It is currently Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:18 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]

Recent News:



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:49 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:23 am
Posts: 3838
Location: Long Island, New York
Thanks: 94
Thanked: 243 times in 236 posts
What a bunch of BS. Not sure if folks here are aware, but the various studios place restrictions on when new movies are made available via Netflix, Blockbuster, etc... Currently 28 days after the DVD is released appears to be the norm, but WB decided to increase this to 56 days. Now to add insult to injury, WB has told Netflix that they can't even make the WB movies available to add to your queue until 28 days after the DVD is released (currently you can add a DVD to your queue before it is released and Netflix will send over once the release window expires). The thinking here is that it is too easy for Netflix users to add movies to their queue when first announced and just forget about it until Netflix ships. Not doing so the user may be more likely to purchase the DVD when released instead of having to remember 28 days later to add to their queue. Even better according to Warner the reason for this is:

Quote:
"One of the key initiatives for Warner Bros. is to improve the value of ownership for the consumer and the extension of the rental window...is an important piece of that strategy,"


I am all ears if someone can explain to me how this will improve the value of ownership??? At least be honest and just state that the only reason you are doing this is to hopefully make more money.

I am a Netflix user. Typically when I get emails from Amazon or other sites advertising upcoming releases I will go through the list and figure out what I may want to purchase vs. rent. For the ones I want to purchase I will go ahead and preorder on Amazon. For the ones I would only rent I head over to Netflix and add to my queue. So I guess I am the type of Netflix user that WB is targeting, and that somehow by not allowing me to add a movie to my queue right away will lead to me purchasing. Well, considering the reason I use Netflix is because I have no intention in purchasing the movie(s) in question, that is not going to change.

I tell ya, these studios are against piracy but sure seems like they do everything in their power to encourage it.

So what do you folks here think, is this just another sign that the movie studios truly have no idea what is going on and will continue to cling to an archaic system? Will this just further encourage users to grab pirated copies since practically every movie hits the torrent/filesharing sites within hours, if not earlier, of the dvd release?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/248838/w ... euing.html

_________________
Cheers,
Damian

DIY WHS - 12.5TB and growing, too many gadgets to list

Did you read the MediaSmartServer blog today?
Blog - http://www.adigitalhomeblog.com
"Like a midget at a urinal, stay on your toes!" - Lieutenant Frank Drebin


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  

Attention Guest: Remove this ad by Registering with the MediaSmartServer.net Forums. It's Free!
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:33 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5157
Location: Georgia, USA
Thanks: 86
Thanked: 703 times in 682 posts
Personally I think its stupid. I never thought these delays ever increased the sale of DVD or Blu-Ray's. I purchase my movies and will often wait for the prices to drop unless there is a movie I just want to have right away.

I do not see how this will increase the sale of movies as there are those who will buy a movie regardless of the delays and those who may want to see the movie before they decide to purchase a copy of their own so I think this will only delay the sale of their content not increase it. You know the longer time passes on movie releases the prices drop so I believe the sooner they allow services like Netflix to stream the content the faster the sale of movies in stores will increase before the prices drop.

_________________
Exploring the possibilities!

Migrated from WHS2011 to WS2012E: HIGHLANDER

~ Norco 4220 Enclosure
~ Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5
~ AMD Phenom II X4 995 3.2 GHz
~ 8 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
~ 3 Supermicro AOC-SASLP-MV8


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:28 pm 
Offline
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:58 pm
Posts: 530
Location: Jax, FL
Thanks: 24
Thanked: 20 times in 20 posts
I think WB is doing this because they see Netflix as a supplier to pirate sites. Let me explain.
If Netflix gets the movie the same they come out on DVD "pirates" will order it, rip it and upload it to websites like Pirate Bay. Dont get me wrong, i also think waiting 56 days does not solve any problems; it creates a new one. If you are one of those that can buy movies and prefere Netflix you wont mind waiting a bit more.
When it comes to those who use a P2P to obtain movies, there will always be that guy that will buy the movie and share it. I agree with the statement that there is no way to control piracy,but they can help reduce it. People dont want to buy DVDs they want to be able to stream the movie anywhere. Stop producing them and open a web streaming service.

_________________
Freedom is not only to do what you love, but to love what you do.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:18 am 
Offline
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:25 pm
Posts: 628
Location: Shelby Township, MI
Thanks: 74
Thanked: 146 times in 106 posts
I agree with cubanblood and it's been one of the reasons why I think SOPA and PIPA won't solve the piracy problem.

My fundamental belief is that most folks who participate in piracy are, for the most part, decent people who aren't really looking to "steal" or "get it for free." I'll use two examples. When RIAA wanted to kill Napster, Hillary Rosen (then president of the RIAA) said that then-announced iTunes, which was still just a twinkle in Steve Jobs' eye, was going to fall flat because MP3 lovers were just a bunch of thieves, cheats and scoundrels unwilling to pay the artists for all their hard work.

Steve Jobs proved Ms. Rosen wrong. Build it and they will come. iTunes, the Android market, even Amazon--they've all built successful fee-based music services and many millions of users (me included) are happy to use them and buy our music legally.

The other example I cite is Mega Upload. Unless you were hitting that site to download a pittance of a file (no more than a few MB), the so-called "free" access was an ad-laden experience with speeds so slow it reminded me of the days of 2400 baud dial-up. (OK, maybe 56K dialup.) If you wanted fast access, you had to pay a hefty monthly premium to get unlimited fast access. And people happily paid that monthly fee. And that makes a powerful statement -- people are willing to PAY--as in part with their money--to get the content.

The problem is thus less of one regarding money, but rather control. The copyright holders want to release the content on their terms, and on the mediums they select. That's why DVDs and Blu-rays are region coded. Why region code when you can put multiple languages on a single disc anyway? Because this way they can release them in one market on one date, while waiting to release it another, rather than letting the whole world have it at one time.

Consumers nowadays are all about instant gratification. They want the content now, and they want it on their terms, and at at their convenience. People want streaming, and they want it on their phone, in their car, on their tablet. We love portability and convenience. Tablets are portable and convenient.

But if WB is unwilling to make it available for streaming until 56 days after the DVD/Blu-ray release date, you can bet someone else out there is willing to release it a helluva lot sooner, whether it's Pirate Bay or elsewhere. And people will gladly open their wallets to get it.

If the copyright holders are listening, and they see that people are willing to open their wallets, why don't they just listen to the customer and give them what they want, when they want it? If they do that, I'd be willing to bet at least 75% of piracy will come to a screeching halt, leaving behind only the small groups of folks -- the ones who pirate the material in order to make a profit, and the "thieves" who are unwilling to pay anything for the content. THOSE are the folks that copyright holders and governments should target.

_________________
Matt Sawyer
Owner, Dojo North Software, LLC

HP EX490, 4GB, E5300, 15TB - Server 2012 - Sharing and Streaming
HP EX487, 4GB, E5300, 13TB - Server 2012 Essentials - Backups


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:48 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:23 am
Posts: 3838
Location: Long Island, New York
Thanks: 94
Thanked: 243 times in 236 posts
Agreed with everyone here. It is just something where the tighter grip/control these companies try to have over their content the more fallout i think you will have from consumers (pirate or not). There was actually one study that said "pirates" were actually more likely to spend money on content. Not that I necessarily condone piracy, but i can tell you when I was in college I "acquired" mp3 albums for artists I never heard of but had an interest in. There were some where I thought it was just garbage and got rid of, but there were others I liked a lot, ended up spending money on additional albums, seeing in concert, etc... I also think the studios need to be more realistic about how they price movies for purchase. New releases usually fetch a nice premium, yet notice usually within a month or two the price drops significantly. And of course you have the studios who try to milk as much money as possible from the consumer by double and triple dipping (i.e. Avatar, LOTR, Star Wars, etc...). So the studios want to improve the consumer ownership experience but they also want to make sure they maximize what they get out of it. Something just has to break. At some point I think we will get with video where we are with music, but boy it sure seems like there is going to be quite a fight to get there!

_________________
Cheers,
Damian

DIY WHS - 12.5TB and growing, too many gadgets to list

Did you read the MediaSmartServer blog today?
Blog - http://www.adigitalhomeblog.com
"Like a midget at a urinal, stay on your toes!" - Lieutenant Frank Drebin


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:33 pm 
Offline
2.0TB storage
2.0TB storage

Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:33 am
Posts: 195
Thanks: 17
Thanked: 10 times in 9 posts
I find it easier to find alternative entertainment and not play the hollywood games, or just decide that I'm going to wait until it's available.

But as they play more and more games, I find I'm less and less interested in their offerings and finding plenty of alternative entertainment from the Internet.

Their loss.... I think it's awesome that Netflix is starting to fund their own original content. As that continues, this kind of crap will be more and more risky or simply not viable for them to continue with.


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:35 pm 
Offline
2.0TB storage
2.0TB storage

Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:33 am
Posts: 195
Thanks: 17
Thanked: 10 times in 9 posts
msawyer91 wrote:
Consumers nowadays are all about instant gratification. They want the content now, and they want it on their terms, and at at their convenience. People want streaming, and they want it on their phone, in their car, on their tablet.


That may be, but people still don't have the right to steal it. You can either play their terms or just not partake. Any other rationalization is just that - rationalization.

Great article (NSFW - language) http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2012/03/ ... iving.html


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:42 am 
Offline
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:25 pm
Posts: 628
Location: Shelby Township, MI
Thanks: 74
Thanked: 146 times in 106 posts
EricE wrote:
msawyer91 wrote:
Consumers nowadays are all about instant gratification. They want the content now, and they want it on their terms, and at at their convenience. People want streaming, and they want it on their phone, in their car, on their tablet.


That may be, but people still don't have the right to steal it. You can either play their terms or just not partake. Any other rationalization is just that - rationalization.

Great article (NSFW - language) http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2012/03/ ... iving.html

This is true. People don't have the right to steal it. Nevertheless, the content providers are fighting an uphill battle. The article referenced certainly points directly at the heart of the matter. For those at work who want to avoid risqué language, the author, MG Siegler, is interested in a show called Game of Thrones which is available only on HBO, and about 10-11 months later, on iTunes.

He wants to watch the show when it is first run, but he doesn't want to subscribe to cable or satellite. He just wants to subscribe to HBO, something that cannot be done due to HBO's agreements with cable and satellite providers. And so he proclaims that he intends to pirate the show, rather than waiting 10-11 months for it to appear on iTunes.

Clearly Mr. Siegler is choosing the wrong way to go about it, but sadly it also goes back to the "instant gratification" I mentioned earlier. Does stealing the content make it right? Of course not.

On the other hand, the content providers should take notice -- people are willing to take their money elsewhere, even to pirates. Content providers can shell out their hard earned money coming up with more elaborate methods to block the pirates, who will find more innovative ways to make the content available. Or, the content providers can save their money and make the content available to those folks who are willing to pay.

It goes back to simple economics. The digital economy changed a lot of how the market works, but in the end it is still simple economics. I would much, much rather pay the content provider--the rightful owner--my money for their works. So why are content providers so UNWILLING to provide it?

_________________
Matt Sawyer
Owner, Dojo North Software, LLC

HP EX490, 4GB, E5300, 15TB - Server 2012 - Sharing and Streaming
HP EX487, 4GB, E5300, 13TB - Server 2012 Essentials - Backups


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
The following user would like to thank msawyer91 for this post
dbone1026
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group