Warner will offer movies for download - bit-tech.net Forums

WilHarris · 1st Feb 2006, 19:35

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/02...vies_download/

atanum141 · 1st Feb 2006, 19:38

it all depends how much it will cost.

dom_ · 1st Feb 2006, 19:44

Unless its dvd size as in no compression i wont be buying it.
If im paying for a film i want it to be the best quality i can get and in a case so i can watch it on what dvd player/pc i want.

LoneArchon · 1st Feb 2006, 20:31

Well if it is a Divx encode or similar the quality will be there at a much more manageable size. I am thinking that they may a unreasonably high price for it. Maybe making it cost the same a DVD. as Itunes costs about the same as a cd with a cd going for $12-$17 each song costing $1. CDs usally have about 12-15 songs.

Firehed · 1st Feb 2006, 20:32

Bittorrent is a hassle?

I'm with dom - if the quality is there, I'd consider. Seeing that I work at a video store (free rentals), they're going to have to price things pretty attractively. The problem is that if you expect to use a dual-layer disk to burn an 8.5GB iso, it's going to take a long time to download and the disks are very expensive. If it's, as I expect, some sort of Xvid thing, it would at least be much smaller, and with the right settings you can keep all of the quality. I do really wonder how they plan on enforcing DRE though... protected WMV content I expect. Unless they just wise up to the idea that if they charge five bucks, people won't feel the need to pirate it, and not screw over the people that are paying.

It could work, but I know it won't work well. Most consumers are total idiots about quality. I figure that a lot of the people with hundreds and hundreds of .M4P iTunes files are also the type to buy a HDTV and not realize that DVDs aren't high-def (nor is their signal). You know, sell a product worse than the original at a higher profit, even if it's slightly less cost to consumers. Minimal distribution costs means maximum profits, and if they can make that model more attractive by the pick-and-choose of iTunes or saving a couple bucks off a movie, you can bet people will flock to it.

Until they find out that they can only watch it on the original computer, or something stupid like that.

DivineSin · 1st Feb 2006, 20:49

The only way i would pay for a movie that is downloaded online is if its either an image of the movie i can burn to a dvd or a comparable quality xvid. Not to mention it better be cheaper than a dvd, i'm not going to waste my time downloading something for the same price i can take a 5 minute trip and buy a real copy of.

But even if it was really cheap, if they use the torrent network i wouldnt even bothering paying for it in the first place, it better be direct downloads. Bittorrent is a great place to distribute free content, but if i'm paying something i better not have to use -my- upload bandwith to transfer it to someone else.

specofdust · 1st Feb 2006, 20:49

Sounds nice, but you can guarentee the implementation will be horrible.

They'll have crappy quality, because they need to deliver this stuff in less then four days for your average joe to be happy. They'll be DRM'd to the hilt, and chances are, they'll cost around the same as DVD's in the shops, so up to £17 in the UK.

Bit torrent will continue to offer higher quality, more easily re-usable, more easily attainable files, for free. The only snag is you're breaking the law, but since the chances of being sued are lower then the chances of being run over by a bus, is it likely many people are actually going to bother making the switch?

stephen2002 · 1st Feb 2006, 20:59

Once they start providing HD downloads I'm all over it. I don't care if I have to leave the download running overnight.

ITunes downloads of 320x240 for $2 are a joke.

specofdust · 1st Feb 2006, 22:47

Even just a DVD quality movie would take about 4 hours on a 2Mbit/s connection, or over an hour on an 8Mbit connection, going at full speed, and those aren't exactly slow connections.

HD videos are going to be many times bigger, depending on quality levels of course. But you're talking serious speeds before you can download over night.

DXR_13KE · 1st Feb 2006, 22:51

If the download was a good quality, dvd image, dvd rip, divx,...ect and the price would change in each of these qualities ie. less quality cost less

.

If the price was under 5 euro per film download and if it did not download correctly you could download it again, like in steam.

If there was a monthly fee of about 15 euro and you could download anything within a certain selection, like platinum films that are like 6 months old almost like a all you can eat buffet.

If the download speed was relativly fast or motherate, i dont want to wait 1 week to download a film i can download on torrents in 6 hours.

If it was not DRM, adwared, spywared and instal-software-to-screw-your-pc-ed to hell and back.

If it was easy and secure to pay.

YES I WOULD!!!

If not just go away.

Tulatin · 2nd Feb 2006, 01:48

then there's the issue of lacking extras, as well as the issue of accessibility. You pay for just the film here; like services such as Napster/Itunes/Etc, you're getting the bare bones for the price of the normal versions, for choice.

As to accessibility - it's not feasable to offer 8GB isos, nor is it to burn them. Why am i going to bother spending about 4 hours downloading something and an hour burning it when it costs me the same as a pressed disk? DRE will MOST certainly be included in the package here folks. To top it off, if they do want to make it accessible, it will end up as shite quality as people (and their bandwidth caps) won't like chugging much more than 200MB.

bloodcar · 2nd Feb 2006, 01:58

Personally, I don't like having my content delivered to me over the internet. If I buy something, I like to have something to show in hand and not just a DVD that I've burnt. My content rarely gets digitally delivered, tbh. I'm a member of Blockbuster online and with 5 movies at my door at a time, I don't really need to download movies, do I?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulatin

Why am i going to bother spending about 4 hours downloading something and an hour burning it when it costs me the same as a pressed disk?

Ow! Gotta love my DL burner that'll write it in 18 minutes.

Tulatin is right about the extra content though. I like some of the special features that come with my movies. Plus, it's hard to find a rip online of any movie that includes subtitles (half deaf in both ears).

MrWillyWonka · 2nd Feb 2006, 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by bloodcar

Tulatin is right about the extra content though. I like some of the special features that come with my movies. Plus, it's hard to find a rip online of any movie that includes subtitles (half deaf in both ears).

That's my concern, I'm totally deaf in both ears, and subtitles is a must, primarily the reason why i dont download stuff, i buy it for the subtitles.

Tbh, I could just pop down to virgin, game, hmv and other stores to get my dvd, for probably the same price or not much extra, if the downloads are going to take too long I won't bother with the service unless it's really cheap, wonder if i would really be able to get full speeds, whether at 2, 8 or 24mbit, and i could wait a bit longer and get my dvd from the internet, and have something i can show off on my shelf!

Not only that, but say I want to buy 5 dvd's at the same time, downloading it is going to be very annoying, and I would reach my internet limits pretty quickly!

Nix · 2nd Feb 2006, 03:35

Its a step in the right direction if they can roll it out effectivley with good download speeds and reasonable prices.

Tulatin · 2nd Feb 2006, 05:08

[offtopic]Wonka you're deaf in both ears? Would explain why your project logs never made a mention for fan noise in any form[/offtopic]

[ontopic]VERY good point about the 5-at-once deal. Plus, what if you lose it to data failure? D/L again? I rather like how things like steam let you d/l the games whereever and whenever - or Itunes' policy - up to 5 machines with your full libraries. The music gets locked up tight if you decide to un-auth that rig tho[/ontopic]

Aankhen · 2nd Feb 2006, 06:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by specofdust

HD videos are going to be many times bigger, depending on quality levels of course. But you're talking serious speeds before you can download over night.

Well, HD movies are supposed to fit into 15 GB or 30 GB HD-DVD disks (at least, some of them are). Let's assume a DVD quality movie (8.5 GB) takes over an hour on an 8 Mbit connection. Then an HD movie ought to take (30/8.5) = 3.5 times as long, roughly speaking.

Of course, this is all academic for me. The most bandwidth I get is 512 Kbit/s from 10:30 PM to 6:30 AM, aside from which it's 256 Kbit/s.

FredsFriend · 2nd Feb 2006, 08:53

The common thread seems to align with my views, that i would only use it if it is priced below the DVD (but then i can get DVD's for £5.00 off play), the file is of reasonable quality and not downsampled to death (BTW I'm sure i read somewhere that the RIAA mandated that downloadable tunes be significantly worse quality than CD audio tracks), and that the file isn't infected with Digital Restriction Management. I'd also like to add in a reasonable format, no WMV, who uses that apart from monopolists? Xvid Avi or something similar ***.

But as they manage to foobar everything that could be good we know that:

It will be at least the same price as a DVD.
A movie will be about 200MB
It will have the worst case of DRM you have ever seen, and will probably have to be played in a standalone player or media player.
It will be WMV definitely.
All content will be Harry f**k*ng Potter

All in all a good idea (several years too late) but the implementation will suck.

--Edit--
Oh and one more point, pretty much all ISP's nowerdays have a download cap. Unless soemthing is gonna be sorted with them your average user will be able to download only one or two films. NTL and a few others have a cap as low as 1Gig a month.

Sp! · 2nd Feb 2006, 09:53

I think it all depends on the DRM and the cost, If I can get a whatch once copy of a movie for less than the cost of a blockbuster rental (£2-3) then I would, If It was a un DRM'd then I'd probably pay £5-£7 any more and it's worth getting the DVD just for the box and the extras.

But I think the real benifit of such a system would be TV series, If I could pay £1-£2 an episope (or £30-£40 a 24 episode series) for CSI, Lost, Prison break, Bones and any of the other american programs I watch as they were aired in the US (or even before!) then I certanly would, perhaps even pay a little more for a HD version. or a little less and have still have the Ad breaks?

MrWillyWonka · 2nd Feb 2006, 10:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulatin

[offtopic]Wonka you're deaf in both ears? Would explain why your project logs never made a mention for fan noise in any form[/offtopic]

It's supposingly overly loud - high enough to need to crank the volume up during games apparently! But it doesn't bother me, unfortunatly when I have hearing friends over, I have to turn it off at night!

Ontopic - would we be allowed to copy dvd's onto discs? There's no mention of it in articles, but would the law be conflicted upon in any way? Not only that, but I feel there would be advanced copy protection, so that the dvd will only work on the computer it was activated on, so no sharing out there, even to friends. Another reason why I would buy it in the shops.

Although I rarely watch the same film more than once, so I usually hire or borrow it, especially as I have a friend who owns 529 DVD's at the last count on friday!

crayfish · 2nd Feb 2006, 10:26

As long as you can keep the file on your PC indefinitely (unlike the Sky Broadband service which has a 30 day limit for the files) I would be interested in this if it's comparable to DVD quality and cheap enough.

I wouldn't mind them coming with their own media player and for you to have to be on the internet and "logged in" to their service to view them. This may allow for advertising and therefore, you'd expect, cheaper films. Forgive me if this is already how iTunes works, I don't use it.

Considering you can go to the cinema and watch a brand new film in DTS or whatever for £6, I wouldn't want to pay more than this for something that has no box, no inlay card and possible restrictions on how I watch it.

1st Feb 2006, 19:35	#1
WilHarris Just another nobody Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Oxford Posts: 2,671	Warner will offer movies for download http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/02...vies_download/

1st Feb 2006, 19:38	#2
atanum141 I fapped to your post! Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: London Posts: 7,538	it all depends how much it will cost. __________________ Welcome to Thunderdome, B*tch XBL: atanum141

1st Feb 2006, 20:31	#4
LoneArchon Supermodder Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Waldorf,MD Posts: 422	Well if it is a Divx encode or similar the quality will be there at a much more manageable size. I am thinking that they may a unreasonably high price for it. Maybe making it cost the same a DVD. as Itunes costs about the same as a cd with a cd going for $12-$17 each song costing $1. CDs usally have about 12-15 songs. __________________ .:NEED MORE ENERGY:. A64 x2 4800+/eVGA Geforce 8800gtx with dangerden Water Block/2GB Corsair 3200/250gb Western Digital/Asus A8N32-Sli Deluxe/24" Acer LCD

1st Feb 2006, 20:32	#5
Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: An hour north of Boston Posts: 12,576	Bittorrent is a hassle? I'm with dom - if the quality is there, I'd consider. Seeing that I work at a video store (free rentals), they're going to have to price things pretty attractively. The problem is that if you expect to use a dual-layer disk to burn an 8.5GB iso, it's going to take a long time to download and the disks are very expensive. If it's, as I expect, some sort of Xvid thing, it would at least be much smaller, and with the right settings you can keep all of the quality. I do really wonder how they plan on enforcing DRE though... protected WMV content I expect. Unless they just wise up to the idea that if they charge five bucks, people won't feel the need to pirate it, and not screw over the people that are paying. It could work, but I know it won't work well. Most consumers are total idiots about quality. I figure that a lot of the people with hundreds and hundreds of .M4P iTunes files are also the type to buy a HDTV and not realize that DVDs aren't high-def (nor is their signal). You know, sell a product worse than the original at a higher profit, even if it's slightly less cost to consumers. Minimal distribution costs means maximum profits, and if they can make that model more attractive by the pick-and-choose of iTunes or saving a couple bucks off a movie, you can bet people will flock to it. Until they find out that they can only watch it on the original computer, or something stupid like that. __________________ hire me @ eric-stern.com - web developer and php ninja pics @ my smugmug :: Twitter @firehed :: blog @ firehed.net 40D\|580EXII\|285HV\|AB800\|70-200f/4LIS\|17-50f/2.8\|150f/2.8Macro\|50f/1.8 MacPro @ 8x2.8GHz, 10GB FBDDR2, 3TB HD :: MBP @ 2x2.2GHz, 4GB DDR2, 320GB HD

1st Feb 2006, 20:49	#7
specofdust Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aberdeen, UK, EU Posts: 7,622	Sounds nice, but you can guarentee the implementation will be horrible. They'll have crappy quality, because they need to deliver this stuff in less then four days for your average joe to be happy. They'll be DRM'd to the hilt, and chances are, they'll cost around the same as DVD's in the shops, so up to £17 in the UK. Bit torrent will continue to offer higher quality, more easily re-usable, more easily attainable files, for free. The only snag is you're breaking the law, but since the chances of being sued are lower then the chances of being run over by a bus, is it likely many people are actually going to bother making the switch? __________________ Like marmite, only no-one hates it Mmm bop!

1st Feb 2006, 19:44	#3
dom_ ---> Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: uk, south east Posts: 3,936	Unless its dvd size as in no compression i wont be buying it. If im paying for a film i want it to be the best quality i can get and in a case so i can watch it on what dvd player/pc i want.

1st Feb 2006, 20:49	#6
DivineSin Ultramodder Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 1,251	The only way i would pay for a movie that is downloaded online is if its either an image of the movie i can burn to a dvd or a comparable quality xvid. Not to mention it better be cheaper than a dvd, i'm not going to waste my time downloading something for the same price i can take a 5 minute trip and buy a real copy of. But even if it was really cheap, if they use the torrent network i wouldnt even bothering paying for it in the first place, it better be direct downloads. Bittorrent is a great place to distribute free content, but if i'm paying something i better not have to use -my- upload bandwith to transfer it to someone else.

1st Feb 2006, 20:59	#8
stephen2002 Multimodder Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 182	Once they start providing HD downloads I'm all over it. I don't care if I have to leave the download running overnight. ITunes downloads of 320x240 for $2 are a joke.

1st Feb 2006, 22:47	#9
specofdust Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aberdeen, UK, EU Posts: 7,622	Even just a DVD quality movie would take about 4 hours on a 2Mbit/s connection, or over an hour on an 8Mbit connection, going at full speed, and those aren't exactly slow connections. HD videos are going to be many times bigger, depending on quality levels of course. But you're talking serious speeds before you can download over night. __________________ Like marmite, only no-one hates it Mmm bop! Last edited by specofdust; 1st Feb 2006 at 22:57.

1st Feb 2006, 22:51	#10
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,480	If the download was a good quality, dvd image, dvd rip, divx,...ect and the price would change in each of these qualities ie. less quality cost less . If the price was under 5 euro per film download and if it did not download correctly you could download it again, like in steam. If there was a monthly fee of about 15 euro and you could download anything within a certain selection, like platinum films that are like 6 months old almost like a all you can eat buffet. If the download speed was relativly fast or motherate, i dont want to wait 1 week to download a film i can download on torrents in 6 hours. If it was not DRM, adwared, spywared and instal-software-to-screw-your-pc-ed to hell and back. If it was easy and secure to pay. YES I WOULD!!! If not just go away. __________________ RENEGADE X CONTEST! <---- CLICK if you want to win a free Command & Conquer 4 beta key!

2nd Feb 2006, 01:48	#11
Tulatin The Froggy Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 2,942	then there's the issue of lacking extras, as well as the issue of accessibility. You pay for just the film here; like services such as Napster/Itunes/Etc, you're getting the bare bones for the price of the normal versions, for choice. As to accessibility - it's not feasable to offer 8GB isos, nor is it to burn them. Why am i going to bother spending about 4 hours downloading something and an hour burning it when it costs me the same as a pressed disk? DRE will MOST certainly be included in the package here folks. To top it off, if they do want to make it accessible, it will end up as shite quality as people (and their bandwidth caps) won't like chugging much more than 200MB. __________________ Desky E8400 @ 4.0 1.42v; P5K-E WiFi; 4x1 Kingmax Mars 1066 @ 1129 CAS 5; 2x [TOO CHEAP TO SPONSOR] 4850 @ 675/1050; Enermax Liberty; WCing in a CM690

2nd Feb 2006, 03:35	#14
Nix Multimodder Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Bristol/Portsmouth(Uni) Posts: 197	Its a step in the right direction if they can roll it out effectivley with good download speeds and reasonable prices. __________________ Project: Little Rascal - Mini-ITX Gaming Rig, available @ - Wizd Forums - Bit-Tech - The Mod Nation - SFFTech

2nd Feb 2006, 05:08	#15
Tulatin The Froggy Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 2,942	[offtopic]Wonka you're deaf in both ears? Would explain why your project logs never made a mention for fan noise in any form[/offtopic] [ontopic]VERY good point about the 5-at-once deal. Plus, what if you lose it to data failure? D/L again? I rather like how things like steam let you d/l the games whereever and whenever - or Itunes' policy - up to 5 machines with your full libraries. The music gets locked up tight if you decide to un-auth that rig tho[/ontopic] __________________ Desky E8400 @ 4.0 1.42v; P5K-E WiFi; 4x1 Kingmax Mars 1066 @ 1129 CAS 5; 2x [TOO CHEAP TO SPONSOR] 4850 @ 675/1050; Enermax Liberty; WCing in a CM690

2nd Feb 2006, 08:53	#17
FredsFriend Supermodder Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Peadobrough Posts: 485	The common thread seems to align with my views, that i would only use it if it is priced below the DVD (but then i can get DVD's for £5.00 off play), the file is of reasonable quality and not downsampled to death (BTW I'm sure i read somewhere that the RIAA mandated that downloadable tunes be significantly worse quality than CD audio tracks), and that the file isn't infected with Digital Restriction Management. I'd also like to add in a reasonable format, no WMV, who uses that apart from monopolists? Xvid Avi or something similar *. But as they manage to foobar everything that could be good we know that: It will be at least the same price as a DVD. A movie will be about 200MB It will have the worst case of DRM you have ever seen, and will probably have to be played in a standalone player or media player. It will be WMV definitely. All content will be Harry fkng Potter All in all a good idea (several years too late) but the implementation will suck. --Edit-- Oh and one more point, pretty much all ISP's nowerdays have a download cap. Unless soemthing is gonna be sorted with them your average user will be able to download only one or two films. NTL and a few others have a cap as low as 1Gig a month. __________________ BOO Last edited by FredsFriend; 2nd Feb 2006 at 08:58. Reason: -Extra--*

2nd Feb 2006, 09:53	#18
Sp! Hypermodder Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hemel Posts: 975	I think it all depends on the DRM and the cost, If I can get a whatch once copy of a movie for less than the cost of a blockbuster rental (£2-3) then I would, If It was a un DRM'd then I'd probably pay £5-£7 any more and it's worth getting the DVD just for the box and the extras. But I think the real benifit of such a system would be TV series, If I could pay £1-£2 an episope (or £30-£40 a 24 episode series) for CSI, Lost, Prison break, Bones and any of the other american programs I watch as they were aired in the US (or even before!) then I certanly would, perhaps even pay a little more for a HD version. or a little less and have still have the Ad breaks?

2nd Feb 2006, 10:26	#20
crayfish Amazing scenes! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: UK Posts: 599	As long as you can keep the file on your PC indefinitely (unlike the Sky Broadband service which has a 30 day limit for the files) I would be interested in this if it's comparable to DVD quality and cheap enough. I wouldn't mind them coming with their own media player and for you to have to be on the internet and "logged in" to their service to view them. This may allow for advertising and therefore, you'd expect, cheaper films. Forgive me if this is already how iTunes works, I don't use it. Considering you can go to the cinema and watch a brand new film in DTS or whatever for £6, I wouldn't want to pay more than this for something that has no box, no inlay card and possible restrictions on how I watch it.