Seven major studios line up to sell movies online

We have no idea why they chose today to do it, but today seven major movie studios announced they'll be selling movies online through Movielink and CinemaNow. Warner Bros, Universal, Sony, Paramount, Fox, and MGM will all be distributing first-run titles online -- definitely something they've never done before -- through Movielink for between 20 and 30 bones (way, way too much if you ask us), with older movies going for between $10 and $20. Lionsgate (and Sony) also announced distribution through CinemaNow. Really this was only a matter of time -- for these guys it was either sell these things online DRMed all to hell for way too much money (see above), go the subscription route (like Vongo, for example -- not likely) or continue whining without any justification whatsoever about pirates stealing movies in the Internet. At least now they can say they've legitimately offered their digital content up online (hey, you can even make a DVD backup for use only on Movielink-authorized computers), even though they still can't account for the artificial demand they try to create by releasing movies for purchase months after the films have gone out of theater.

[Thanks, Phil]

[DJ @ Apr 3rd 2006 11:42AM]

At $20 to $30 a pop, no copy capability and limitations from hell, this thing is DOA! Tha's until the hackers find the work around, publish it on the web and the studios shut it down all together.

[JC @ Apr 3rd 2006 11:48AM]

From what I have been able to determine, the software is not mac compatible nor can the downloads be transfered to a video iPod. However, they CAN be played on a UMPC because, of course, a UMPC has a full blown operating system.
This is a legal way to obtain media content and it is interesting the studios bypassed iTunes entirely.

[morgan @ Apr 3rd 2006 11:55AM]

Well, they bypassed iTunes so they can have a larger slice of the pie (or all of it). I'd be fine with that if the movies were reasonably priced, but as it is, I think it will fail. iTunes succeeds because it is easy to use, and now there seems to be a critical mass of users, thanks to the ipod. People aren't going to go studio websites to download content, they just won't. I'd wager most don't even know who makes the movies they watch. This just strikes me as greedy bastards trying to increase their wealth and restrict user's rights at the same time.

[Gr1zz @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:01PM]

With the reported image and audio quality, ill stick with my NetFlix, thanks. Heck, their not going to do much business with quality lower than bootleg torrent sites.

Would iTunes of been this huge if they used half the bitrate they do now?

[Stephen Roberts @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:04PM]

Rediculous idea.

The math is just flat wrong! I can buy the physical copy for the same price I can download a less feature rich version (no bonus disks or inside books or whatever). And with the new stoopid HD rules coming, I wont even be able to pipe it from my computer to the big screen.

Everytime I think these guys might be geting clue they go off and prove me wrong again...

[JC @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:07PM]

What is the format (H.264, WMV9 or ..)? What is bitrate and resolution?

[djphatjive @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:10PM]

Note to Movie Companys!

You don't get it. We know what we want. $20 to $30 dollars for a download? Ok, there is no middleman, no packaging, no actual DVD case or anything. No booklet on the inside, and your charging $20 to $30? Im sorry but Kink Kong just came out on DVD and It is only $15 dollars at Walmart. And I can play it on any dvd player, convert it to any format I want. And play it anywhere I want. You guys just don't get it do you! Your killing your own buisness. Your killing your costomer base. Your killing the whole industry. Not downloading, copying, or anything like that. Its overpricing movies, Don't play us for dumb. Because we will not buy anything that cost more than the last generation if its missing any of its features, Like UMD Movies. F-THAT!!!!! 20 dollars for a UMD movie, for what?????????? just the movie that plays on a crappy PSP?????? Just don't get it!

[Jason @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:10PM]

Seems they're planning this to fail.

$20-$30 for fair use?

[Mike @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:12PM]

When will these people get it... nobody watches movies on computers... unless you have a home theatre pc (which few people are even interested in).

You've gotta make it cheaper and easier. Why would someone pay a premium for a cumbersome media center pc and deal with downloads as opposed to putting a disc in a player?

Heck, videos from iTMS are easier to deal with and that's still not worth it.

[Mojo Yugen @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:12PM]

So how pissed will people be when they find out the movies they "buy" are gone when they upgrade their pc? Oh yea, this is a good idea!

[furtive @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:16PM]

This is a really awful way to try and combat piracy. Why would I pay twice as much for the download as I do for the DVD? So far theres no details on the quality we'll be seeing either. It seems to me this "business model" is designed to fail. Then the studios can say "We offered downloads but the public did not embrace it"
FTA - "Consumers will not be able to transfer the films from a PC or laptop to a handheld portable viewing device. But that capability should be available sometime within the next year"
We can probably safely assume that "feature" will be an extra $5-10 also.

[Fuzz @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:24PM]

Let me know when I can download a movie, have access for a couple days, then have it junked. I don't have any desire to "own" movies. I only need to watch it once. So why not make it just like renting, except I don't have to go to the store. DRM the shit out of it . .I don't care. I don't plan on copying it, just let me watch it trouble free. Simple. Got that, Hollywood?

[Michael @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:25PM]

This just goes to prove the long-standing theory I've had: All the lawsuits and nay-saying about piracy, etc. from the MPAA has just been, in part, an elaborate stall tactic by them until they could get their crap figured out on how to organize their own online offerings (i.e., to make $$). Same as with the RIAA. First they downplay and chastise the entire online distribution system, then as soon as they have their own (read: crappy, DRM'd expensive) solution, they suddenly come out evangelizing it and praising themselves for being so customer-centered and forward thinking. Baaah!

[djphatjive @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:26PM]

One thing I always wondered. A dvd last a lifetime basically. Now if you have a file with DRM. If that sompany you bought it from goes out of buisness, what happens to your files? can you no longer play them? Doesn't it check back everytime you play them to see if you are the one that can play it. So if the compny goes out of buisness then im guessing all your DRM files are toast? Right?

[rob @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:29PM]

I rent from movielink about once a week and the video sizes are about 800 megs to 1 gig and the quality is good. when you move to full screen the image quality is still good. If you are unsure try out one of the trailers and switch to full screen to see if you like it. Or find some general mills cereal because because they have a $5 coupon on the inside of the boxes; thats why i rent from them.

As for buying, well i haven't done that and the price they are charging seems really high. Especially when dvds can be bought on the internet or during the first week at a retail store for about less than 17

[BDC @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:31PM]

djphatjive�
"Don't play us for dumb."
OK, maybe not dumb, but certainly grammatically-challenged.
(just a quick lesson� companIES. you'RE� as in you are, etc., etc.)

I do give credit and a gold star for using 'than' properly.

[bogopogo @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:38PM]

Very clever, very clever indeed. This has nothing to do with Movies, this is all to do with Hollywood flexing its muscles and telling Apple that it does not need the iPod or iTunes, and that Hollywood can do this all on their own.

If i owned a Hollywood studio (I wish!), this is exactly what I woudl do - bypass Apple and take control of my own destiny.

This is the death knell for the Video iPod, which is now consigned to music Video's, TV programs and Disney content. With no good content available, the product is dead.

[Donald @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:46PM]

MovieLink/CinemaNow + DRM = DOA

[Thill @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:48PM]

#15. Ever hear of Handbrake on the Mac? A user can watch any movie they want on their video iPod.. It doesn't matter anyway because the movie studios will completely fail at $20-30 per download and will be begging Apple (and their user base) to host movies on iTunes...

What a joke.. Movie studios have to be some of the greediest companies on the planet...

[JC @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:48PM]

Downloads require IE...all OSX computers are locked out.
Better install XP on your mac intels, guys...

[andrew @ Apr 3rd 2006 12:54PM]

I see a lot of whining here but no alternatives being offered. Here's my take.

DRMed media is disposable media. Any restriction on it (max play count, max computers it can be moved to, expiration, whatever) will eventually render the product useless. Pricing must reflect this in order for it to sell.

This weekend I paid $8 to see Slither at the theater. Going in, I knew this was not a movie I'd ever imagine wanting to watch again and again. To me, $8 is worth 95 minutes of disposible one-liners and gore. Let me take that home. $8 for a file that will be valid for 24 hours. Maybe $10 for 48 hours. Couple this service with a set-top box and a third of US theaters will close within 3 years, guaranteed.

[Allan Alfabet @ Apr 3rd 2006 1:01PM]

So timely for this to come out on the first business day after Apple's birthday. Steveie J., it's your birthday and you can cry if you want to. This is obvious evidence that Apple's discussions with hollywood went very, very bitter, and just wreaks of childish spite. Apple totally wanted to roll out their iTunes movie marketing campaign today, and that's why there was never the fabled press event "on or around their birthday". Like little children, Hollywood isn't letting anyone else play with their toys, even if it means losing a good friend. Funny how Hollywood is ACTUALLY jumping into business contracts with each other JUST to fly in the face of Apple's bargaining attempts, without understanding how devastating their shortsightedness will end up for them. Very very funny.

[bhaalspawn @ Apr 3rd 2006 1:27PM]

I agree that this is a likely indicator that negotiations with Apple did not go very well. But the price seems insane. Even when comparing it to UK DVD prices it seems insane (�12ish for a movie the first week- about $20) and considering how cheap things are in Amercia compared to here that is saying something. I refuse to belive that the movie companies can possibly be THAT stupid, how can they have priced it so high - the only reason I can think of is that they are effectively insuring against piracy ie they know that someone will crack the DRM so when the files are floating around on the net they've still got a lot of money from the mugs who paid $30. That's pretty poor reasoning and business sense however.

The movie companies obviously don't understand that people don't LIKE pirating that much and particuarly film files cause they take ages to encode and the quality can be much more variable than music files. All the studios would need to do is offer a movie to download on the PC for the same price as a DVD with the ability to make say three copies and half the price with the ability to make no copies and a smaller file for portable device playback included with each.

This makes sense and the more expensive file would have a controlled copy rather than the uncontrolled DVD version but would prove more attractive to everyone since they wouldn't have to go the time and trouble of ripping and/or downloading.

[Viramor @ Apr 3rd 2006 1:31PM]

Heh, I think Apple will have the last laugh on this one.

[Matt @ Apr 3rd 2006 1:45PM]

Ya don't say. The hollywood studios are all for the idea of releasing films online with 95% profit margins. Well, I am shocked. Sure, its a stupid idea at those prices, but what do they really have to lose? Paying Movielink $100K? Pish posh.

[Jason @ Apr 3rd 2006 1:45PM]

7, I agree. Someone wanted this, and someone else didn't. The person who begrudgingly allowed it made sure to kill it with a ridiculous price. I personally find it hilarious.

[Austin @ Apr 3rd 2006 1:46PM]

#16? Are you HIGH?
seirously. yes, the video iPod, the most popular device of the past 2 decades, will simply die off because some movie companies are offering thier videos online with outrageous DRM for more than it takes to just go out and buy the DVD, rip it, and put it on an iPod. it's not going to happen this side of an orwellian society. "death nell for the video ipod" my face.

[David Dominguez Gonzalez @ Apr 3rd 2006 1:47PM]

The Movielink logo looks very similar that the Spanish autonomic television Telemadrid
www.telemadrid.es

[KevinM @ Apr 3rd 2006 2:01PM]

20$~30$ a pop?! You would think that because there is no physical media (like a DVD, case, movie inserts) that they be smart enough to offer the movies for less.

Who would spend that amount of money when you cannot show off how cool a movie case and insert were? What about going over for movie night at your friends? Looks like that is out of the question unless they buy a copy and download it to their computer too.

Doing this makes it more likly I will watch movies like Crash at my home on VCD's.

By the way Mr. Movie Industry... King kong recently came out on DVD for 15 bucks and I can play it anywhere. I want what you all were smoking when you thought this was a good idea.

[Merkur @ Apr 3rd 2006 2:25PM]

Seriously, how do the studio companies want to reduce the proliferation of DVD rips if they sell new movies the price of a boxed DVD ??? Also, if you buy online and download the movie, they could reduce the price od:
- The DVD itself,
- The packaging,
- The logistic / transport
- etc...

So this is a pure RIP OFF !!!

[Spyvie @ Apr 3rd 2006 2:36PM]

Mike (#8), I watch and or rip rented DVDs on my PC all the time.

There is absolutely no chance I or any other tech savvy consumer will pay MORE for DRM content. This will almost certainly get some free pub on CNN and the like, and some ignorant or affluent early adopters will almost certainly embrace it.

[JC @ Apr 3rd 2006 2:36PM]

A lot of folks don't care about the cost, they just want the convenience. Going out and buying a CD and ripping it has always been an option for iTunes users, yet millions have bought complete CD albums of their favorite artists on iTunes.
Something seems very odd about the timing of this announcement on the very day that Steve should have announced the true video iPod with legal downloadable movie content available on iTunes. Instead, OSX is completely and utterly locked out.

[djphatjive @ Apr 3rd 2006 2:39PM]

I love the people that correct grammor, I coulfpdweh Carede re LEss!!!!!!! I am typing on a blog, not writing an essay! Dumb ass!

[eric @ Apr 3rd 2006 2:44PM]

How long will consumers put up with false advertising of quality in digital content?

In music, most companies offering downloads claim that they offer 'CD Quality' audio when in fact it's anywhere between 96kb/s and 192kb/s for most companies. The real bitrate for losslessly compressed real CD quality audio is somewhere between 700kb/s and 800kb/s depending on the source.

Now with movies we're having to put up with the same lies. The home page of cinemanow.com claims that the downloaded movies are 'Full Screen and DVD Quality.' When you actually read their FAQ, you learn that their supposedly 'DVD Quality' movies are encoded at either 1200kb/s or 1500kb/s. The real bitrate of most commercial DVDs is somewhere between 4mb/s and 7mb/s.

The lies don't stop there either. Their 'HiDef' quality videos are encoded at 8000kb/s instead of real broadcast HiDef bitrates which vary between 17mb/s and 21mb/s.

When will the lies stop? Maybe I should issue a classified ad for my Yugo and list it as "Rolls-Royce Quality Automobile for sale."

[Darkpen @ Apr 3rd 2006 2:45PM]

Stay tuned for next week's announcement: boxed DVD prices will now be hiked to $40-50.

[Allan Alfabet @ Apr 3rd 2006 3:08PM]

Haha, eric drives a Yugo.

[bhaalspawn @ Apr 3rd 2006 3:41PM]

no 32. The restrictions on people making represetnations in order to get people to enter into a contract (ie buy stuff) are not that stringent particuarly when 'DVD quality' or CD quality' is more subjective than merely quoting a bitrate. DVD quality vaires widely. From those with top quality sets, players and audio setups to those with 4;3 10 year old, 15" mono sound CRT sets. The standard of the reasonable person would be somewhere in the middle but this is well within what is achiveable at the bit rate you quote with mp4 compression. The case is similar (perhaps even more) so for downloaded audio. The biggest difference is not the bitrate but the quality of the speakers.

Therefore I don't see what is so wrong with these 'CD quality' and 'DVD quality' claims. If you take bit rate as the sole factor by which quality is judged then they are not true. However as I have explained that is not and should not be the case. Those who want top quality sound are going to know the difference and spend the extra without paying attention to these claims, ditto for video.

[Myster Man @ Apr 3rd 2006 3:42PM]

I believe these sites are relying on this for the download/drm/burn process:

http://www.ratdvd.dk/

[c.Lake @ Apr 3rd 2006 4:41PM]

I agree with #6 - djphatjive (twice) -- $5 bucks, that's it. If you elimanate the packaging, the production cost, the low resolution. Add in the fact that we have to buy a Movielink Video Unit or PC. $5 bucks a movie is being generous. $2 for old movies.

AND -- BDC #15 -- You're being rude.

AND no, I'm not sleeping with djphatjive.

[thispaceforsale @ Apr 3rd 2006 4:54PM]

In all the hating and anger, did anyone check out the site?
Cinemanow.com is offereing rentals for $3.99

That actually is a good deal, and one that is far more valuable a service than "owning" a broken product at an inflated price.
If the quality, download speeds and selection are there $4 for renting is easily on par with brick and mortar and ondemand/payperview.

[Nick @ Apr 3rd 2006 5:20PM]

So let me make sure I have the logic of this down straight....

I'm expected to pay $20-$30 for a movie that will be DRM'd to hell and back, will eat up my downstream bandwidth for an hour or so, and I won't be able to transfer to my handheld for my daily commute or take over to my friends house and hook up to his bigscreen WHEN I COULD just stick to my Blockbuster online rentals, get the discs in the mail, watch them, take them to my friends house to watch, return them when I want to, and still pay LESS THAN HALF of what the movie studios want for their downloadable copies...


Yeah, I'm still missing where this is a GOOD idea...

[Mike @ Apr 3rd 2006 6:53PM]

What's so new about this, other than the studios are offering more content? These studios have been offering legitimate movie content through these venues for years now, it's not a new thing, though trusting their first-run content is a welcome wrinkle.

Movielink has been on the market for 3 1/2 years, and Cinema now for over 6. Movielink is *owned* by a consortium of the above studios, and Cinema Now is owned by Lion's Gate.

Movielink and CinemaNow have been using Windows Media DRM since the beginning.

Other than the decision to offer their products "to own," I don't see what's different. This type of VOD solution would take off if the delivery platform were, say, the PS3 or an XBox, but it doesn't really make much sense on home computers, especially if the price point is so high.

[Virtuous @ Apr 3rd 2006 8:10PM]

Download a few of these movies and expect to have your broadband account curtailed. This is DOA. Even many rich people care about cost.

[James @ Apr 3rd 2006 9:26PM]

It's tough to predict the real intent of the motion picture industry here - but I'd say it's likely we're playing right into their hands in at least one way. In these posts, I've read some derivative of the following words several times: "Why would I do this when I can get _____ DVD for $15 at the store?"

Everybody's suddenly contemplating in-store purchases. Could this whole announcement be a plan to get us to subconciously realize a greater value in simply buying DVDs?

These f'ers have psychologists on their payroll, I can feel it.

[bruce m. @ Apr 4th 2006 3:13AM]

Apple/iTunes will eventually offer an acceptalbe trade-off between price and experience for movie downloads / rentals. For my money, $4.99 to rent for three days, $12.99 to own (and remember, any DRM'd content that you "own" is actually restricted to your computer and maybe a couple others ... much different than owning a DVD that can be passed along to friends and family quite easily ... therefore I would pay much less to "own" a DRM'd movie than to purchase a physical DVD.

One thought -- perhaps if the movie studios don't cooperate with Apple, Apple will threaten to build in an incredibly easy DVD to iPod Video ripping facility ... Apple will sell tons more video iPods and the studios will gain exactly -- NOTHING. This is Apple's "nuclear option" which i don't believe anyone wants Apple to have to use ... there is just too much money to be made once somebody gets the value proposition right.

[Mike @ Apr 4th 2006 9:59AM]

I fully agree with all the comments here, however, posting them here accomplishes nothing. Why not write them up in a letter and send it to the studios? Let them know what a stupid decision they have made.

[JC @ Apr 4th 2006 11:47AM]

#46-If Apple adapted your nuclear option they would face a lawsuit from the movie industry that would threaten the life of the company. Not going to happen.
The real story here is that somehow Apple failed in their negotiations with the studios, otherwise, they would have been first to announce downloadable movies on iTunes. This is not good news for a video iPod anytime soon.

[glacia00 @ Apr 4th 2006 1:30PM]

By 'first-run' I'm guessing they mean while the movie is in theaters. I can't claim to understand it but I walk by theaters all the time and see people shelling out much more than $20 (total) for a movie they won't own. And often it's a pretty poor viewing/listening experience. So while it's not me or perhaps anyone else here the audience may be there for this.

Also, one of the whispered about reasons for Apple switching to Intel uPs was for hardware DRM so they have been long in preparation for this. It wouldn't surprise me to hear in coming days Apple announcing something similar. It wouldn�t surprise me if they waited for this announcement. It also wouldn't surprise me if Apple is willing to do a service at cost or at a loss for a while. In spite of their artsy facade they are as ruthlessly conniving as any company out there. I seriously doubt they will be �locked out�.

[Grant @ Apr 4th 2006 2:16PM]

As a father of a 2 year-old girl, I would consider this option for FIRST-RUN MOVIES. Movies that are just hitting theaters.

To pay a babysitter, I'm out $8 an hour for 3-4 hours plus tip, so I'm $35-40 in the hole even before I see a movie. Plus add in $9 each for my wife and I to see the movie, plus refreshments for around $10. A night at the movies generally will set us back anywhere from $50-75. This is why we generally the reason we rent movies and stay at home.

HOWEVER... if the movie industry is looking to charge me $25-30 for a movie that's no newer than this week's DVD releases... then thanks, but no thanks. I'll just rent DVDs, or buy them in the first week of release at local retailers for $15-$20. Until they figure out that only by offering these films first-run can they justify charging such exorbitant prices, this experiment will fail miserably.

Studios, you haven't provided anyone an intrinsic benefit or a compelling reason to purchase. Remember, the DVD player was the #1 planned consumer electronics holiday gift for three years running... there are VERY few people without the technology in their homes already.

But I say all this as if the movie industry truly cares if this experiment succeeds. It's far more likely that this gambit is a political move wrought from failed negotiations with Apple than an actual business model. And it WILL fail at this pricing structure. The market simply won't support such a shoddy, inflexible product at these prices.

[AD @ Apr 4th 2006 2:30PM]

It is sad how they can't learn from the lesson.

What did just happened to the record industry in the last 5 years?
Do they really think low quality, high priced movie downloads from not-user friendly websites will decrease the pirating?
Please somebody update them.
It's the next century now.