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!

Apple to Announce iTunes Movie Rentals?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the no-drm-is-safe dept.

347

An anonymous reader writes "Think Secret is reporting that the next Apple Worldwide Developer's Conference may be the company's platform to announce movie rentals via iTunes. The files would probably have a built-in shutoff timer, or only allow a certain number of viewings." From the article: "Apple is said to have ironed out agreements with Walt Disney, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures, and Warner Bros., and is currently in talks with other major movie studios as well. It's unknown to what extent content will be available come the August 7 announcement, or whether Apple will announce all of its studio deals at that time ... Apple had been trying for months to persuade the movie studios that the a-la-carte model of buying individual titles, as the iTunes Music Store offers with music, was the way to go. The studios, however, have been fixed on offering only a subscription or rental-based model."

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

DRM Creep? (0, Troll)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736543)

First they give you a fairly liberal DRM.

Then they tighten that DRM slightly with iTunes 'security' updates.

Then they introduce DRM that enforces ppv / rentals / time limiting.

Next? (remember that lucky ITMS buyers get whatever DRM Apple wants them to have!)

Re:DRM Creep? (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736561)

This is why I use allofmp3. No DRM that I'm locked to (and them tightening the noose every other day)

I wouldn't mind if a DRM-free service like allofmp3 was more expensive, I use it out of principle to avoid pirating the music. I would be willing to go with something closer to the iTunes pricing scheme if it weren't so DRM-filled.

Re:DRM Creep? (3, Funny)

ral8158 (947954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736623)

NEWSFLASH: The reason allofmp3 is so cheap is because they don't ask the artist's permission before they sell their songs. You might as well be pirating, it's basically the same thing. Honestly, if you want an artist's music, you can't double-dip and make your own rules about how you obtain it. They get to decide. So if you don't like buying DRM infested files, well, you have no other legal options to buy their music if that's how they want to sell it. And don't tell me allofmp3 is legal; it's only scantily legal because of Russia having fucked up copyright laws. (Read that "No copyright laws".)

Re:DRM Creep? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736765)

Your point? There are a lot of people who don't care very much; the thing about allofmp3 is that it's better than P2P in terms of quality and availibility of content (and lack of spyware), at basically nominal cost.

I don't give a rat's rosy rear end where the money goes.

Re:DRM Creep? (2, Insightful)

pNutz (45478) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736836)

You must see some moral incentive, otherwise you wouldn't be an AC. Ta.

legal choices (2, Interesting)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736992)

some other news: artists mostly no longer make these decisions. Perhaps they sold-out, perhaps they are dead. The modern "Stationers" media companies often have the exclusive control.

Some choices to obtain music:

1. Buy music infested with DRM, which may overstep the US legal copyright limits.
2. Buy music from Russian MP3 sites, which may avoid US legal copyright limits.
3. Only subscribe to DRM-free music services like emusic.com.
4. Only buy from opensource/creative-commons music labels like magnatune.
5. No music

If state that only 3-5 are really legally legitimate, many people will ignore the legal or moral problems with DRM music or Russian music, because they do not directly see any negative impact.

Though I would suggest 4 if you really want to encourage healthy legal creativity.

Re:DRM Creep? (1, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737060)

The reason allofmp3 is so cheap is because they don't ask the artist's permission before they sell their songs. You might as well be pirating, it's basically the same thing.

WRONG! The People have an inherent Right to their culture; the only "right" that artists have to restrict that is a bargain created for the purpose of "Promoting the Progess of Science and the Useful Arts." The artist's permission is not required in order to distribute in Russia, nor is it required here in the US (depending on the circumstances -- see "Compulsory Licensing" [wikipedia.org] )!

And don't tell me allofmp3 is legal; it's only scantily legal because of Russia having fucked up copyright laws. (Read that "No copyright laws".)

Allofmp3.com IS LEGAL IN RUSSIA, and you have no right whatsoever to tell the Russians what laws they can or cannot make for themselves!

Re:DRM Creep? (4, Insightful)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736807)

Honestly, WHY do you think buying music on allofmp3 is different then pirating it? Why do you want to buy the music? I see two possibilities: 1. you want to thank the artist and give him some money 2. you feel guilty if you use eMule, so you go to allofmp3 and download the songs for a very cheap price.
You know full well the artist is seeing NO compensation when you buy his stuff from allofmp3. If you still want his songs, just steal them yourself already, instead of hiring goons to do it for you.

Re:DRM Creep? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15737003)

I've used allofmp3.com for about 2 or 3 albums so far in the year I've been on it. Both were big label bands. I wouldn't have bought their albums anyway. I might have downloaded a track or 2 from P2P.

I like it for 2 reasons:
1. It is still legal, no matter what you think.
2. It doesn't support the RIAA.

If I really had the money I'd be supporting those bands by going to their shows. $0.03 per iTunes track to the artist and >$0.50 to the RIAA doesn't help anyone, well except those schmucks in suits.

Re:DRM Creep? (2, Insightful)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737020)

AllOfMP3 is insanely easy to use. Have you tried their new software, AllTunes [alltunes.com] ? It's as easy to use as iTunes, and still lets you choose the encoding of your music. Neither my parents or my wife were willing to mess around with trying to search and download stuff using newsgroups or other file sharing programs, but they use AllTunes without any problems.

If I go to newsgroups, or other file sharing services, I can't always get the encoding that I want. There's also a good chance that the stuff is mislabeled, or is totally corrupted. Those aren't problems when buying from AllOfMP3.

Basically, I don't use AllOfMP3 because I feel guilty, I use it because it is by far the easiest way to get music in the format that I want, and I don't have to worry about it installing crap on my computer when I play a song.

Re:DRM Creep? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736591)

I agree. I would much rather they had online movie sales where you burned a DVD as the final product instead of renting a movie. If I'm going to take the time to download gigs (if you want good quality) of information, I want to be able to keep the movie once i've downloaded it. I realize it would be impossible to stop people from copying the burned DVD for all their friends, but that's pretty much the way it is now with DVDs and CDs, so I don't see why they should be afraid. Also, I want to be able to watch this on my home theatre. My computer monitor/speakers just don't cut it when it comes to movies, and video out on most video cards is highly inferior to what you get straight from a DVD player. Also, it requires that you have a computer in the same room as the TV.

Re:DRM Creep? (1)

Thrudheim (910314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736820)

According to the various rumors on this subject over the past few months, Apple was trying very hard to get the movie studios to agree to just what you describe: customers would buy movies rather than rent them. The studios strongly prefer the rental model and, it turns out, they own the content. That's why the original article describes this as a setback for Steve Jobs.

Personally, though, I am not interested in owning a bunch of low-resolution movie files. The rental model makes much more sense for movies than for music. It is a very rare movie that I want to watch more than once.

Re:DRM Creep? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737018)

But why would you want to rent a movie to watch on your computer screen? I think this will be the breaking point for any online movie service. If you can't watch it on your home theatre, then only a small percentage of people will use this service. I think the rental model makes a lot of sense for movies too. However, there's no way with the current technology to get something you can only play for a limited time, and that you can't copy.

Re:DRM Creep? (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737049)

Well, we don;t know the price yet do we? If, for example I could rent a movie to watch on my PC for 5 days at $0.99c I'd be tempted.

It's DRM, but as long as it is transparent what you are getting, and the price reflects the restrictions, that's OK by me.

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (0)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736595)

First they give you a fairly liberal DRM.
Then they tighten that DRM slightly with iTunes 'security' updates.


Please state what functionality the updates took away. Making it harder to circumvent is not removing functionality, as circumvention was never promised.

Then they introduce DRM that enforces ppv / rentals / time limiting.


This is for the alleged new video rental product, not the current audio product. Please explain how this is feature creep, as it's not on an existing product.

Next? (remember that lucky ITMS buyers get whatever DRM Apple wants them to have!)


If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736659)

> Please state what functionality the updates took away. Making it harder to circumvent is not removing functionality, as circumvention was never promised.

Well, they changed the number of burns to CD. That is removing a function you could do (the 8th copy, or whatever).

> If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Do you get your money back from iTunes if you decide you don't like the change? No? Well, it's too late, then.

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (1)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736741)

Well, they changed the number of burns to CD. That is removing a function you could do (the 8th copy, or whatever).


Ah, I had to look that one up. That happened [typepad.com] with 4.5, which was before I started using it, so I didn't know :)

Still, the number of burns to a CD was for the same exact playlist. Granted, they shouldn't remove what they promised you, but 8 CDs of the same playlist?

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (-1)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736673)

Let me guess... you'd buy poo in a white box if it had the Apple logo on it, right?

- Apple reduced the number of times a playlist can be burnt to a CD from 10 down to 7.

- The videos will undoubtedly play via iTunes and be purchasable from the iTunes store. People who buy songs from iTunes will obviously be the first people to use this new service.

- The "if you don't like it, don't buy it" excuse isn't good enough in this case, because Apple isn't saying "buy encrypted songs only playable with Apple products", they're saying "buy music online". I know that Apple's music store sells encrypted files that can only be played with crippled software, but most users do not realise this and Apple does not make it clear to them.

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736747)

How many times do you even burn 7 CDs from the same playlist? Even if you do it's easy to get around, just add one more song to it and it's a different playlist so you can burn it 7 more times. It's not so hard so quit acting like it is.

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (0, Flamebait)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736778)

Let me guess... you'd buy poo in a white box if it had the Apple logo on it, right?


Oh, now you're attacking me personally? How very grown up.

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (2, Informative)

Pirogoeth (662083) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736780)

Let me guess... you'd buy poo in a white box if it had the Apple logo on it, right?

Okay, moving on...

Apple reduced the number of times a playlist can be burnt to a CD from 10 down to 7.

They also increased the number of computer you could authorize from three to five.

The videos will undoubtedly play via iTunes and be purchasable from the iTunes store. People who buy songs from iTunes will obviously be the first people to use this new service.

Obviously. So?

I know that Apple's music store sells encrypted files that can only be played with crippled software...

I've got a feeling that Apple wouldn't be able to sell anything without DRM attached; it's the record companies that require this. Last I checked, pretty much every "legitimate" online music seller has some sort of DRM attached and requires being played with "crippled" software.

...but most users do not realise this and Apple does not make it clear to them.

Really? You asked them?

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (0)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736870)

They did increase the number of computers that can be "authorized", but what about users who are not happy with this change? Apple did not give them a choice about this. What if Apple reduced the number of CDs that could be burnt to 0, but increased the number of computers that could be authorized to 7. Would that be fair, too?

The "record companies require it" justification for DRM is flawed. If that's the case, Apple should refuse to do business with record companies that require DRM. Just because Apple can make money by selling DRM music doesn't mean that selling DRM music is "okay".

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (1)

Marcos Eliziario (969923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736989)

Ahaha... Hum, I would love to see you explaining that to stakeholders. Btw, if you don't like DRM, don't buy music with DRM. If enough people do the same, probably record companies will have to change their minds. But it's utterly their right to sell music they own, the way they want. it is their's property, not ours. I can choose not to buy what they sell, and they can choose what to sell and how. I don't like DRM because it restricts legitimate uses. But blaming apple for it is totally stupid

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736697)

Please state what functionality the updates took away. Making it harder to circumvent is not removing functionality, as circumvention was never promised.

Fromlawgeeks [typepad.com]

you can now burn a playlist containing purchased music up to seven times (down from ten). And the old workaround of simply changing the playlist slightly does not work.


Surely you knew that Apple reserves the right to change the terms you can use its music under?

Apple reserves the right to change the terms and conditions of sale at the iTunes Music Store at any time. Customers are encouraged to review the Sales Policies on a periodic basis for modifications.


If you don't like it, don't buy it.

I don't and I won't, however as I'm a helpful person, I'm letting others know the potential dangers in buying any DRMd music.

Re:DRM Creep? no, FUD. (1)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736801)

Yah, thanks, I looked that part up when someone else mentioned it. I have only ever used iTunes 5.x :)

Re:DRM Creep? (3, Insightful)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736606)

The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft is more successful. Both companies love proprietary software and DRM. Both companies screw over their customers.

Apple fanboys are about to mod me down. :)

Re:DRM Creep? (0, Troll)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736736)

The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft is more successful. Both companies love proprietary software and DRM. Both companies screw over their customers.

Hmmmmn, I mostly agree - but Apple does make nicer products than MS - there's no denying it (not that that's much of a compliment to Apple).

I agree that both companies love proprietary software (I mean OS X is now no more 'Open' than XP with SFU installed), DRM and screwing their customers intro the ground,

Apple fanboys are about to mod me down. :)

Probably :-)

Re:DRM Creep? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736796)

The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft is more successful. Both companies love proprietary software and DRM. Both companies screw over their customers.

Let's see, one company is pushing for it's DRM, arguing that it offers the most restrictions available, and the other is pushing the *AAs for less restrictions, arguing that the DRM they want is both impossible and undesirable.

Yep: The same. Exactly, to a "t".

Re:DRM Creep? (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736894)

In your post, which company is which?

Re:DRM Creep? (1)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736971)

Yeah, I'd like to know the same.

Re:DRM Creep? (1)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736720)

Then they introduce DRM that enforces ppv / rentals / time limiting.

And why shouldn't they? After all, you are renting the video. I don't see any particular problem in this specific scenario

Re:DRM Creep? (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736853)

<sarcasm>Next thing you know, places like Blockbuster are going to ask people for phone and credit card numbers so that people can't just keep the rented movies indefinitely</sarcasm>

This is actually the one time I can see a legitmate use of DRM. I've though this for a long time. DRM would be a great thing to allow me to rent* movies over the web as it would automatically delete the file or render it useless after the rental time or number of views was up. If people want to get a hate-on for DRM for legitmately purchased movies, I'm all for it. That's just crap. But for a service like this, DRM is what makes this even possible.

* Not that I would actually do any renting. If a movie is worth watching, it's worth having. The reverse is also true; If it's not worth having, it's not worth watching.

Re:DRM Creep? (2, Informative)

SuperMog2002 (702837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736876)

I'd be more concerned if not for the fact that, on music at least, the DRM has gotten LOOSER since iTMS debuted. You used to only be able to authorize three machines. Now you can authorize five.

Re:DRM Creep? (5, Interesting)

Thrudheim (910314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736972)

What is it about movie rental service that you don't understand? When you rent a movie, you have to return it the end of the specified time period or pay a fine. Surely you don't mean that you should be able to pay a rental fee and get to keep the movie file forever? So what, exactly, is wrong with DRM that enforces a rental agreement? As someone else posted, if you don't like the rental terms, then don't rent the movie.

Secondly, nobody is even making the slightest suggestion that this time-limited DRM would apply to songs (but see point four below).

Third, the only area where there has been any "DRM creep" is the reduction in the number of times a playlist can be burned from 10 to 7. You fail to mention that DRM was simulatneously liberalized to allow a person to play their iTMS purchased music on 5 computers instead of 3. A slight, practically meaningless, restriction on the one hand, a somewhat meaningful liberalization on the other. You can't even claim "creep" because there is no trend. It is just a fiction.

Fourth, one of the most common complaints about iTunes is the lack of a music rental service, like the one offered by Napster or Yahoo!. If Apple were to respond to this complaint and offer a music rental service, they would have to do something like Microsoft's Janus DRM that causes the music to become unplayable if the user does not check in to show the subscription is current. By your reasoning, Apple's response to this demand is just DRM creep. They can't win, apparently.

Great! (0, Flamebait)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736553)

From the article: It is not known exactly how the coding system will work, but industry experts tell Think Secret that the software would likely either limit the number of playbacks or provide unlimited viewing for a period of time, after which the movie will be "turned off" and no longer available.

So now I can pay to spend an ungodly amount of time and energy to get some 320x240 jittery so-so contrast version of some big screen movie. And I'll have to watch it in a certain time period or lose it? Or, they'll restrict the number of times I can watch it? Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming. Could life really be this good?

Somebody stop the Earth, I'd like to get off.

If the consuming public goes for this, it only brings the lie that is the new generation is "tech savvy", cuz if they were tech savvy, they'd know they're being sold a bill of goods and what's being offered is dumbed down, diluted quality, highly compressed pap.

(An aside, also from the article: " The subscription business makes sense for everybody. We'll all make money. " WTF? The subscription business makes sense for everybody? We'll all make money? Wow, I've always known the whole point of offering services, creating companies, etc., has been about making money.... It just becomes a little more obscenely transparent each day. I remember the good old days when companies at least pretended to want to please the customer.)

(Also, couple of questions:

  • How LONG will the movie stay around?
  • How MUCH is this going to cost?
  • What OTHER viewing options besides the iPod screen?
  • How MANY viewings before expiration?
)

Re:Great! (3, Interesting)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736593)

You need to be tech savvy to understand the concept of renting? You need to be savvy to understand you're looking at a small screen? What are you talking about?

Re:Great! (2, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736826)

You need to be tech savvy to understand the concept of renting?

I understand the concept of renting: When I'm done with it, I give the item back to the renter.

So, tell me, tech savy /. guy, at what rate will I be uploading the file back to them so they can have it back and rent it to someone else?

Re:Great! and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736669)

If it follows the iTunes music model, not only will the quality be bad, not be interoperable with other devices, locked down and DRMed, and temporary, it will cost twice as much as walking down the street to a video store. I can rent a new release for two bucks at the video store or buy it for fifteen but I'll bet they want fifteen to rent a downloaded, degraded title. And as with iTunes music, they have no inventory to track, no brick storefront, none of the overhead that goes with a storefront.

I think it's a good idea (5, Insightful)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736707)

I'd use this service if it's cheap enough for the following reasons:
  • Most movies I only want to watch once.
  • Video stores rarely have anything I want in stock, and not convenient
  • Pay per view cable is way too expensive (and requires you to pay $60 a month for hundreds of channels of suck to have cable in the first place)
  • It just might be cheaper than blockbuster
  • I live in a city, which means the post office does not collect outgoing mail, so Netflix is inconvenient

Re:I think it's a good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736830)

What kind of city doesn't collect outgoing mail from homes or businesses

Re:I think it's a good idea (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736831)

I live in a city, which means the post office does not collect outgoing mail, so Netflix is inconvenient Are you telling me you don't see at least 5 mailboxes on your way to work each day. I don't know about you, but I use Zip.ca and love the fact that you can just drop the movies in the mailbox when you are done with them. What messed up city do you live in that you find it too much trouble to get to a mail box to return a movie.

No outgoing mail? (2, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736999)

I live in a city, which means the post office does not collect outgoing mail, so Netflix is inconvenient

Huh?

What do you mean, it doesn't collect outgoing mail?

I live in a city too, and you can't go two blocks without tripping over a USPS "blue box." Plus, every apartment building that I've ever been in has an outgoing mailbox, right next to the incoming boxes (which are actually superior to the way you do outgoing mail in a rural area -- where you put it in your regular box and put the flag up -- since it can't be stolen).

I'd say that Netflix is much more convenient/practical for people in urban areas than in rural ones, since the delivery turnaround times are usually faster, and in many cases you can send the discs back faster. When I lived in a rural area, I'd stick them in my mailbox and wait for the carrier to pick them up the next morning; now that I live in a city, I put them in the USPS box on the corner, and they go out that afternoon (pickup at 4:30 pm), effectively cutting a day off the mail-in time. When I'm feeling lazy, I just put them in the box on my house and they get picked up the next day.

I can't think of any situation where you can receive mail, but not send it back out. If you use lockable boxes, there should be an outgoing-slot or receptacle nearby. (I think this is required by the DMM.) If you use a box affixed to your house without a flag, then you put your outgoing stuff in it and the carrier will take it out before putting the incoming mail in, and if you have a rural streetside box, then you put it in there and set the flag up.

Any carrier delivering mail will also accept it (assuming it's of "nominal amount" -- you can't hand them a 20 lb package and expect them to carry it around the rest of their route), so if you have mail delivery, you should have a way of sending it back out.

Re:I think it's a good idea (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15737081)

I live in a city, which means the post office does not collect outgoing mail, so Netflix is inconvenient

You mean your not supposed to just put your outgoing mail in your mailbox?!? Oops! I've done it for years an my mailman has always taken the mail.

Re:Great! (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736714)

Chill out dude. Hollywood keeps coming up with lame distribution models, and people keep ignoring them. No big deal.

Re:Great! (3, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736724)

So now I can pay to spend an ungodly amount of time and energy to get some 320x240 jittery so-so contrast version of some big screen movie. And I'll have to watch it in a certain time period or lose it? Or, they'll restrict the number of times I can watch it? Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming. Could life really be this good?

I dunno. Do you ever visit Blockbuster or use Netflix? Then this may be "too good to be true" as long as the price is reasonable (read: WAY BETTER THAN BLOCKBUSTER), the selection is good, and I get a whole week to rent it. I've used Movielink for a similar service, and I have to say that it's actually quite nice.

While I have a few nits with MovieLink, the only real complaint I have is that their selection sucks. When a new movie comes to DVD, you can forget about finding it on Movielink. First you have to wait to see if it's a failure, then you can rent it three months later. Gee, thanks MPAA members. You're killing your own movie rental service that was supposed to pave the way to the future. (Actually, I think it was to keep Congress off their backs.)

I for one look forward to Apple's offerings. And if you don't like it, don't buy it. No one is forcing you. Besides, Apple also offers the purchase of movies and TV shows for oddballs like you who wish to own every movie they watch. (Really, I think you're probably complaining because it's going to make DVD burning habits look even less legit.)

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736797)

Of course, the typical "OMG! Why would I pay for video less than 1600x1200" post. Let me ask you: when was the last time you took your big ass 3" TV with you on a train? An airplane? Exactly. Have you actually seen what video on the iPod looks like? I'm certainly no fanboi, I just got one for my birthday off a friend. The video quality is excellent, also considering that the video iPod is smaller than the previous iPods with the video... Also it would appear to me that they have yet to have the whole rental deal fully worked out. Who knows, you may be able to keep a movie on your iPod indefinitely but pay late charges beyond the rental due date or something.

Re:Great! (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736833)

To me it seems retarded to limit the number of views, either by time or a counter. It's not like people watch movies over and over again (unless they're 8 years old) so it won't ring much extra money from the customers, but they WILL resent you for it. iTunes was successful partially because the DRM didn't have a lot of the retarded restrictions that most studios demanded from other such companies. Ebooks have been mostly a failure because publishers insist on stuff like this (except for Jim Baen, who is raking in money like crazy with his ebooks because they lack all of the retarded baggage that normally comes with them).

I'm hoping that Jobs will turn his Reality Distortion Field up high enough to counter the RDF that the movie studio execs live in and force them to realize that if you want people to buy a product, you have to offer something they're willing to buy. Don't worry so much about pirates because they already have much better copies of what you're selling anyway (higher resolution and free), but people will tend to prefer the legal version if given a chance and the legal version doesn't suck too much.

Re:Great! (1)

F_Scentura (250214) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737077)

"I'm hoping that Jobs will turn his Reality Distortion Field up high enough to counter the RDF that the movie studio execs live in and force them to realize that if you want people to buy a product, you have to offer something they're willing to buy"
 
You are talking about Hollywood here, right?

Re:Great! (1)

AhtirTano (638534) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736861)

So now I can pay to spend an ungodly amount of time and energy to get some 320x240 jittery so-so contrast version of some big screen movie. And I'll have to watch it in a certain time period or lose it? Or, they'll restrict the number of times I can watch it?

Dude, get a grip. They have to limit the time period or number of watches. That's why it's a rental instead of a sale.

Frankly, I'm looking forward to this. I fly frequently. Not every flight has a movie, and the movie shown is often completely uninteresting to me. I've tried watching a movie on my laptop, but that is very inconvenient--no tray space left for the drinks and peanuts, have to close down when my neighbor needs to go to the bathroom, etc. A movie on my iPod would work perfectly.

I'd never buy such a movie, but I'd rent it if the price were right.

Re:Great! (1)

pkulak (815640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736930)

I think this is great, actually. I only want to rent a movie about once a month tops, so Netflix doesn't do it for me. Plus, when I want to watch it, I want to that night. Movies for me are spontanious. If I could plug my MacBook into my TV and watch that movie I just have to watch tonight without making TWO gas-guzzling trips to the video store, then I'm down.

I like the idea (2, Interesting)

tbcpp (797625) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736565)

I like this idea. I have a fairly heavy movie consumption (1-2 a week). If we could get DVD quality rentals from iTunes for $2 a day. I'd be happy. Cheaper than going to the stor and faster. As long as it can get theough our restrictive firewalls on campus....

Re:I like the idea (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736653)

Ever heard of netflix or similar services? These days, the movie industry doesn't need DRM, they need services like Netflix. We consumers these days, don't want or can spend a lot of money on content. There is other content available for free or semi-legal and as long as it's 50% cheaper to get content that way, people will do it. As soon as I can buy new movies for 10$ (like the older ones) I will buy them. Currently, I do buy the older movies in stores as a legal hard copy but I had them for a while downloaded because I don't want to shill out $50 for the latest content. I also want to be able to do with my content what I want. If I have a DVD, I want to do with it what I want, I don't want some stupid DRM limiting my ability to fast forward the commercials.

Re:I like the idea (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736723)

1-2 movies a day is fairly heavy movie consumption.

Campus firewalls are a bitch. For those who don't care about legality, spend that money on some webhosting and setup a personal highspeed proxy.

You get internet privacy & no school port/shaping limits

And in other news later today... (4, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736587)

Pirates announce a hack you can download from some website that turns off whatever that flag is, the studios go berserk as millions of copies of movies circulate from ipods onto some movie-napster-like site, and we start the whole music-anti-piracy rigamarole again but with ipod movies. Will no one ever learn?

Re:And in other news later today... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736650)

help you fill in the list

"some movie-napster-like site" = youtube.com

Re:And in other news later today... (3, Interesting)

TobyRush (957946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736788)

a hack you can download from some website that turns off whatever that flag is

Let's look at the current iTunes audio system, though: You can burn a FairPlay-DRMed audio file to disc, re-import it, and the DRM is gone. Sure, there's a small loss of quality, but it's pretty small for us non-audiophiles.

It seems like a pretty big loophole, it's VERY well-known, and Apple has never made a peep about it. It's almost like they're saying, "Hey, we WANT you to have unrestricted access to the stuff you buy; we just had to put this DRM thing in to please The Man. Heck, I'm surprised that the recording studios haven't freaked out about this... it's really a very sweet deal for Joe Consumer.

If Apple could pull this off for movies...

Re:And in other news later today... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736925)

Or maybe they're just letting people burn CDs and re-import them minus the DRM until they get enough people locked in to their system, at which point they'll flick the switch and the feature will vanish.

Get them hooked then ramp up the price (or in this case, the restrictions).

Re:And in other news later today... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736846)

Apple annouces that it's all its Intel Macs [blogspot.com] have Treacherous Computing [cam.ac.uk] chips in them. So Apple could use "Remote attestation" to tell whether you have modified your hardware or software, or whether you are running "approved" software or not, and if not, their servers refuse to talk to you. Wasn't that nice of them? Big Brother chip and hardware DRM. All it needs is a simple software update to enable all this.

Apple fans rejoice. The boy-god Jobs has removed temptation from you. You can sit back and relax, safe in the knowledge that all the nasty choices have been removed.

Netflix had better watch out (3, Insightful)

intrico (100334) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736592)

If Netflix is on top of their game, they had better move quickly and setup deals with the studios to offer movies for download, or else they will quickly see themselves cast to the wayside.

Re:Netflix had better watch out (3, Insightful)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736646)

If Netflix is on top of their game, they had better move quickly and setup deals with the studios to offer movies for download, or else they will quickly see themselves cast to the wayside.


I can keep and watch a NetFlix DVD for days, even weeks if I choose. It takes up a slot of my subscription, but I incur no extra fees.
Can I do that with a rented download?

Also, am I willing to spend all day tying up my DSL downloading 8GB of data for a DVD-quality movie? No.
Will downloaded movies that are much smaller have degraded video quality, lack extras and other things that equivalent titles on DVD have? Probably.

Somehow, I don't think NetFlix is going to disappear quickly, even if they don't do downloads.

Re:Netflix had better watch out (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736802)

The movies would no doubt be in H.264 NOT MPEG-2 as a DVD is so you're not going to be downloading 8GB for a movie. It'll probably be less than 1GB if they keep it at the same quality as DVDs.

Re:Netflix had better watch out (1)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736815)

You're making the assumption that Netflix users are using Netflix simply because they don't have an alternative outside of downloading a movie. While that might be true for a minority, it's just that: a minority.

I imagine if Apple is going to be smart, the movie downloads are not only going to be for the iPod but also for your Mac that is now a home theater PC. A Mac Mini in every living room, and the kids can download/rent Sponge Bob Squarepants whenever they want.

Movie downloads for an iPod or a computer are limiting: it's not how (most) people watch movies. The iPod wasn't disruptive because it followed convention: people already carried around Walkmen or heard music on their PC and you could hear it in your bedroom or car with some accessories.

If Apple can come up with something that lets you watch the same movie on a TV by plugging in your iPod or iMovieMacPro, or on the iPod, or on the computer, then that's wonderful, assuming the price is right. I'm guessing it's going to be about $5.99 since that's the price of many pay-per-view features and more expensive rental places.

But that's not going to kill Netflix anymore than it's going to cause Wal-Mart to close down their movie section.

Re:Netflix had better watch out (1)

moremoire (989555) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736849)

Are we really so impatient that we can't wait a day to see a movie? I would never pick a DRM'ed, lower-resolution of a movie that I could get a time-unlimited DVD delivered next-day, especially when the total cost over time would probably amount to less.

Coming soon (1, Interesting)

davidc (91400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736594)

... the widescreen iPod?

Re:Coming soon (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736750)

... the widescreen iPod?

It's called a MacBook, or more generically, any laptop with a DVD drive.

Video DRM? (2, Interesting)

darcling (987237) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736597)

I'm still appalled by audio DRM! And now they're trying to shove this down my throat? Yet another useless, restrictive technology that I will boycott (vote with your pocketbook).

Hell, it seems to me that more restrictive formats give rise to more piracy (arrrr).

Re:Video DRM? (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736668)

(vote with your pocketbook).
It's a European Carry-all !!

Re:Video DRM? (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736924)

Do you realize this for rentals? Are they supposed to let you download it and expect you to delete the file after a week on your honor? If you don't want DRM go out and buy the stupid DVD and rip it. Seriously, it's not that hard. Do you complain that you have to give a phone and credit card number to Blockbuster so that you can't just keep a rented movie forever? If so, I recommend going to an anger management class or something.

Better Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736599)

This was poorly headlined. Here's the fix:

"Studios Aim At Toes Despite few left"

And the sub-headline:

"Apple only too glad to accomodate"

A time-bombed rental for low-resolution video? Be still my beating heart!

Shut off timer / certain number of viewings (3, Insightful)

trianglecat (318478) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736604)

Dvd jon [wikipedia.org] ... start your engine.

What it all boils down to (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736610)

I would have been interested in purchase downloads. I am not interested in movie rentals. Ergo, they're not getting my money.

Steve sell us out? (3, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736621)

Say it ain't so.

I can't wait to see the sugar coating.

Frankly, he should have told them to stuff it. I figure what happened is that they went full on developing the video iPod and supporting software figuring they could bully their way over the studios. Now with the hardware in hand and no progress he is being forced to do something to move the new product.... aren't shareholders wonderful - can't let the carpet ride end.

Still, no way, no how. I don't care who packages the DRM of this sort. Its wrong. If I pay for it I want access to it when I want to access it. Otherwise refund me when it expires.

Re:Steve sell us out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736936)

Do you use this argument with your local video store when your rentals are overdue?

You're making it out like they're going to charge the full cost of a new DVD in order to get your rental copy. Somehow, I kind of doubt this is the case.

Re:Steve sell us out? (2)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736977)

Still, no way, no how. I don't care who packages the DRM of this sort. Its wrong. If I pay for it I want access to it when I want to access it. Otherwise refund me when it expires.

Three cheers for reading comprehension! This is for rented movies. You can access when you want to access it during the time that the rental agreement allows. Same thing goes at Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, Netfliz, etc. You can't just rent a movie and expect to keep it forever.

I'm against DRM on purchased stuff as well. But to cry over DRM on rented stuff is just silly. You don't own it in any way shape or form. I don't mean that from even a copyright perspective. I mean you don't even own the plastic disk it came on or the file it's stored in or whatever. If you rent it, you agree to the terms, and here the terms are that the movie watching privileges go away after a certain time, just like any other movie rental, but they use DRM to enforce it. Boo-hoo.

As long as it's cheap (3, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736641)

If it only costs a couple of bucks, and I can load it on my iPod, then connect it to my TV, I'm good. The music I've downloaded from iTunes I've listened to hundreds of times. Most movies aren't worth owning, and many of the ones I do own I've only watch a few times. If they can keep it under $3, my video store is going to lose a lot of money.

Re:As long as it's cheap (3, Insightful)

LordKazan (558383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736694)

yup download your 320x240 resolution movie and hook it up to your 20" normal TV and cringe at the low quality - or worse yet your big 1920x1080i HDTV

Quality (1)

Foerstner (931398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736982)

Yeah, it might look almost as bad as 240-line VHS.

I've looked at iTunes' video quality. (I got a freebie.) It's watchable for SDTV-sourced content, but not something I'd want to use for a film.

What if... (3, Interesting)

growse (928427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736656)

What I'd like to know is that if it's the case where you're only allowed to watch it, say twice, does it count if you start to watch it? I mean, it's a film, so it's going to be longer than an hour. What if I pay my $28, download it, start to watch it and get a BSOD because I've got a buggy codec (and also, hey, it's windows)? I reboot, do the same to make sure it wasn't a freak incident and it BSOD's again. So now I've started to play it twice (say my limit is two) and been unable to watch more than 5 seconds of it and can't fix the problem and watch it again because the file's gone and locked itself.

Do I get my money back?

Not even that, lets say I get an hour through my hour and a half film, and there's a corruption in the file which causes it to stop playing. The player crashes, so I load it up again, navigate to 59 mins and it crashes again. Do I get my money back? How do I prove that it was corrupted on download and that I didn't fire up notepad and let my mind go beserk.

This isn't so much of a problem for music, because the files are relitively small. With film, I'd guess that there is a higher chance of a problem just because the files are bigger and the codecs more complex.

Re:What if... (1)

sottitron (923868) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736781)

What I want to know is why you would pay $28 to download a movie file you could only watch twice?

Re:What if... (1)

growse (928427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736832)

I wouldn't pay to download a movie. I'd buy it on dvd.

Re:What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736884)

since this is conjecture....

itunes doesn't mark a song as played until it completes playing. in my experience if i get part-way through a song and decide to skip the rest the play count is not updated.

you do the rest of the math.

(of course, there's no guarantee the video play counts will work the same way, but...)

-too lazy to login (yes, really)

Re:What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15737075)

There are algorithms to authenticate downloads, I guess they'd just build something into their download app to verify that the file was fine at the instant the download finished. Then they could claim that any corruption must have been caused by a problem with your hardware or conflicting software and that they did their bit and delivered a non-corrupted file... it'd be like if retail stores could prove that a scratch stopping your movie working in your DVD player only appeared after it was removed from the case, ergo they can deny all responsibility. A retailer's dream, but not much fun for the consumer...

Are ISP's ready for this? (4, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736696)

A significant number of people, sucking down 5-8Gb every day or so. I think we'll start to see the ISP's enforcing their (unwritten) bandwidth limits.

Oh joy, (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736698)

Renting 320x240 videos? Not like you can see any real decent amount of detail in such a small screen, without bringing it close to your face and squinting, anyways. And personally, I'd much rather Apple fix their current problem with their new iTunes update, which has prevented my fiancee's iPod from syncing up with his computer. (Computer sees iPod, iPod sees it's connected to the computer - iTunes fails as the intermediary transfer program.)

This is thinksecret people, ... (2, Insightful)

Jerom (96338) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736703)

... not an official announcement.

It's funny to see everyone commenting and producing all kinds of opinions based on a rumour from thinksecret. How many rumours have they actually ever gotten right?

It seems unlikely to me that S. Jobs who has already explicitely stated he does not like the rental model on several occasions, would suddenly change his mind (though I would not rule it out as an option). And he "managed to be convinced by Disney et al."? That must be real hard for Disney to do(considering he is the single biggest shareholder of that company and notoriously difficult to convince of anything).

Jeez lighten up. It's a rumour. On a site. That barely ever gets anything right.

J.

The rumor may be 180 deg. off (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736965)

Jeez lighten up. It's a rumour. On a site. That barely ever gets anything right.

Indeed, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Jobs has convinced the studios to at least try a purchase model for movies. After all, iTunes has been an excellent vehicle for TV show sales, generating new revenue for the studios. While the media companies obviously see Apple as a competitor, if Jobs can convince them that iTunes is a distribution network that is already proven and ready for action, they may recognize that they'll make more money if they piggyback on the success of iTunes. So far everything they've tried on their own has been rather underwhelming. In the end, these guys will follow the money, and my guess is Jobs has figured out a way to show them the money.

Good but.... (4, Insightful)

gstegman (988905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736708)

Now if they could only get my iPod battery to last long enough to get through more than 70 minutes of video... I really don't think that movies on an iPod are going to be viable until the batteries improve. Either I will have to watch a movie in two parts or I will have to watch it tethered to my PC in which case I might as well use a service other than iTunes.

Correct me if I'm wrong (1)

Jakhel (808204) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736740)

It is not known exactly how the coding system will work, but industry experts tell Think Secret that the software would likely either limit the number of playbacks

1) Download screen and audio capture utility (google)
2)Download movie
3)Install screen and audio capture utility
4) Run screen and audio capture utillity
5) PLay the movie in full screen mode
6) Burn recorded movie to DVD 7)Enjoy! and/or Profit!

or provide unlimited viewing for a period of time, after which the movie will be "turned off" and no longer available.

Unless you have to phone home every time you want to watch the movie, this timer would probably be based on the system clock. Remember those old demo's that only allowed you to play them for a month or so? Remember how you could always get around that by simply changing the system clock to an earlier date (hell you could do it for older versions of Adobe Illustrator)? Yeah.. I'm not sure how many ITMS users are computer savvy enough to make changes to their systems BIOS, but those that are won't have any trouble doing this.

Real competition for Video on Demand (1)

tlabetti (304480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736749)

This is one of the real big threats to the telcos cable TV roll out. I have Verizon's FiOS 20Mbps service and a Mac mini hooked up to my HDTV. I wonder how Apple's service will compete with Verizon's video-on-demand. I would think that it would be a pretty serious competitor to VOD. I hope that I can access the video library via my mac remote and frontrow.

If it gets popular (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736754)

Assuming Apple uses some sort of P2p system like is being rumored AND it becomes wildly popular (Apple seems to have the Midas touch). Can you imagine the load that will be put on ISPs?

Even if it DOES NOT use a p2p system all those people downloading multi-gig sized files is gunna really piss of the likes of comcast, cox, ect.

Re:If it gets popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15736863)

Oh thats ok, with the new net neutrality shit, Apple can pay the ISP's to let their data flow at the cost of all other bandwidth. :P

Re:If it gets popular (1)

Script0r (305025) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736910)

They aren't going to be downloading VOBs. Haven't you seen a fairly high quality DIVX rip that was kept to around 600 or 700 megs? I would bet that whatever codec apple chooses to distribute the movies in will be around that file size or smaller.

Limited viewing not a good route at this point. (1)

no_barcode (840948) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736795)

Limited viewing wouldn't be a very good route to go; considering that other services are already allowing you to purchase a downloadable copy of all available movies which can be viewed indefinitely, and according to this [com.com] CNET article, they're also expanding to allow you to burn them to DVD.

Gigs?? (1)

sottitron (923868) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736844)

Lots of people are speculating that a movie will be gigs of data and that ISPs are going to freak out as a result. You can already download full 1 hour episodes of TV shows. Without commercials this is probably 40-44 minutes. Any reports that someone's ISP wouldn't take their money and give them a connection to the internet after they bought a season of a TV show on iTunes? Lots of movies come in at the 90 minute mark which is about the same as downloading 4 episodes of Scrubs or 2 episodes of Lost... (both popular on the iTunes video store) News Flash: The internet didn't breakdown when Apple started selling TV shows and it probably won't break down when they start selling/renting/whatever movies either.

Netflix is more convinient (1)

gluecode (950306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736854)

I wonder if this will mean an end to Netflix. I am not sure if will go to the trouble of downloading a movie, watching it on my computer or burning it into a DVD (if Apple allows it) and watching it on my DVD. Netflix is very convinient right now. I also hear that Apple is having a lot of trouble negotiating with 20th Century Fox about this program. Rupert Murdoch wants more share and stronger DRM.

Movies (1)

certel (849946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736864)

I bet Blockbuster is jumping for joy to see this announcement. It's bad enough their shares have dropped with just the introduction of NetFlix.

Conflicted Feelings (3, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736918)

There are some things that I prefer renting over buying, and movies are one of those things. With the exception of a few "classics", movies don't have enough replay value for me to justify paying more to buy them. Heck, if DVD's were as cheap as rental I wouldn't buy them because they would just be one more thing cluttering up the house.

However, the concept of rental clashes with the nature of the online and digital world. Everything that exists can be copied in exact form. You can't return data - you have a copy, not the original. The way I see it there are two options, the concept of rental can be preserved artificially with the introduction of DRM, or it can be abandoned in favor of purchases.

As a consumer I don't have a problem with the general idea of DRM on a rental - my fair use rights aren't being violated, because I don't have the right to backup, timeshift, or format shift rentals to begin with (unlike media I own, for which any DRM is intolerable). Where the problem occurs is the proprietary nature of DRM. At best, the rental DRM would be an "Open Standard" meaning anyone who pays RAND* patent fees and signs an NDA will be allowed to implement a device, and be given keys (specific to them) to decode the data. Then I could buy online rental devices or software from any number of manufactures, and it would be guaranteed to work with any number of online rental stores. This is similar to the legal workings of DVDs, Blueray, WMV. At the worst you have proprietary technologies, where each company has it's own format and player, like with Apple or DVIX (the first one). In both cases there will never be an open source player - the best we could hope for is something like the new Real Player that has an open source core with proprietary plug-ins. Even that is unlikely, as the movie industry is demanding end-to-end security (HDMI, Trusted Computing) which an open source operating system would not provide.

In the other option, the internet utopia dream was that the price of media would drop to the point of making rental unnecessary and removing the allure of piracy from the general public. The media industries are strongly opposed to this model of the future, and the only way it will ever happen is if independent media producers embrace it with success, and eventually put the current media companies out of business. This is also unlikely given the weight that the media companies have in government. Therfore, media purchases will also be hindered with DRM for the conceivable future, and will continue to be priced at traditional rates.

So given DRM on rental verses DRM on purchase, I definitely prefer the previous, but there is another potential risk with DRM rental and it is a biggy. The media companies have shown themselves very fond of the idea of DRM rental, as seen with Napster. They like the model where people don't own copies of media, but instead just subscribe to services that provide them. If too many people embrace these services, we could end up in a situation where everything is locked up. We continue to hear stories about how the original archive copies of important cultural media is being lost due to the extreme length of copyright, and the mismanagement of the copyright holders (Dr Who, classic films). But in most of those cases, at least lower quality copies exist in the form of consumer media. However, if we can no longer record broadcast media, and there are no purchased copies of media, the copyright holders will be the only ones capable of preserving the records of our popular culture. Time and time again they show themselves inept at doing so.

Anyway, I plan on sticking to buying CD's and renting locally for as long as those options exist, and continue to support those independent producers who treat their customers with respect. I'll keep trying to inform my representatives about the issues. But I'm not optimistic. We'll see what happens.

* For the uninitiated:
RAND = Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory
NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement

Making Money (1)

MikeJ9919 (48520) | more than 8 years ago | (#15736968)

Jobs isn't stupid. An earlier comment said he likely had the video iPod in hand and he had hoped he could just run over the studios...almost certainly true. I'm sure this isn't his preferred method, and I think it's very likely he's actually hoping this does poorly (Rokr, anyone?) so he can go to the studios and say, "See, you were wrong and I was right. Now, do you want to make lots more money?"

Watching on a small screen? Huh? (1)

hodet (620484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737004)

TFA doesn't mention anything about if you can watch on a regular TV. Does it still have to be watched only on an ipod. I've never owned an ipod and fall smack in the middle of the I love'em and hate'em crowds but is this really something that ipod owners want? I can't imagine watching movies on it unless I can plug it into my tv.

DiVX anyone? (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15737054)

Am I the only one who remembers when they tried this with DiVX? It didn't work then, it's not going to work this time either. Not to mention, for the majority of this country, I bet those movies will take a day to download... that sounds like fun!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?