Movies Features
Movie downloads an evolutionary idea?
By Scott Rosenberg Apr 4, 2006, 12:16 GMT
On the Web
Latest Headlines in Movies
- 1. 62nd Annual Berlinale International Film Festival The Iron Lady Photocall Pictures
- 2. Wicked Pictures Men In Black: A Hardcore Parody Pictures
- 3. Act of Valor Los Angeles Premiere Pictures
- 4. The Woman in Black Madrid Photocall Pictures
- 5. Nikolaj Coster-Waldau boards 'Oblivion'
Older Talkback
page: 1
I am glad to see that the movie industry has become aware of the situation. I can't remember it was but in the last 3 months or so M. Knight Shamlayan came and spoke to the theatres about this exact thing - He said he wouldn't release a movie on DVD or over the Net at the same time it hits the theatre because it takes away from the theatre.
Once this hits the Internet at the release date 'they' will find ways to rip it, crack it, and distribute it. DVD security protection doesn't stop people from taking movies now - why do these Companies put the movie in a format directly on the computer and not expect the pirating to grow exponentially?
I enjoy taking my wife to the theatre to watch the new movies - we might be a dying breed but it is more fun to go see a show then to spend the same amount of money on a DVD that we're not sure we are going to want.
The Theatre's will need to more direct in their communication because when this new form of release hits the net - its gonna spread like wildfire!
(The betamax issue now makes incredible more sense out of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray fight that is currently going on! Sony doesn't want to loose this one again.)
'Is it good for a cozy night with a loved one in a candle lit room with some excellent wine? I don’t think so.'
While it may be true that watching a movie on a CRT monitor is not very fun or romantic, I doubt this is really an issue. More and more plasma TVs are coming with advanced connection options. Many of the brand name companies like Sony and Hitachi are making network enabled DVD players and digital theater systems. Currently I have my entire DVD collection on a file server. I use a program called Beyond Media to access my movies and watch them on my plasma tv in the living room. Of course I had to build the box custom, which took quite some time, it works well. Look for network enabled appliances that will bridge thegap between internet/network based content and the tradition 'TV in the den' - that is the next evolutionary step in media content delivery.
I think the movie downloads is a great idea.
i love the idea of movie downloads. on the other hand, i hate the price...
who in their right mind would buy less for the same price? when you buy a DVD you get a lot of bonus features not to mention something tangible to add to your movie collection. Even then you can use legal software to convert that DVD into a movie file to be watched on whatever mobile device you chose...
make movie downloads at least 25% less than a DVD and then i'll consider buying one.
Worst. Article. Ever.
Was the time line really needed?
Get to the point already.
At least there are some alternatives to the high prices. Sites like 4Flix.Net have feature-length, DRM-free downloads from $1.99, and they just announced an annual subscription service. Works great on the iPod, to boot!
I can't imagine that downloading movies that you can't even play on a tv (and for $20-30 a pop) is going to be a big money making business. Maybe I am out of the loop, but if I am going to pay that much, I will buy it on DVD and get better quality. Personally, I would just as soon rent from Netflix or Blockbuster if I must see a movie as soon as it is released on DVD. I have found that owning movies isn't that great because how often do you watch the same movie over and over? If it is really good, I might watch it twice in 2 years. Even some award winning movies aren't ones I would want to watch twice.
A new form of media is emerging. Virtual interactive sex via the Internet was patented in 2002.
It's far from an idea, its been done for years already, just not offically or legally. Its a step and a very important one. The next step is to electronically join TV sets with computers and give them a hard drive.
On the issue of technology phasing out older industrys I have two things to say. First of all, going to the cinema is a unique experience you cannot get from watching your 15 or 17 inch computer screen at home with little stereo speakers. Secondly, tough. Progress is progress, some poeple lose out on dying industries, thats just the way the world works... don't behave like a labor union.
Independent film producers have been offering movie downloads for a couple of years now. The studios are inherently always behind the curve when it comes to technology....check out www.blowingsmokethemovie.com for an example of one of the first movie blogs to offer a purchaseable download of a full-length digital feature.
Downloads are turning out to be 'just the thing' for that candlelit evening after all. With advents like MythTV (a free Linux-based application that turns many aging PCs into TVs with recording/playback capability rivalling TiVo) and older technologies like VideoCD which debuted in the late 80s/early 90s, and can hold about half a movie on each cheap disc at a quality between VHS and DVD, which anyone can burn from nearly any downloaded movie file, and which your DVD player can alrady play. PC screens are getting larger, prices are coming down, and with home networking going through the roof you don't even need the screen in the same room as the PC.
Give it another gneration or so, and nobody will have a TV that is only a TV anymore than your current mobile phone is just a phone.
I don't understand the concern of exhibitors about downloadable movies. The article (editorial?) says
'Movielink and CinemaNow will offer download-to-own sales of feature films at the same time as the studio’s pre-established home video release window,'
>>>Same time as the home video release window. <<< This only cannibalizes is DVD sales (though I have a hard time imagining that they will be selling the things at full resolution: multiple GB downloads are not convenient for many people yet.) I don't think there is a market of people that will now forgo going to the theater because downloading a movie 6 months after the release is so much more convenient than buying a DVD 6 months after the release.
You could make the 'well, this opens the door for downloads concurrent with the theater release' argument, however if that door is gonna open, I don't think this particular move really makes much difference.
I think the theater business is so cutthroat right now due to overbuilding, that the NATO is in a negative mood and looking for something to blame things on. Anything with any glimmer of potential downside they will fuss about.
the article starts off with a lie and goes downhill from there ... I Love Lucy was never filmed in color (and thus never seen in color) despite the authors hazy flashback
I like the whole timeline concept in this article, quite a clever way to draw your analogies. Scott, you're a great staff writer. Keep up the good work.
As for the movie downloads, I see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, the studios are irritated at the multiplexes for failing to clean up their act and draw moviegoers. Study after study on this issue suggests that its not the movies themselves that are pushing moviegoers away.. it's the horrendous movie experience, such as ticket and food prices, cleanliness, customer service, noise, cellphones, filthy bathrooms, etc. The list goes on. Every issue is a theatre one. I suspect, since most theatres are owned and ran by the uncaring mega-chains now, it is they who need to clean up their act, as they're running their companies and the business into the ground.
On the other hand, movie downloads will never work. Well, I shouldn't say never just yet, as there MAY be a time where convergence of the PC and the TV actually happen. Unfortunately, that day still have not arrived, and it may be decades before it does. Most people still don't know what a .mpg is, and most people still don't understand the concept of downloading a file. They wouldn't get what to do with it if they could. I'm a support technician, and I'd estimate for 70% of my clients, this is the case, young and old alike.
Here is what people like to do on the PC: They want to play solitaire, check their e-mail, and surf the web. Any other activities happen rarely if at all. As for movies, people like to watch them on the couch on the big TV. They don't like to watch movies on the family PC in the den, or home office PC.
So no, movie downloads are an unworkable idea at the moment. Great article though.
Personally I don't feel too sorry for cinema owners, they've been overcharging cinema go-ers for years. There's nothing more annoying than paying for ticket and the only seats left are so close to the screen that you leave the place with a stiff neck. If I can watch the latest films from the comfort of my sofa then I'm interested.
Re: Lucy
He probably meant when I Love Lucy became the Lucy Show. Yes, Lucy was in color at that time.
This heralds the death of the movie theater.
And perhaps indicates the birth of Interactive retro-fitted theater spaces.
Movie theaters can become more than movie theaters. They can become multiplayer game and collaboration interfaces. This way they can rent them out 24-7 rather than just at hot times.
Convert the spaces!!!
I agree those people who say that the same price as a DVD is too much for a digital-only copy absent of special features. I might see it as a convenience fee (Yay! I don't have to get dressed to see that brand new movie! Or, for those in rural areas, Yay! I don't have to drive 30 miles to the nearest theater or video store!)
Personally, I use my laptop to play DVDs, and carry it around with me and sometimes hook it up to a TV.
'Is it good for a cozy night with a loved one in a candle lit room with some excellent wine? I don’t think so.'
I'd say that hooking my laptop into a nice, high-def TV is better for a cozy night with a loved one than going to a place that forbids wine (or any other drink brought from outside) and candles, and in which the guy two rows and one seat down is screaming at the movie I'm watching. I'd also say that a loveseat is a better seat for such an event than the uncomfortable chairs at most theaters I've been to.
As for piracy, there is no way to stop piracy. Even if your average Joe can no longer rip the media, your average Joe can still download it...and it only takes one rip to make an infinite number of copies.
And on the topic of hurting theaters, there was one good point made in the article: it's nearly impossible to really recreate the feeling of being in a theater, at least as of yet. We're coming upon it, perhaps, but if the media did evolve beyond requiring a special location for such an experience, would that be such a bad thing? Do we like paying $8 for a medium-size bag of popcorn that much? Perhaps if theaters moved to the home, more innovation in the field of how we watch it could be made.
There's nothing new or revolutionary about this. As your timeline shows, the technology to encode and distribute movies on the internet has been around for over a decade. If I own a movie on a VHS tape, can I put it in my VCR/DVD burner and burn a DVD of it? Can I encode it as an AVI file and watch it on my video iPod? The courts already established in the 1970's that I can. The studios have been gradually trying to erode *our* property rights ... the rights we have as individuals who have purchased *something*. They want DRM-enabled devices that do not allow the kind of copying that has already been established by the courts we are entitled to do, and laws that make circumventing this crippling a crime.
Why? So that they can sell us the movie download *and* the DVD. So that if we want to watch that episode of Friends that we like, we can't just pull out our old VHS tape --- that we are legally entitled to have --- and watch it. We have to buy the download, that maybe we can only watch a few times because of DRM code, and buy the DVD box set (that costs $100, even though the episodes have already been paid for with advertising dollars and syndication). Oh, and did I mention that the DVD has previews of the other fine products they'd like you to buy? (And, of course, the skip button is disabled while the previews play.)
What are we paying for exactly? If we buy a DVD, what exactly do we own? If we want to watch it on our PC or iPod, isn't that our business? Why should we have to buy it again? If I were to download Charlie's Angels 2, and I find out that it's a piece of crap, shouldn't I be able to resell it?
If piratebay.org can distribute a movie download for $0, why does it cost $20 from the studio? Are you telling me that the out-of-pocket costs of 'On The Waterfront' paid by the studio haven't been repaid a thousand times over? Isn't anything they take from the consumer basically 'free money'? Wouldn't many of these 'classics' have already fallen into the public domain if not for Mickey Mouse?
What you really need is a timeline showing the ever-dwindling rights of the consumer with respect to copyright law.
All this DRM stuff is giving me a headache, why does the recording industry have to fight the inevitable to the death. Nobody is going to fall for this one-time movie downloading business, or spend more money just to have a DRM enabled device that takes away freedom. If congress refuses to fix the copyright laws, it's now up to the consumer to stand up to the big companies taking advantage of this and stealing our public domain rights.
When will the industry realize that consumers don't want to watch movies on their PCs? What we need is a service that consists of a set-top box that would take the place of your DVD player. You could download HD-quality movies from the box and watch directly on your HDTV/home theater. Better yet, studios can put a limit on the time you have to view the movie. For example, pay $5 for a limited viewing window or pay $20 and you can store it on your box for as long as you want. This way, everybody wins!
why would I want to pay $20-30 US to download a movie to my PC that I cannot even burn to a DVD or play in my DVD player. I can get the DVD for $25-30 CDN and play it anywhere. Besides, look at the time & disk space required to do this. Imagine downloading the 3-part extended version of lord of the rings with all the extras. No thanks.
Have you ever heard of Microsoft Media Center? You can download videos right off the internet and watch them on your tv! amazing...
I believe the movie theater will die a slow death but will remain for sometime yet. My home theater wins especially when compared to outrageous movie theater prices and the occasional screaming baby.
Movies downloaded by users will have to be priced less than those available on DVD to become a serious market contender. If Apple is successful using the same marketing angle on movies that has been so successful with the IPOD, the world will be a better place but the home entertainment center as most people know it will have to be further developed. Enter Microsoft.
Also, the 2002 patent for interactive virtual sex using the internet will prove to be a historical and significant mile stone for media technology and applications. It appears that the future is catching up with us.
Good article.
DUH. Yes, downloading movies will take off (I'm a tech spec too)... Yes, it is worth watching downloads with a 'loved one' (or somebody else, or alone), depending on your video display tech... Yes, we do watch them on our PC's, Notebooks, other vid devices (and even cellphones)... and yes, the prices are too high, rentals will eventually be in line with local rental stores, and no-value added downloads should be available and without commercials, cheaper than DVD's. There is an online download market and it will grow... anybody naysaying doesn't understand the markets, not to mention the history the article printed. The major point is the studios themselves are finally providing their mainstream content online for download/purchase. '...the internet has really come of age' Universal Pictures president says... DUH. No I don't think downloads should be available the same day of release in theaters, but there will be theaters for some time to come, anyway... they're just complaining about their profit margins and competition... (whiners). Content will out, those standing in the way will eventually get run over by demand/profits.
This article is terrible. It's very poorly written, lacks conformity of style, and doesn't have much of a point. Why do you think this is a bad idea? Why would you not watch movies on your computer while drinking wine? Why would you rather buy DVDs? You never told us. If this was submitted to my school newspaper, I would demand that it be rewritten.
Hello, the big screen is now in the home. You can get them at 9 feet for $1100
Do you have an editor? Does anybody proof this stuff? Incredible...
I can't see it working one bit, people will still pirate movies and download it free on those bit-torrent sites with no restrictions! I mean $19.99 for a download , you corporate chiefs of these movie companys must be thick and must think we are too! Get in the real world! Pirate File sharing will never die!
Windows Media 2005: what more can you say? My family doesn't even consider watching ads anymore,..this can't last forever,..as who's going to profit by making tv shows that people can watch while easily skipping the ads? Unlike TIVO, this is a free deal forever. What's best is the XBOX360 downstairs receives all the same TV sans ads,..and that baby's hooked up to the plasma and surround sound.
I think Bill Gates will kill TV as we know it with this killer app. This is legal (for now) stealing, and once you've experienced it, are you ever going to slog through 25minutes of ads again to watch 37 minutes of TV? Are you going to make payments to TIVO,..when XBOX360 does your home theater for free?
Two last notes: I loved the timeline in the article, except the part where Finland had more cellphones per capita than anyone. Must be so next time Chernobyl goes, they'll all have advance warning time to pop their iodine. Also, I sadly gave up going to movies all together,..a few years ago. Almost without fail, every movie we were going to,..was out of focus, or too dark..or some clown was on a cell the entire time, or there were food fights, and worst of all,..sitting through 30 minutes of ads and previews. Insufferable. (it is ironic: movies 'coarsened' the culture so much..and now people have become so coarse they've killed the theater experience) I used to leave the movie feeling enraged, ripped off,..Now I drink wine in the romantic comfort of my livingroom, knowing I can freeze H-wood if the moment feels right.
I hate going to the movies. I don't care if theatre owners think simultaneous release would hurt their pockets, they've been ripping me off since birth. It's time for payback.
If the film industry thinks they can offer a download-to-own film that can only be played on a computer monitor screen, they need to visit CinemaNow.com's homepage and click on the 'Watch on your TV' link. Since Windows 98SE came out, and assuming a person has the appropriate video card installed, they can choose between watching video output on a monitor or on a TV screen (or both at the same time).
The problem? If the signal can be watched unfettered on a standard television set, it can also be captured by a VCR, a DVD recorder, or a capture card ... allowing the computer owner to burn a DVD copy of the capture (and even edit it to suit their tastes).
But...
I suspect the movie industry will do what it currently does via CinemaNow and other online movie outlets. In short, the product I expect to see appear will be a film whose quality-level is less than that of a VHS tape. Example? A year or so ago, I noticed that CinemaNow had a downloadable version of a film that has NEVER appeared on home video - 'The Dark At The Top Of The Stairs.' So, I downloaded the film ... which I could watch for 24 hours on my computer. But, my computer's video card allowed me to export the video signal to my 27' Curtis Mathes TV. On my computer monitor, the picture looked OK. But on my TV, the picture was just 'barely' watchable. There is NO WAY that anyone I know would pay the same price they'd pay for a DVD to get a downloaded film that isn't DVD-quality. While I was willing to part with $2.00 to 'rent' a downloaded film from CinemaNow, I would NOT be willing to buy it unless the quality was much higher. And unless it is much higher, I think the home video enthusiast will feel likewise.
I find this article a little inaccurate. I have a video card in my computer that allows me to hook up to my tv thru svideo or the standard video jack. If downloading a movie means that I have to pay the full retail price of a DVD, then I wouldn't use it. However, with the added options included in a bundle, with the ability to save this info for as long as I want, then bring it on! I would gladly download movies, and not have to worry about the packaging of a DVD and the effects that it has on the environment. Not to mention, theaters are worried that this will drive them out of business.....well don't charge me 6 bucks for popcorn when the total cost to you is less than a dime. People would always go to the theater to see a show if it wasn't such a drain on their wallet.
I thought your article as timely.
3 years ago a fellow that engineered small
computers for home use couldn't figure out
why people would want terabyte sized
storage for personal computers.
4 terabytes at that time was about all
that had been digitalized and put on
line from the Library of Congress.
CD's were once thought to be too
expensive and of too large of a capacity.
WiMax will make DSL look 9600 baud.
Dual layer DVD burners are nothing new.
Over 5 channel sound is available.
Plasma screens will come down in price,
and the sizes will grow.
Downloadable movies are here. Burnable's
(download and copy to keep) are next.
Movie theater viewership will continue to
decline, unless they drop their prices, or
come up with something new.
Moore's Law still exists.
And keeper prices will drop.
So what's the problem?
Let's see. I have a video store 30 minutes away that sells most new DVD sets for $14.95. So, I can drive for an hour, spend 15 minutes shopping, spend $15 plus tax and gas and have a DVD that will play on my home theater system or on my computer. Or, I can spend two hours downloading that smae DVD, spend twice as much, and have something that can only be played on my computer (perhaps on my TV). Which one do I choose?
This should fail miserably. Of course, if it does, the movie industry won't realize that it is due to a flawed business plan and overzealous digital rights management -- they'll just assume that comsumer's aren't ready for movie downloads yet. Which is a pity.
I Love Lucy was never in color. What is this guy smoking?
1987 saw the first Japanese ‘anime’, ‘The Simpsons’ were introduced on TV and in 1988 the sale of CD’s outsold vinyl records while 98% of American homes had at least one TV set.
not true, 'astroboy' in black and white was on TV in 63 I think it was, from Japan, so you are in error
thanks,
brett
Plainly and simply, I will never pay for DRM.
Why pay a company to treat you like a criminal?
Are the media executives even trying to think anymore?
I told people shortly after the PSP came out that the UMD videos would die. Not because it was a terrible idea, not because you couldn't burn your own UMDs (although that was an issue)...it was going to die because they were pricing movies above DVD prices with lower resolution, and no extra features. For crying out loud, my 12 year old figured that out and was asking me why anyone would be so stupid to pay $22 for a UMD video when the DVD was $15. UMDs could have worked for $9.99 and a number of people would have picked up that and DVD.
And here we go again with the downloadable movies. iTunes was a success because you could pick up a song for...well...a song. It costs less for a format that is good enough, and you didn't have to buy a whole album to get to a song or two.
My message to media executives: Stop paying through the nose for high-priced MBAs. Hire my 12 year old and you might actually see growth again.
Do we know what quality they are going to have the movies? Your right that there is no point to pay for more for a downloadable movie if A) the Quality sucks B) you can't take the time to download it C) its missing the features the DVD will have(added content).
Right now America is getting hosed by the Theatres because of price, the Movie companies because they continue to charge us more and accuse the general public of stealing from them, and (to me the most annoying) the Internet Service Providers because we pay more money than most of the world(90%) for our Internet Service and are in the bottom 10% in Quality of Service and Speed! If your on Dialup you'd be insane to try to download movies, but people will try and they will fail.
Not the general public (they're still on dialup), but some of us will be able to download movies because of DSL and Cable in a timely fashion. They're ramping up WiMax (802.16) and that will continue to grow and expand, spreading Highspeed internet wireless through urban and rural areas. Intel is working on their ViV chipsets to allow replication and easier distribution of Media throughout the household.
A good video card allows me to watch movies on my 19in LCD panel at home, I've got component hookups, S-video, and all the works but whoever said that if the quality sux and if I have trouble porting my newly downloaded movie to my soon to be purchased 50' HD-TV ... here comes another way to be ripped off by the 'Movie Industry'. (File servers are great, however Media-center seems to be a dressed up version of XP.)
your whole article is a freaking history lesson. i skipped to the end to find your summery and i still feel i wasted 3 minutes of my life.
This article presupposes there should only ever be ONE methode of distribution. thats just stupid, most of the movies i go see are tripple a list titles only. if there was a way to not have the hasles of waiting in line and other annoiances of going to movies i'd see more of them. Top title movies are only ever best seen on the silver screen so the download thig is just for films i wouldnt have seen otherwise. no lost revenue the way i see it.
its just like the music i download, i can get it for free and gain a fan(if i like it i will always buy) but most of the time its crap and if i puchased i'd just feel ripped off and be far less likly to do it again in the future.
same principal.
In the future can we PLEASE not have the history lesson ,.... yet again???
anon
Well this article was just ok, but i remember back in the BBS day when we had 300 baud and we where darn glad to have it. why the internet was just for tracking UFO's and my modem was unidirectional,... both ways,.. uphill,.. in the snow.
so why is it if i record a song from the radio im a hippie, if i record a song off the net i'm a theiving pirate? oh and both sound like crap by the way.
So if i ripp a movie i just downloaded its still just tv res right? who want to archive that?
if every sentance i string together was mine forever and no one could ever use them again or even make referance to them then am i entepenurial (sp?) or just greedy? so why can the media do it and its ok?
anon
Great article except it forgets that movie downloads would not be possible due to bandwidth constraits and time for full screen full frame to download over the Internet. The secret sauce to the success of even streaming video is due to inventions created by the Iviewit inventors. Learn more about how Iviewit technologies have enabled the studios to download and stream on low bandwidth and then how that opened up cell video, etc. The inventions have been stolen by patent attorneys from Proskauer Rose, LLP, Foley and Lardner and others who have monetized them through the anti-competitive monopolistic patent pool known as MPEGLA and its license scheme. The attorney Kenneth Rubenstein for MPEGLA, the overseer or overstealer of the patents, was Iviewit patent counsel and he and his partners are now under hosts of federal, state and international investigations. Amongst them, is Raymond Joao, Rubenstein's lackey, who now has 90+ patents applied for in his name, many stolen right from the Iviewit inventors and patented in his own name.
This is the greatest patent story of our time and if you really are interested in how movie-downloads happen, check it out with the studios, who all signed NDA's to use the scaling processes. Check out the letter below from Warner Bros Advanced Technology Department at about the time MovieLink was forming to use the Iviewit scaled download process.
We at Iviewit hope that the world enjoyies these technologies, except for those who attempted to steal them and will soon pay the price.
Eliot Bernstein
Inventor
iviewit@iviewit.tv
www.iviewit.tv
The letter to the above talkback regarding who really invented movie download processes for the Internet is exemplified in this letter by Warner Bros Advanced Technologists. Warner, Sony and others were working with Iviewit at the time to learn how the processes worked.
From: David.Colter@warnerbros.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 12:51 AM
To: John.calkins@warnerbros.com
Cc: CHuck.dages@warnerbros.com; Alan.Bell@warnerbros.com
Subject: iviewit
Page 1 of 2
3/26/2003
John,
In all the review we have done with ivieiwit it seems to boil down to the status of the patents and their inherent value. At that point it is a risk-reward evaluation -- without awarded patents it is difficult to completely assess the value. I would suggest that we consider one other perspective...
Prior to ivieiwit (approx Feb 2000) the video we (WB Online) delivered on the web was QCIF (160x120) or smaller and was below full frame rate. At the time of our first meeting we also identified On2 along with ivieiwit as two solid players who could deliver full screen full frame rate web video. All who saw it were impressed. Greg and I visited ivieiwit in August and reported back that they had filed patents on scaling techniques that hinged upon a visual 'trick' which allowed the human eye to accept 320x240 video scaled to 640x480 at 30 fps as close to VHS quality. We checked with Ken Rubenstein and others who provided some solid support for ivieiwit, and Chris Cookson asked Greg and I to continue to work with ivieiwit in an R&D capacity.
In the fall of 2000 iviewit also met with a number of folks at WB Online (in September and October) and demonstrated their process and techniques to Sam Smith, Houston, Joe Annino and others. Sam contacted ivieiwit a number of times and requested the patents, along with specifics of the ivieiwit process to evaluate what they were doing. I was not part of these meetings, but was aware they had occured, as Jack Scanlon kept me up to date.
When I sat down with Morgan and Houston in March 2001 to see what technology they were using to encode video, it was clear that they were using some of the techniques that would overlap with iviewit's filed process patents (still pending), but it is not clear that these were all learned from iviewit -- we may wish to explore this a little. This meeting was to determine what equipment we would get for our lab at 611 Brand. This same information was also provided to ivieiwit by Morgan as they were establishing the company as an outsourcing
facility for encoding our content.
I am aware of several meeting held between ivieiwit and WB Online to share information of techniques and process, and was invited to a few of them.
We all signed ivieiwit's confidentiality agreement. So to the other perspective....
We have an opportunity to establish a license with ivieiwit for a modest fee at this time, and establish a MFN. In good faith we signed the confidentiality agreement, iviewit revealed their processes and techniques, and we now
use those techniques in encoding. As we have discussed on a few occasions, these techniques now appear in the public domain to some extent in documentation for Real Producer, WMP Developer Guides, Media Cleaner
Pro, etc, but they were not available in 2000. I would not suggest we learned the techniques completely from iviewit (I actually do not know the answer), but a modest licensing fee may be appropriate and honorable considering our good faith relationship in signing the confidentiality doc.
If we choose to pass at this time the risk is primarily from iviewit's main investor, Crossbow Ventures, gaining control of the IP and approaching WB later for a license -- I do not believe they will be as friendly considering their
dealings with ivieiwit and it's employees since Feb of 2001. It is estimated that the patents will be completed in 8-12 months.
As you are all aware I have a personal relationship with Eliot Bernstein, the founder of iviewit, and as a result, I left the evaluations and decisions to Greg, and others, and only assisted iviewit to get to the correct people in WB
and AOLTW. I wanted to add this perspective as we consider if there is an option to pursue with iviewit -- they are facing continued financial pressure right now. There are many other threads to our interaction with iviewit and I
would be happy to discuss.
Thanx,
David
Note that this article was written in April. Now it's July and only one online movie provider, MovieLink, appears to have a real deal with Hollywood ... allowing users to download movies that can be burned to DVD to keep. But, there are a number of flies in this ointment.
First and foremost, quality. I'm assuming that they've merely acquired a license to sell what they're already renting - and already selling for computer playback only. If this is true, note that the filesize of an over-two-hour film download is roughly 650 megs. To attain even the minimum quality that would be considered DVD-quality, a film of that time-length would normally have a filesize of 4.3 gigabytes. And that's just bare minimum quality. Professional DVD releases which already cost much less than Movielink's current computer-only purchase prices require the film to be burned to a two-layer DVD holding about 9 gigs of data. FWIW, I've already downloaded one of those films from CinemaNow for rental (650 megs) and the quality, when viewed on my 27-inch Curtis Mathes TV is atrocious.
Secondly, let's assume they REALLY provide a DVD-quality film download at the lowest possible size of 4.3 gigs (for 2-hour films). Two snags. Even if you were lucky enough to get a respectable download speed from the provider, downloading would take longer than watching the film itself in real-time. This assumes you have the traditional cable or DSL hookup. Rich persons with T3 speed access might fare better ... and I do mean MIGHT fare better. But, assuming you were willing to wait the length of time needed to download movies, tying up your computer use to that specific purpose, how long do you think it would be before you got a nasty email from your ISP telling you your bandwidth usage is a problem?
If you want to get a REAL feel for downloading DVD-quality movies, a website already allows you to do this FREE. All movies on this site are public-domain films (old films) but still eminently burnable and watchable. As an example, download the movie HERCULES (3.8 gigs, MPEG2, 1 hour 44 minutes runtime) from the URL below and see if this is something you'd want to tie up your computer time with:
http://www.archive.org/download/hercules/hercules.mpeg
... tick, tick, tick, tick ... see what I mean?
Thirdly, there's the price issue. Right now, you have to pay Movielink more to download their computer-only permanent copy of a film than it would cost you to buy it on DVD. When they finalize the licensing agreements with studios allowing people to KEEP and BURN those movies to DVD, do you think the price is going to go up or down?
Frankly, I don't think the DVD retail industry has anything to worry about in the near or possibly distant future.
Wonderful and informative web site.I used information from that site its great... [url=networking recruiter|][/url][url=fuck friends|][/url][url=2005 global microsoft networking outsourcing security series studio system team visual|][/url][url=configuration definitive guide networking zero|][/url][url=dummy networking wireless|][/url][url=group networking|][/url][url=computer hardware networking|][/url][url=blog com friend myspace|][/url][url=circle of friends|][/url][url=computer hardware hardware networking supply|][/url]
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story