balls!)

Re:Poor DVD sales? (0)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | about 2 years ago | (#39572963)

Even then I wouldn't touch a DVD/Blue-Ray.

I remember VHS, I adopted DVD for videos. I grew up with my parents' records and 8-Tracks, I'm a child a cassettes, and I remember my first CD. I drove my grandparents insane wanting to use my CD player in their corvette. It involved a CD-player to cassette adapter, placed in an cassette to 8-track adapter. I can't remember if I ever got it to work or not, but I remember repeatedly attempting it.

I'm better off just getting digital copies in my opinion. At least if I want to watch old digital copies I just need an old OS emulator if the format becomes that obsolete. VHS and Beta tapes? Soon DVDs and in the future Blue-Ray? Physical space wasted.

Re:Poor DVD sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573127)

I don't see how an emulator is better. You'll get into the same situation where you run and emulator in an emulator because you can't get some ancient OS to work anymore in modern ones. Then you have to have copies of all the software. Things happen.. bitrot, etc. CDs will go away for computers. How to load windows 95 again? You have to plan ahead and make img files for all those things and home the format doesn't go away too.

Ignoring that.. watching a real video 4 file now is terrible on modern displays. When they were recorded they didn't take up the 800x600 premium resolution we had then. That's just one format. I recorded a bunch of stuff with an ati tv card. before i knew about the problem, i used mpeg2. Try playing those in anything else. They did something weird with the audio.

Digital formats are just as painful as physical copies. Your data has just as much chance of getting destroyed. I've had CDs and DVDs destoryed. I'm sure I can lose a file even with multiple backups. A Tornado can do it in one fatal blow. (physical or digital)

Re:Poor DVD sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573747)

the tornado would be setting the digital bits free!

Re:Poor DVD sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573179)

Well, what do you expect if even writers seem to be "re-making" their own copies. Not to stir the issue, but isn't "hunger games" a mixture between "Battle Royale" and some teenage movie?

If writers can't come up with new ideas, and producers don't do their homework either... how are they expecting to sell more hard copies (I'm guessing by DVDs they meant both DVDs and Bluray disks).

SOPA/PIPA (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 years ago | (#39572845)

Quickly, everyone! Let us adopt the latest in DRM'd technology so that we may more quickly route our money to overpriced, overcompressed rentals of movies from companies who will then turn that money around and lobby Congress for even more oppressive laws!

Too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39572875)

£3.50 for 24 hours. Seriously? They may not like it, but they're competing with 'free'. The blockbusters pricing model is dead.

Somewhere around the £.50 - £1 level might work.

now how do i watch on a TV? (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#39572945)

i know the kiddies who work at google love the geeky spend life around your computer/smart phone crowd but for most of us we watch this stuff on this huge screen called a TV with other people of blood relation to us.

amazon just released instant video on the PS3 and the x-box will probably be here by the end of the year. why should i even think about google for this?

Re:now how do i watch on a TV? (1)

hal2814 (725639) | about 2 years ago | (#39573425)

Look for the jack on the back of your TV labelled VGA. If your TV was made within the last decade or so, it probably has one. That plus a computer made some time in the 21st century is usually enough to get video on a big screen pretty painlessly. My uncle is pretty much a luddite but he managed to set such a system up by himself once Glen Beck left FoxNews and was only available online.

Re:now how do i watch on a TV? (0)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#39573581)

yes, i have nothing better to do than hook up a computer to the TV and let my wife suffer even more with an overkill tool for the job. and why would i want to buy a separate computer to hook up to the TV? why would i move my laptop all the time?

blu ray players, apple tv/roku and game consoles are much better suited for this because for most people their life does not revolve around the computer

Re:now how do i watch on a TV? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#39573931)

This all comes down to whether or not you're willing to eat dirt or not. If you are then by all means stick with an inferior canned solution. Just don't try to pretend it is superior when it is not.

Building an HTPC may be a bother WHEN YOU FIRST SET IT UP. Beyond that, it is superior in every respect to every appliance you've mentioned. While "bothersome", you are in total control of it. That includes enforcing a level of consistency you won't find with a hodgepodge of consumer devices.

Once built, an HTPC is not so much "the computer" any more as it is an appliance that happens to have started out as a regular PC.

Re:now how do i watch on a TV? (1)

hal2814 (725639) | about 2 years ago | (#39574327)

BluRay player, Apple TV, Roku, game consoles? I hate to break it to you but those are computers. My interface is a little clunkier but in exchange for that I get a little more flexibility in what I can run.

Besides, if your wife is suffering "even more" with a PC then that means she's suffering to watch shows to begin with. If your family is suffering just to watch TV then it sounds like you're the one whose lives revolve around the computer. If I ever feel "suffering" while just trying to watch a show, I'll turn the damn thing off and just read a book.

Re:now how do i watch on a TV? (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 2 years ago | (#39577579)

blu ray players, apple tv/roku and game consoles are much better suited for this because for most people their life does not revolve around the computer

BluRay players, settop boxes, and game consoles are computers. Don't lose sight of that. They are computers that you don't have much control over, though. The acceptability of that trade-off is up to you.

I have a BluRay player with Netflix built in that I watch some stuff on, but I also watch a lot of stuff on my old laptop hooked to my TV via a cheap VGA converter box. It's doesn't give me an HD picture but I personally don't give a damn, YMMV.

Too late for me (5, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#39572997)

I just pirate all I can. Yes I don't fucking care anymore especially with the media companies trying hard to turn Canada into some lock down DRM utopia. I have aprox 500 dvd's of which half were bought new and rest at pawn shops. I have no intention of giving the studios any money until they stop trying to take away my ownership right off an item and stop trying to get politicians to pass insane laws.

Also HOW MANY FUCKING MOVIES must be remade from 20 year ago?

Support your local Pawn Shop and Pirate!

Re:Too late for me (3, Interesting)

RyoShin (610051) | about 2 years ago | (#39575849)

I just pirate all I can. [...] I have no intention of giving the studios any money until they stop trying to take away my ownership right

So how about just not watching the movie? I can completely side with you on not supporting the media companies. They're an unscrupulous and greedy lot. But then you go and download the movie anyway. True, you're not depriving anyone of anything, and I'm not chastising you for pirating; but, when you do that, you completely lose any credence in what appears to be a boycott/protest. Plus, someone out there tracks torrent hits, and that goes to show some sort of interest/consumption on some manager's desk, even if it's not monetary.

It's like saying you are going to protest/boycott the Mars company and then steal a Snickers bar or ask a friend to buy a Snicker's bar for you. Again, it's not about the method of obtaining something, it's about the hypocrisy at hand. You may want to ask yourself just why you do these things, and just how useful your position vs. actions are.

To me, it seems like a weird reverse of the NIMBY crowd--they want cheap, local, 'safe' energy, but not when it takes up their roof or makes noise when it spins or has an extremely low risk of radiation spilling out.

Re:Too late for me (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#39576797)

Well its not that easy. First there really isn't any good entertainment content on YouTube unless you're 13 years old and get a laugh out of retards.Gimme some good Sci Fi like http://www.pioneerone.tv/ [pioneerone.tv] (Which I donated twice to) and I'll watch I started my boycott by not going to the movie's and I haven't been to one movie since before Iron Man 2. I just couldn't spend $40-50 between me an my son to watch some shitty movie which I might as well buy a big screen tv and just buy the DVD's at pawnshops.

I did buy the Louis CK show that he release and it was worth every penny http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/22/louis-ck-makes-1-million-in-12-days-proves-that-drm-free-conte/ [engadget.com]. I haven't bought commercial music for ages but I still do download old stuff and have about 400 cd still. My tastes changed a little and I get quite a bit of music from http://www.ektoplazm.com/ [ektoplazm.com]

Re:Too late for me (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#39579417)

Why not just boycott movies and spend your money at the local (live) theater? It's 3-D, interactive, surround-sound, and you can often talk to the actors after the show (and sometimes watch a repeat performance with a different take on the characters being played).

I started my movie theater boycott over a decade ago, and haven't missed THAT experience at all. I'll admit I do watch the odd netflix movie to keep myself culturally relevant, but live acting/performance is where it's really at. Gets you out of the house more, too.

Re:Too late for me (1)

Mikachu (972457) | about 2 years ago | (#39579157)

I'm not sure this is a fair statement to make. By pirating media you are boycotting the media companies; by not partaking in that media at all, you are boycotting both the media companies and the artists who perform the work. This is not to suggest that you are not hurting the artists by doing either; in both cases, lower revenue will hurt artists as much as the production companies (both directly and indirectly). But a boycott is a concept, and in that sense, the act of pirating media (for the media pirate in question) is a boycott of the payment, not the art which the payment is for. Your analogy fails to acknowledge this distinction. An alternative would be if saying you are going to protest the ridiculous pricing of Mars bars by stealing the recipe and making them yourself. And in this way, you may hurt Mars all the same (well, slightly less so because they aren't out any manufactured goods at all) but you aren't saying anything negative about the food itself, just the pricing/corporate policies/etc.

Re:Too late for me (1)

humanrev (2606607) | about 2 years ago | (#39581267)

So how about just not watching the movie?

I used to try that approach. I didn't want to support the bastards by buying any of their stuff, but at the same time I didn't want pirate as this would give them further ammunition to be even more draconian and relentless. So I just invested in alternative media - legitimately free stuff and purchased stuff direct from the artist(s). Keep in mind I actually LIKE a lot of the stuff that exists from the big studios. Sure they make a lot of crap but they also are responsible for a ton of fun and entertaining movies/music. I just hoped that my approach would be my way of avoiding being a part of the problem and hopefully things would get better.

Unfortunately, things are getting worse. SOPA is now being resurrected into something with a different title (as expected), we still have aggressive attacks of file sharing sites which causes serious problems for legitimate users, and honestly, I've seen no progress towards treating customers and artists fairly and actually doing the right thing.

So... I pirate like crazy now. Why shouldn't I? It obviously doesn't matter what I do - I try to do the right thing, and I miss out on a lot of good content while still get screwed over. I might as well enjoy all this stuff if thing aren't gonna get better. Sacrifices are pointless if they're in vain.

Infringing Content on youtube! (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#39573001)

Paramount legal department: There is infringing content on youtube and they even have the gall to charge for it! Pirates! Shut them down NOW! They should just know what is infringing and what isn't!

Paramount (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573007)

The agent of a Hollywood scriptwriter calls his client. "Morty" he says, "I've got good news and bad news. Which do you want to hear first?"

"Gimme the good news" replies Morty.

"Well the good news is Paramount loves your script, absolutely ate it up!" says the agent.

"That's exciting" says Morty, "so what's the bad news?"

To which the agent replies "Paramount is my dog."

Useless on Rooted Android Devices (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573767)

I can watch NetFlix on my rooted Android Phone and tablet but not Google video. I would gladly pay to rent movies but the idiots don't want my money. This is stupid in that it drives me to less legitimate sources for my content.

Re:Useless on Rooted Android Devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573863)

DRM is almost as useless as getting webm VP8 content

Too expensive (3, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#39574255)

I'm not going to pay $4 - $5 to rent a movie from Google for 48 hours when for $12/month I can have 2 DVD's at a time from Netflix. Their turnaround time is so fast that I can easily get 8 movies in a month. And if I wanted to be less ethical, I could rip them to a hard drive to watch at my leisure. Netflix thought they could coerce me to move entirely to streaming, but their streaming catalog seems to keep getting smaller, so I stlil rely on DVDs.

If movie rentals were $1 - $2 then I might consider it, but why can Redbox rent me a physical disk for less than the studios want for a digital download?

Re:Too expensive (2)

hemo_jr (1122113) | about 2 years ago | (#39576185)

As a MAFIAA member, it is is pretty much a given that Paramount is a short-sighted all-the-market-will-bear robber baron type of company. They have their unregulated monopolies and will stick it to the consumer until the customer dies from loss of blood.

The Hollywood tradition is to screw both the artist and the consumer and the MAFIAA has had a century to perfect their craft.

Re:Too expensive (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | about 2 years ago | (#39580571)

why can Redbox rent me a physical disk for less than the studios want for a digital download?

because they've got it in their head that they can't possibly trust a third party not to screw with the numbers so they charge a large upfront licensing fee. if all the studios were smart, they'd create a unified rental interface that lets them control their own content directly. of course they'd lose before they began, as they would still try to charge $5/rental or $20+ for ownership, i mean unlimited viewing license, which you could never resell/lend/etc. i'm not sure why they are so stupid, but this if this is the future of digital entertainment, they will reap what they sow, hopefully in bloodshed and anguish.

And yet my desire for streaming lessens more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39574501)

I like streaming on netflix but my problem is with all these streaming services and the more and more deals being made between studios and services I am rapidly losing interest in paying for any service now.

My problem is when deals are struck that means movies get spread thinner and thinner across services. Soon you would have to subscribe to 3 or even 5 different services to have access to a large and varied amount of content, paticullarly if you want to see new content. Amazon, crackle, hulu, hulu plus, youtube, netflix, vudu, itunes, blockbuster online, sattelite/cable on demand , plus another dozen upstarts coming out and then you have like the xbox and ps3 trying to have their own services.

With so many services out there all with their own titles and deals it just frustrates me because I refuse to pay for multiple ones. So the end results is I find torrents of shows and movies I want to watch. I can watch what I want with the largest selection possible using torrents and not have to pay for a service I would only watch a few things on.

What studios should do instead is offer their content to all streaming services. That way all the services can use all the material and instead of locking in customers from just having specific movies. They would have to get their customers with selection, customer service, quality of service, pricing and so on. Studios then get more money and streaming services are then forced to give their customers more quality and better service which makes it a win for consummers. Because as it is now its more or less a matter of who has the most, not who has the best service. If studios allow access to any streaming service then it becomes to has the best selection but also who has the best pricing and best service instead of letting services be lazy just because they struck the most deals like hulu plus for instance has a good selection but Im not paying for the service only to have to watch commercials in EVERYTHING.

Re:And yet my desire for streaming lessens more. (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#39579497)

The real issue with this thinning of content is that it disrupts society -- people get to the point where not everyone can watch the same content, which means society itself becomes stratified along the lines of the content providers.

It used to be that someone could just sing you the song/tell you the story they heard somewhere else, but with this new method, you get "Oh, there was this funny scene from show X on network Y I saw the other night... it went something like this... but my access expired and it's exclusive to that network. They're planning to show it again in ten years."

They do this to create demand for their NETWORK, but lose the social continuity of the CONTENT.

MAFIAA Satan (1)

hemo_jr (1122113) | about 2 years ago | (#39576001)

Let's just hope that Google has not sold their souls to the great MAFIAA Satan, and that they haven't compromised their stand on Internet freedom to make this deal. I, for one, will be keeping my eyes open for the tell tale (or more obvious, in your face) signs that they are compromised.

failing movie business model (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#39577383)

hilarious to see them complain "despite pressure from major Hollywood studios looking to compensate for poor DVD sales.", but still refuse to adapt their business model to a reasonable online distribution. $5 for a streaming movie? That is just bad business.

No DRM? Linux support? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39579379)

The reason I'm not subscribed to Netflix is that they want me tu use a backdored OS known as Windows so they can control it and enforce completelly redundant DRM (hint, pirates have no problem aquiring sources). If this doesn't require DRM and is usable form Linux I'm ready for it.

so retarded (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | about 2 years ago | (#39580497)

if the prices aren't going to be anywhere near the old video days ($1.99-2.99/1-2days for new releases and $0.99/5days for old stuff), why bother? only a retard would rent a movie for $5, unless perhaps, it was within a month of theatrical release.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...