Beta
×

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!

New Movie Download Pay Service

Hemos posted more than 11 years ago | from the finally-coming-online dept.

Movies 353

SailorBob writes " After nearly two years in production, Hollywood-backed Movielink is giving the green light to its online movie rental service. The Web site, a joint project of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros., will debut Monday with a limited selection of first-run and classic films from the five major motion pictures studios, in a test of the technology to select U.S. residents. Though the film studios have licensed content to other video-on-demand sites, it is the first time they've introduced a service of their own. Of course, just like the new music services, this is also only available to US residents. "

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Didn't work.... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641889)

I tried it. Didn't work.

Forst Pist (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641905)

D to the Motherfuckin' C!

Well, since I'm not American... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641910)

...I'm not allowed to see anything on their site informing me of this fact.

Anyone able to provide information such as the file formats used, whether they require special (say, windows-only) players, the pricing, and, oh, maybe the file sizes of a complete film?

Re:Well, since I'm not American... (1)

phuturephunk (617641) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642176)

The site supports only Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher browsers.. . . In addition, viewers can use either Microsoft's Windows Player 7.1 or RealNetwork's RealPlayer 8.0. Two weeks ago, Movielink partnered with both RealNetworks and Microsoft Windows Media to use their digital rights management technology and media player technologies. . . Looks to me as if they're testing more than just marketability here . . Palladium anyone? . . :-P . .

IE only (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641914)

"Of course, just like the new music services, this is also only available to US residents."

And those residing in the US who are using Internet Explorer 5 or later.

Re:IE only (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4642031)

Actually, I'm using IE6 and it still tells me to upgrade...

Whats wrong with my money? (5, Interesting)

Merls (163584) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641916)

Dont they want money from outside the US?
I am interested in this, but they are not letting me in, so does anyone know of any open proxy servers based in the US so I can have a look see?
Cheers

"Work made for hire" is weaker outside the USA (5, Informative)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641985)

Dont they want money from outside the US?

The difference is that in the United States, the studios own the movies' copyrights because of the "work made for hire" rule. Elsewhere, the "work made for hire" rule applies less or not at all, and the studios do not own the movies; the director, screenwriter, and score composer do. The studios may have to negotiate a separate contract for each country where the service is offered.

Re:Whats wrong with my money? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641987)

Until it gets slashdotted, and until MovieLink ban the proxy IP:

Non US people turn off JavaScript, and go here [magusnet.com] .

But why would you want to?

Re:Whats wrong with my money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4642038)

Somehow it seems like a misplaced sense of what "online" means. Offering a pay service to US-residents only, while forcing the rest of the world to download the warez version, is a guarantee that the movie-warez scene will keep flourishing.

So, the only reason a US-resident would pay for this, would be to subsidize what the rest of the world is getting for free. Not a very big incentive if you ask me.

"Go global or go home" (from the cemetery of lost dotcoms but still valid)

Re:Whats wrong with my money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4642044)

"Offering a pay service to US-residents only, while forcing the rest of the world to download the warez version, is a guarantee that the movie-warez scene will keep flourishing."

It's a pilot, you arse. Don't you know anything about business?

Re:Whats wrong with my money? (1)

Ninja Master Gara (602359) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642084)

The video game industry has kept this alive and well. I can't buy video games locally, I can't order video games from Amazon (publishers restrict exports), what's a guy to do.

Re:Whats wrong with my money? (1)

qute (78334) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642071)

As you well know, people outside usa are terrorists. They will bring down the us economy by leeching all the movies and giving them away for free!

Maybe someone has another idea for this move?

Re:Whats wrong with my money? (4, Interesting)

kryonD (163018) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642082)

I don't normally rant, but this is complete bullsh!t. If I was actually in the US, I wouldn't be paying money for a piss-poor quality, streamed, first-run movie when I could see it in the theater with a giant screen and good sound for under $10. Instead, I have to wait months overseas for the films to be released and I have two equally poor choices. #1 Watch it on the local military base for dirt cheap in an uncomfortable theater that was designed for public addresses, not hollywood films; or #2 pay $15 out in town for a foreign language dubbed version with sub-titles. Their main market exists overseas, not in the US. The real pisser is that I can't even get to a feedback form on the site to complain. I would greatly appreciate if a fellow service member, or just kind hearted American could pass this rant onto the 'nice people' who are running the site. In the mean time, I will remain stoked that XXX is actually coming out this week.

hmmmmm...only windows? (0, Offtopic)

diametrag (411003) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641917)

typical. this only works with windows.
and to top it off only works with windows media player or real player.

Re:hmmmmm...only windows? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641923)

and only internet exploiter (i mean explorer)

Re:hmmmmm...only windows? (2)

cioxx (456323) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642024)

Windows has nothing to do with it. I tried to click the link with Windows 2000 running Phoenix 0.3 and it just refused to let me in.

Only IE can access it. Sucks to be them. I guess they view the Open Source users as non-consumers. And the site is running java for fuck's sake.

actaully .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4642069)

windoze has something to do with it. it won't let people that use mac in either even if they use IE

Re:hmmmmm...only windows? (5, Interesting)

Frank of Earth (126705) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642175)

Any would they care if it ran on anything else but windows?

Before some linux fanatic mods me down, look at
this [google.com] . In the "Web Browsers Used To Access Google" graph, IE clearly dominates everything else.

This [google.com] is from August, but I doubt anything has changed. Linux is only 1% of the OS used to access google. Even with it's own linux portal! [google.com]

I'm a big fan of linux. My websites use linux. My firewall is linux. My Tivo is linux! However, if you think that companies will try to build a web application that only 1% of population will ever see, then you're misinformed.

Now let's see if I get modded down...

24 hours to watch it all once downloaded (5, Informative)

MikeDX (560598) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641918)

Hmmm.

When I first saw the headline I assumed it was going to a great step towards truly using the power of the internet and online sales.

However, this is nothing more than glorified movie rental with the user paying well over the odds.

I've been using something called DVDSONTAP for a while now, pay £9.99 a month and rent as many dvds as I like and send them back when I like. $4.99 AND the "pleasure" of downloading AND having to install their DRM crap? No thanks. I'll stick to regular DVD and of course, leeching from usenet ;)

Re:24 hours to watch it all once downloaded (2, Informative)

Madthio (97016) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642025)

Actually, you have 6 days to watch the movie once you are finished downloading it. Once you begin playback, you can watch it as many times as you want (or can) within 24 hours. That may not be fantastic, but it is better than having to watch the entire thing within 24 hours of download.

These downloads aren't exactly small, either (the faq claims that they average around 550MB), so I am not going to wait at my computer for the download to finish so i can hit "play" before my 24 hours runs out...

Re:24 hours to watch it all once downloaded (5, Interesting)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642078)

umm, let's get the facts straight, shall we?
  • The services are fundamentally dissimilar. One is "on demand". The other is "when the post brings you a DVD"
  • You do get "DRM crap" with your by-mail service. it's called the physical DVD. Not foolproof / ripproof, of course, but as every pinhead will point out as soon as there's any news article that features some new DRM technology, nothing is.
  • With your service, you get the pleasure of dealing with the post. For my tastes, id much prefer the pleasure of downloading.

Re:24 hours to watch it all once downloaded (5, Informative)

Spunk (83964) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642107)

We have this in the US too. Netflix [netflix.com] charges $20/month. I don't own a DVD player, but I've heard good things about them.

Will it work with Linux? (-1, Troll)

croftj (2359) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641925)

If it doesn't work with Linux, what good is it?

Microsoft Windows only (2, Interesting)

noodlez84 (416138) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641926)

Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers; however, you currently do not meet our minimum system requirements. You will need to adjust the following:

* You Need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP


They are severely limiting their audience here. While "normal" people will simply go to Blockbuster and rent the DVD, the Internet community doesn't allow have "Windows 98, ME, 2000, or XP".

As I (obviously) can't browse through the webpage, could someone tell me how format these are going to be distributed in?

[BTW, I'm running Mozilla 1.1 on SuSE 8.1 Professional.]

Re:Microsoft Windows only (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641949)

Severely limiting their audience to 90+% of all users on the internet? Obviously a usage of the word "severely" I'm not previously familiar with.

Re:Microsoft Windows only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641989)

they should watch themselves, I just cooked up a handicap discrimination type lawsuit that seems plausable in my head.

Supporting only windows on the web is a dangerous thing, especially if you only support IE (for no real reason other than your apparnetly in microsofts pockets).

Re:Microsoft Windows only (5, Insightful)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641963)

I don't mean to start a war here, but, personal choices of the /. community aside, something like 95% of the world's desktops run Windows, in one way or another. Furthermore, and I would argue more importantly, the typical Linux enthusiast is very vocal in his/her choice of free (beer/speech, irrelevant really), therefore such a paying service would, really, just induce laughter in the Linux community.

I think that blocking Mac users is far more stupid. I mean, they are content on shelling out some $100 a year for .mac, I think that testing such a service would be a no brainer.

Then run Virtual PC (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641996)

blocking Mac users

They are not blocking all users of Macintosh computers or Mac OS. A Mac user merely has to install Connectix Virtual PC [connectix.com] , which comes bundled with Windows XP Professional OEM Edition. Buy it now for $250.

linux lnthusiasts are necessarily cheap (5, Insightful)

smd4985 (203677) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642136)

"the typical Linux enthusiast is very vocal in his/her choice of free (beer/speech, irrelevant really), therefore such a paying service would, really, just induce laughter in the Linux community."

i think this is a incorrect generalization. i'm a big supporter of OSS, GPL, free speech, etc., but i'm also very willing to pay for content i appreciate. not *everything* has to or should be free, and i gladly pay for content i could get for free (ie music). i do this because i understand that an efficient way to encourage content production (code, art, etc.) is through monetary support.

Re:Microsoft Windows only (2)

Storm Damage (133732) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642062)

On my laptop at work, I use Windows (2000), but browse with Mozilla, and the error message I got was "You need IE 5 or higher".

A glance at the requirements site reveals the following:

You need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP

You need Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher - Upgrade Now
You need RealPlayer 8.0 or higher - Upgrade Now OR
Windows Media Player 7.1 or higher - Upgrade Now You need a Connection Speed of 128 kbps or higher - Retake Connection Speed


I don't know what IE does that Mozilla can't, but I've already seen the "hot new releases" they're offering anyway (well, most of them, but I'm not really interested in the rest).

Re:Microsoft Windows only (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642108)

I don't know what IE does that Mozilla can't,

ActiveX.

Re:Microsoft Windows only (2, Informative)

Luke-Jr (574047) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642144)

Actually, I believe Mozilla for Windows has some kind of ActiveX wrapper so it works...

Interesting.. (5, Insightful)

glh (14273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641928)

Here is the jist according to me:

1. You can download certain videos that are probably like the "new release" section at the video store, but also some classics (examples- A beautiful mind, harry potter, ..)

2. You can view it within 30 days of the download, but once "play is hit" you can only watch it within a 24 hr period (but as many times as you want).

3. Cost will be between 2.99 and 4.99

My question is- Why not save yourself 1 1/2 hrs and possibly a buck and drive to the video store? The only thing I can think of is no late fees. A little more convenient in that sense. But what about video quality? Who wants to watch a video on their pc as opposed to the big screen tv upstairs?

Selection (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642007)

You can download certain videos that are probably like the "new release" section

They may expand their selection once they get more contracts negotiated.

Why not save yourself 1 1/2 hrs and possibly a buck and drive to the video store?

"Sorry, we don't have that video in right now."

"Sorry, we don't carry that video."

Who wants to watch a video on their pc as opposed to the big screen tv upstairs?

ATI All-in-Wonder video cards can output NTSC television signals. It should also be pretty easy to connect a VGA signal to an HDTV set.

Re:Selection (2)

glh (14273) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642132)

ATI All-in-Wonder video cards can output NTSC television signals. It should also be pretty easy to connect a VGA signal to an HDTV set.

It's not difficult to connect a VGA signal using those output jobbies on the back of the card, I agree. However, the quality leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I haven't used the ATI card, but my AGP Diamond card had a video out and it doesn't come close to the quality that my DVD player gives me. Not only that, but you also have to get that connection TO the TV. A lot of people don't have the tv right next to the PC, so that means that they have to either buy a long cable and run it or use one of the wireless transmitter/reciever devices. Again, crappy quality and a lot more work than just sticking a DVD in the player.

However, your other point (video availability) is a pretty good one. It really gets me ticked when I go to the video and the 99 copies of the new release are gone. However, after reading the article it kind of sounds like the new releas selection will be AFTER the videos have been released at the video store.

Re:Interesting.. (1)

katre (44238) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642045)

You can download certain videos that are probably like the "new release" section at the video store, but also some classics (examples- A beautiful mind, harry potter, ..)

Y'know, I remember when the phase 'Classics' meant 'movies people enjoy watching year after year' and not 'stuff we put out two years ago that a few people might decide to watch again'. Once again, the movie industry disgusts me.

Re:Interesting.. (3, Insightful)

mshurpik (198339) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642061)

Sounds exactly like DivX, which failed miserably and was subsequently replaced with an altogether different meaning of the word DivX ;)

Of course, one could argue that the original DivX was not flawed but merely ahead of its time. That seems to be what they're counting on.

Don't forget.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641930)



Be kind - Rewind!

Why hide the site? (5, Interesting)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641933)

Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers, but it is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States.

I'm don't see why I can't even have a look? Are they just paranoid of people copying their service in the rest of the world?

I'd be nice to know more, but seems we have to resort to Gnutella/eDonkey/etc... here ;)

Re:Why hide the site? (1)

Openadvocate (573093) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642046)

Because if your not the target group, why waste any bandwidth on you.
.. or me for that matter, I got the same message as you.
I think it might have something to do with them not wanting the users being out of reach for their lawyers.

Re:Why hide the site? (1)

vrmlknight (309019) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642177)

dont worry your not missing much it looks very much like the MSN [msn.com] site. very blue and color ful little logos while not having any thing to offer.

EVERYBODY!!! (2, Insightful)

dupper (470576) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641943)

Sorry to schout, but it's ridiculously important that we support this. If we can show them that the internet is a useful communications tool. If the movie executives can see that they can exploit it for their own good, they'll stop painting those who use it as criminals.

I may not have articulated it very well, but I'm sure you all know what's at stake here. So go there, look for a movie you like and pay for it. And don't put it in a shared folder.

Re:EVERYBODY!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641955)

will putting it in a shared folder work?

hey everyone put your stuff in a shared folder!!!!!

Re:EVERYBODY!!! (0, Funny)

dupper (470576) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641958)

Shit, I forgot. I live in Canada.

Re:EVERYBODY!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641965)

Sigh, your a fool, Zoom out and look at the bigger picture.

Re:EVERYBODY!!! (2)

ealar dlanvuli (523604) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642021)

I would but I don't have a webbrowser capable of viewing their page... They have some (really nasty looking) browser detection going on through javascript.

Wrong (3, Insightful)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642067)

We're supposed to support something that has already failed in the marketplace? (Hint: Think Divx.) Just because they've added a bandwidth crippling download and locked it to your PC without all of the extra DVD-goodness?

Not to mention the charges are HIGHER than at your local video store. $2.99 for a 24-hour rental? Not to mention at lower quality and you can't even play it on your living room TV.

No, this does not deserve our support.

Re:EVERYBODY!!! (2)

Ford Fulkerson (223443) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642180)

I would, but I have an unsupported computer running an unsupported browser in an unsupported country.

No thanks, think about it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641947)

$2.99 to $4.99 for older movies? These are $1.00 for 5 nights at the video store. I think Ill pass and just download them and burn them to vcd. That will cost ummmmm nothing, I still don't understand why people try to make money off of something that is already free, of course this does fall to the consumer (see bottled water???)

Windows only for now. (5, Informative)

donkeyDevil (451438) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641948)

It's early on for Movielink, but in its initial incarnation, its strictly Windows & Strictly IE. If you try anything else, you'll get:

Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers; however, you currently do not meet our minimum system requirements. You will need to adjust the following:
*
You Need Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP


Running Netscape, even on Windows will get you:


Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers; however, you currently do not meet our minimum system requirements. You will need to adjust the following:

You need Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher - Upgrade Now


Spoofing your browser & javascript settings will just hang your machine.

Re:Windows only for now. (1)

esarjeant (100503) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642014)

I wasn't even so lucky -- on Mozilla 1.2b I'm getting a "One moment please..." message. Oh well, I guess they won't ever get any of my money.

TBPH, they probably wouldn't anyway. For this kind of thing to really work right, I think it needs to be "TiVo-ized". That way you could sit down at your TV, pick the movie you want to watch and download it. There would be more control over viewing restrictions and -- let's face it -- who wants to sit in front of their PC monitor to watch a movie when there's a 56" widescreen HDTV in the other room?

Re:Windows only for now. (1)

katre (44238) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642088)

For this kind of thing to really work right, I think it needs to be "TiVo-ized". That way you could sit down at your TV, pick the movie you want to watch and download it.

This exists, in New York anyway. Time Warner is rolling out what they call In-Demand digital cable. A friend of mine works for the company that provides the service and gave me a description. basically it's pay-per-view, except you select from a huge menu of movies, when you want to watch, and you can pause, rewind, fast-forward, whatever, all over your cable line. Sounds very cool.

Re:Windows only for now. (3, Insightful)

Zigg (64962) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642030)

Spoofing your browser & javascript settings will just hang your machine.

Do you really mean machine? If so, maybe you do need to upgrade away from whatever OS you're using, that permits a website to do such a thing...

Before the rants and flames start... (5, Insightful)

gregwbrooks (512319) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641952)

Lacking in clue content on the movie industry's part? "Maybe," says Joe Public and "Damn straight!" says the average Slashdot reader. But all in all, we have to view this as A Good Thing(tm).

Yes, someone will crack the DRM. Yes, the adoption rate will suck because most non-geeks really do want to watch movies on their televisions. But all in all, movie-industry suits have shown themselves to be more adaptable in the face of change than their counterparts in the music industry -- CDs cost what they cost a decade ago, but DVDs are probably about a tenth or twentieth of what the first VHS movies cost when you factor in inflation.

Bottom line: I'd rather have the movie industry experimenting and learning than have them go into siege mode the way the music industry has done. They both have a lot of money to throw at Congress -- money and influence we can't ever match -- so signs (even dull glimmers) of cluefullness are greatfully appreciated.

Why bother (5, Insightful)

locarecords.com (601843) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641957)

They try to protect these films so much and then you can only watch them for a short while, why would anyone bother?

I think the possibilities for actually storing *bought* films on you HDD (perhaps as part of an iTunes like library) which can be watched direct to TV will be the answer.

Download to your PC is just *not*. Who wants to watch a film on their computer, crouched over on an uncomfortable office chair? Or maybe they still believe in the convergence of the PC and TV... er... nope

Anyway the download times are so horrific it would be quicker to nip to the shops...

In fact the only advantage I can see is that Hackers will break the code in.. oh... seconds and then peer-to-peer distribution will take off for film ;-)

Re:Why bother (5, Informative)

Ford Fulkerson (223443) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641992)

In fact the only advantage I can see is that Hackers will break the code in.. oh... seconds and then peer-to-peer distribution will take off for film ;-)

From the article:
The company is testing the service for 90 days, taking in consumer advice and troubleshooting the technology. After that, it expects to publicize the service widely through online marketing [...]

Note to hackers, make sure to wait until the studios evaluation period is over before releasing the crack..

Rent films at your public library (5, Insightful)

migstradamus (472166) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641959)

It's a bit low-tech, but since I moved to NY I've been getting four or five movies a week from the public library. The selection is vastly larger than my local Blockbuster, you can request things online (telnet lives!) and they send them to your local branch and then e-mail you when it comes in, you can have up to 15 requests active, you get the movies for a full week, and it's all completely free! Most films even come in DVD now. (The system is for books, too. Remember books?) It's amazing. Plus, when you pay your dollar-a-day overdue fee you get a warm fuzzy feeling for giving to the library, as opposed to handing four bucks to some mumbling chowderhead at the video megalopoly outlet. The NY site is here [nypl.org] .

Re: public library (4, Insightful)

No Such Agency (136681) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642162)

Plus, when you pay your dollar-a-day overdue fee you get a warm fuzzy feeling for giving to the library, as opposed to handing four bucks to some mumbling chowderhead at the video megalopoly outlet.

I consider library fines to be one of my major modes of charitable donation. I don't deliberately keep books overdue, it just works out that way... a lot ;-) Yeah, paying late fees at Roger's or Blockheads^H^H^H^H^Hbuster really sucks. And yes, local libraries can have a surprisingly good selection, everything from arty European stuff to Kurosawa to four copies of The Matrix :-D

Same old problems (5, Insightful)

parliboy (233658) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641961)

We already know what's wrong with these sites. But to summarize for latecomers:
  • $3.00 to rent a movie for 24 hours, versus $5.00 to rent it for a week from the shop down the road.
  • It's not portable. I can only watch it from the downloading computer.
  • Forced, automatic "updating" of their software.
For any lurkers: Charge me $5 to $10, depending on age, for a permanant copy which I can burn to DVD myself. Charge me extra if I want the "value added" version (the retail DVD, versus just a movie.) Afraid I might pirate your stuff? Please, if I have broadband, I already can. So, take my money, the way I want you to, or I'll get your product somewhere else. Get over it and get with the economy.

Re:Same old problems (1)

knewman_1971 (549573) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641986)

"Afraid I might pirate your stuff? Please, if I have broadband, I already can. So, take my money, the way I want you to, or I'll get your product somewhere else. Get over it and get with the economy."

br

Re:Same old problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4642063)

>br

Are you cold?

Re:Same old problems (2, Interesting)

Brolly (151540) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641993)

Give me exactly what I want or I'm going to aquire it illegally. Ahh, blackmail. Your morals are interesting.

Re:Same old problems (2)

parliboy (233658) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642092)

Blackmail implies a negative outcome for the company. Or, at least, an outcome more negative than had I no dealings with the product. They gain money by providing me with product, and they lose no money (save what they had to gain) by not. That is not blackmail. The part about acquiring it illegally is a given about much of the public in many ways of life. 30 seconds on packetnews, go to the appropriate IRC channel, and get the newest Screener or DVDRip. Been that way for awhile. You might bemoan that, but it's still the case. Here they're trying to fulfill a market that doesn't exist (24 hour online rentals) and so of course it's going to fail. The only people interested in online rentals are agorophobians and people who live in desolate areas. So that leaves Johnny Carson, and who else? Porn is the only industry that gets off (pun intended) on that business structure, and this venture won't change that. Side notes: In my meager defense, I've downloaded a move exactly once, then realized why screeners really suck. I will likely do it for Spirited Away though, because of Disney's cock-up in distributing it to all of 200 screens in total, with the nearest being three+ hours away. I may do it for Bowling for Columbine too, because of the Regal Cinemas flap, unless Michael Moore wants to sell me a DVD personally, so I'll know he's getting my cash and not a distributor.

Re:Same old problems (repost) (3, Interesting)

parliboy (233658) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642100)

I hate it when I do stupid stuff like pick the wrong format. Once more with appropriate breaking:

Blackmail implies a negative outcome for the company. Or, at least, an outcome more negative than had I no dealings with the product. They gain money by providing me with product, and they lose no money (save what they had to gain) by not. That is not blackmail.

The part about acquiring it illegally is a given about much of the public in many ways of life. 30 seconds on packetnews, go to the appropriate IRC channel, and get the newest Screener or DVDRip. Been that way for awhile. You might bemoan that, but it's still the case.

Here they're trying to fulfill a market that doesn't exist (24 hour online rentals) and so of course it's going to fail. The only people interested in online rentals are agorophobians and people who live in desolate areas. So that leaves Johnny Carson, and who else?

Porn is the only industry that gets off (pun intended) on that business structure, and this venture won't change that.

Side notes: In my meager defense, I've downloaded a move exactly once, then realized why screeners really suck. I will likely do it for Spirited Away though, because of Disney's cock-up in distributing it to all of 200 screens in total, with the nearest being three+ hours away. I may do it for Bowling for Columbine too, because of the Regal Cinemas flap, unless Michael Moore wants to sell me a DVD personally, so I'll know he's getting my cash and not a distributor.

Re:Same old problems (1)

souldan (579930) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642000)

I'm going to have to agree first off the price is too much for too great a dependence on my connection/system/you name it. Second I can go down to wallmart and buy the same thing they are selling for the exact same price, so what are they offering, a convience/inconvience....??? Its a step but not enough..

Re:Same old problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4642020)

$3.00 to rent a movie for 24 hours, versus $5.00 to rent it for a week from the shop down the road.

Does the shop down the road guarantee that it has the movie you want in stock?

It's not portable. I can only watch it from the downloading computer.

Unless the downloading computer itself is portable.

Re:Same old problems (2)

parliboy (233658) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642130)

Does the shop down the road guarantee that it has the movie you want in stock?

Yes. If it doesn't, and it's a major release, then when it's in stock I get a free rental. Also, its selection is exponentially larger (yes, I know it's a misused word, but it's appropriate given this site's stock).

Re:Same old problems (1)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642023)

I'd readily agree to these conditions if they would open their archives and offer all the old classics you can't get elsewhere

Blockbusters probably will be cheaper (and of better quality) if you rent them around the corner for the time being , but this would really be a possibility to get online-services off the ground as there is no good source for all that old stuff and it's even difficult to get them on p2p-nets so the studios wouldn't have to compete with the "why pay for something if I can pirate it"-mentality.

Shamefully admitting use of IE (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641970)

But the site has no search feature. I went to the Comedy link, and it completely failed the one-shot test:
The Appointments of Dennis Jennings [imdb.com]
Does anyone know why this intense, Oscar winning IIRC, little film cannot be found under the sun?

Re:Shamefully admitting use of IE (1)

dinivin (444905) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641979)


Maybe because it stars Steven Wright, one of the least funny comedians on the face of the planet.

Dinivin

Re:Shamefully admitting use of IE (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642170)

Appreciate your right to an opinion, dinna agree, laddy.

whats the download going to be like avi or dvd (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4641974)

is this just going to be the movie or are we going to get the whole dvd experience? Extras and such. And just how in the world do they expect to keep you from watching it whenever once you get it?

It must be a propritary format and if so how long before someone figures out how to very convienently rip it. If it is propritary, what kind of a player does it have?

Read the article (2, Informative)

m00nun1t (588082) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641983)

It's a "a test of the technology to select U.S. residents". It's a limited test, people, not a fully fledged launch. It supports the setup the majority (80+%) of Internet users have: Windows, IE and WMP/Real Player. Please, no more "it doesn't support linux" or whatever posts.

(and before you say "it's not a test without platform X", I'm sure if they can get it to work on Windows, they can get it working on your platform).

Horay!!! (2, Funny)

browman (191604) | more than 11 years ago | (#4641994)

It's true then, I'm not American... .. that makes me happy

Only in the US (2, Insightful)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642006)

VGA out + MPEG2 in * DIVX = KAZAA.

MACINTOSH is BANNED! Despite google statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4642011)

MACINTOSH is banned! Despite google statistics showing 10 times as many clicks per day from people running macs than any form of Linux or unix.

Google is the most accurate measurement of users and is not skewed, in fact if anything, I am surprised 20 times as many mac users than linux exists. It is not skewed becaseu no known web borwsers lie about the OS, though some allow spoofing the type of browser. Noone lies about their OS and millions of people use macs but cannot use this DRM garbage.

(I am assuming almost all tech-saavy linux users use google).

This service is horrible and will no doubt have its plugin drm stuff hacked quickly (once it offers REAL SELECTIONS).

USA only (5, Funny)

selderrr (523988) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642012)

Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers, but it is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States.

Europeans not allowed, and it is not slashdotted. This proves that we, europeans, are the major factor in the slashdot effect

Q.E.D.

Re:USA only (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4642157)

Doesn't that make you terrorist cyber-vandals?

Drat, we'll have to invade now... ;)

Re:USA only (2)

parliboy (233658) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642159)

Nah, it's just that half of the page gets filtered out with Proxomiton due to the crappy design, so we don't hit it as hard.

paranoid (2, Interesting)

12013 (622026) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642017)

talk about being paranoid...

Thank you for your interest in Movielink. We want you to take part in the powerful Internet movie rental experience that Movielink delivers, but it is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States.

The pirates are so much more user/customer-friendly.

Working in Turkey at the moment, around the block from the hotel people are standing around with these huge boxes full of DIVX movies. costs about a buck or 2 a movie (depends on your bartering skills)...

the amazing this is that they even have a system! It's all DVD quality, autorun feature that would install all the codecs, subtitling software,...

now i don't feel so bad for having bought some of those when i' really really bored...

i was going to buy some from your site mr. movie exec... but you wouldn't let me... so this was my only option

Only option??? (0, Flamebait)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642097)

I am sorry, but your lame self-justifying comment is completely offensive to everybody out there who buys their DVDs. You went out and bought a divx pirate movie from your local pirate and you try to justify yourself by saying "well, I would have watched it through the net if they let me, but since the don't, well, I bought a stolen version.

You could very well have bought the dvd at amazon.co.uk. It would have been there in a couple of days, a couple of weeks, whatever. You could have gone to the local equivalent of Blockbuster and rent it. The fact is you chose to steal it, and then you later found a justification for it.

Now, stealing was not your only option, was it?

Rip the movie? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4642019)

Much like with how you can rip streaming audio to mp3 and what not, has anyone figured out a way to rip these movies?

I'll stick with Charter On Demand. (2, Informative)

croftj (2359) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642027)

I'll stick with my Charter on Demand movies. My TV has a bigger screen, the prices are just as good and the selections are better.

It doesn't require my to go by a specific TV from a specific vender either! I can use an old B&W tv with vacuum tubes or a new shiney one. It can be a large screen, or HDTV or just a regular TV.

Life is good when you don't have to buy even more stuff you don't want (like a WindozeXX computer) just to see a stupid movie!

choppy previews (1)

jtdennis (77869) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642032)

If this were my company, I'd make sure the previews played smoothly. I don't know the format of the full movies, but the previews use real player and the trailers were like watching a bunch of still pictures in a slide show on my DSL. They might have had a buyer, at least to try it out, but I'm not going to waste my money if I can't be assured of a problem free viewing.

$4.99, one day, low quality a/v, watch on PC only? (5, Insightful)

rabbitpoo (68666) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642035)

Did they make up a big list of things that would make the service suck and pick them all?

Okay, so lets review. You pay $4.99 for a new release, you get one day to watch it, it's lower video quality than DVD, you can only watch it on the PC (unless you have video out hooked to a TV) and to top it all off, you can't use the service without Windows let alone even browse the site without IE?

How this is even close to spending $3.99 to rent a DVD new release you can watch on a TV for two days with full quality video and sound is lost on me. Yeah, you don't have to drive anywhere to get it, but you pay more and get a lot less.

I can't imagine why this service would fail to catch the business of regular people, and of course those people trading DVDs.

The movie industry joins the music industry... (2)

Cheese Cracker (615402) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642058)

Of course, just like the new music services, this is also only available to US residents.

And for the rest of residents on this globe... P2P... gosh, the people in the movie industry are just as smart as the music industry. They're going to be flushed down the drain if they're not coming up with a viable internet business idea soon...

Maybe good for a plane flight (4, Interesting)

nomadicGeek (453231) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642079)

The only appealing use of this that I can think of right now might be to load a movie or two on the laptop prior to a plane flight.

I was hoping that this may allow you to burn a DVD or VCD from the downloaded site but no such luck. I can't think of any time that I would sit and watch a movie on my PC except when travelling.

I can't quite see how they expect to make any money off of this. To be competitive this services has to offer something better than the existing distribution channels. I see far too many bad points and only one good, no returns or late fees.

Re:Maybe good for a plane flight (1)

micq (266015) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642134)

I was hoping that this may allow you to burn a DVD or VCD from the downloaded site but no such luck

Please tell me you're kidding...

Netflix? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4642093)

With http://www.netflix.com around I don't see the point of this. 19 bucks a month and they will send me as many DVDs as I want a month (3 at a time) and I can keep them as long as I want. Not to mention I get the full DVD not some RealVideo crap. I can't see he value in wasting my time downloading.

even better (1)

tuanjim_2001 (534921) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642110)

*You need Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher - Upgrade Now

Being that I use Moz I do think that it would be called downgrading. All humor aside that is bullshit.

Upgrade now (2)

randomErr (172078) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642117)

I tried to go there with latest nightly build of Mozilla and got this lovely message:

'* You need Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher - Upgrade Now'

Food for thought.

Barberella for $1.99.... Where do I Sign up! (1)

Chainsaw76 (261937) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642118)

If you only see one Movie this holiday season, and you haven't seen it*.. Spend the $2 for this cult classic. Afterwards you can tell Hanoi Jane [Fonda] how that is now your favorite movie of hers.

*Assuming you have paid your Microsoft tax and are running Windows, and IE.

-Jason

Re:Barberella for $1.99.... Where do I Sign up! (2)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642179)

Ironic that you post this on Veteran's Day.

While Hanoi Jane may look good in that movie, my TV and PC both know that any appearance of her on either screen for more than 3 seconds will result in swift destruction of the offending device. As such, they refuse to display her countenance.

For those that do not know, Hanoi Jane (Fonda) actively colluded with the North Vietnamese during the war. A better looking 60's John Walker Lindh.

You may think a particular war or military action is wrong, but actively helping the other side (whomever they may be), against your own country, is just plain wrong.

This is a joke (2, Interesting)

Coolmoe (416032) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642120)

This service will no doubt fail as it requires too many things for all it delivers. The more likely thing we will see from this is after this fails more lobbying in washington as they can now "proove" that the internet is only comprised of pirates! See we opened a pay service and nobody used it!

$4.95 (1)

Fubar411 (562908) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642129)

Considering I'm paying for the high speed connection and the storage, and it is only viewable w/in a 24 hour period (once started), it should be cheaper than blockbuster or hollywood video. Not so, I guess.

Wha? (1)

redNuht (213553) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642131)

Oh wait, you mean P2P was NOT endorsed by the studios?!

Tried it (5, Informative)

SirAnodos (463311) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642148)

I tried it last night. Rented and downloaded an older classic for $1.99 (took 1.08 hours on my DSL). It seems their codec could have been much better. I have seen DivX movies the same size (628MB) and same length movie that were higher quality. I would say the quality was similar to VHS. I don't know what codec they are using, but it doesn't seem like MPEG4, which is what I would like to see them use to make maximum use of bandwidth.
This service would actually be useful for us, because we live so far away from any rental store... and sometimes have problems getting the movies back on time. :-)
We usually watch DVDs on the computer anyway.
If a service opens up that uses MPEG4 (or DivX) and has good prices, then we will be using it quite frequently.

Smart but not smart enough (1)

lightweave (522226) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642150)

I can only go by the comments as I can't access the site since I'm not an US resident (and hopefully never will be). :)
Apperently they try to sell movies on a pay-per-view basis. I doubt that this will work. I guess they thought "So many people download movies, so there is a market for pay-per-view." What they don't seem to consider is, if people, who download a movie, will also watch it in front of the PC.
Personally I don't like this. The view movies I downloaded I copied to VHS and watched them on TV, which is a much better experience than sitting in front of my computer desk. My desk is commited to doing computer stuff, not for relaxed sitting in fornt staring at the screen. Though this is also part of it of course. :)
Also what I'd hate in such a situation. Imagine you are watching a very exciting and thrilling new movie, you are totaly immersed in the story, biting your fingers because you can't wait for the murder to be revealed. And *PUFF* suddenly the merry colours of your windows desktop appear with a nice *DING* telling you "Connection lost, please try to contact the site later as it is currently unavailable." AAAAARGHHHHH!
Another thing, that is equally bad. What happens when your connection is stable but drops every now and then? Your movie will not break but every now and then it stucks and then continues again (Hint: Lag). I don't think that this will make for a good experience. My ADSL is pretty stable but even on the fastest connection it happens that it sometimes drops. This is no problem for downloads, but it will hurt a movie experience whne you are forced to watch while being online.
Personally the few movies I really like to see (like Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings) I can afford to go the theater. This guarantues for a really good experience and is much better than watching at home. For most other movies I can wait for the VHS/DVD. So I wouldn't be client for that thing, for sure.

Still does not work on my w2k with IE6 (1)

mjhuot (525749) | more than 11 years ago | (#4642185)

Anyone else have this problem? I am doing this from work behind a double proxy. I get the message - You need Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?