Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,007
17,389


According to the Financial Times, Universal, 20th Century Fox, Paramount and Warner Bros, who are all reported to be in talks with Apple to bring their movie collections to the iTunes store, are pressuring Apple to reduce the number of devices movie content from iTunes would be able to play on (namely, iPods).

The studios want to avoid the experience of the music industry, which has yet to recover from years of illegal digital piracy. Apple must introduce a “new model” for feature film content delivery, said one studio executive involved in the talks. With the average cost of a blockbuster film approaching $100m, movie studios had more to lose than music companies, he added. “We’re very willing to do a deal but we’re keen to get some concessions from Apple that will account for the differences between the value of music and television content and feature film content.”

Currently, Apple's usage rights allow downloadable content to be played on an unlimited number of iPods as well as up to 5 computers, although DVD burning is limited to archiving purposes only (DVD-Video burning is not supported).

Disney sold 125,000 movies in its first week of operation on the iTunes store. While still small in comparison to DVD sales, Disney expects digital sales to add $50 million in revenue to its bottom line in the first year on the iTunes Store. The continued success of movie sales may make arguments for restricted usage rights fall on deaf ears to Apple executives, who would view such arguments as nit-picking a successful program.
 

spicyapple

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2006
1,724
1
I don't like the idea. The moment they start chipping away at devices, it'll set a bad precedent for future negotiations. It'll be hard to get back those rights. Apple, hold strong!! :)
 

TheBobcat

macrumors 6502
Nov 1, 2006
351
0
East Lansing, Michigan
If Apple stands firm, and iTunes continues to make money for Disney, I don't see why they wouldn't want to add revenue. Those who are going to download and pirate still will off of DVD's or other download services once their DRM is cracked, they might as well get the money from those who are willing to pay.
 

anubis

macrumors 6502a
Feb 7, 2003
937
50
Honestly, I don't really see what the big deal is. Compared to previous demands of movies and music companies (variable pricing, etc.), asking Apple to limit the number of iPods the movie can be viewed on doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. How many iPods do you own? Yes, it is one more limitation, but I can't really see this limitation as dramatically effecting your ability to view the movie. And, if this small concession opens the floodgates of all of the major movie studios to begin selling movies on iTunes, then I think it's more than fair.

On the other hand, if Apple makes a concession now, that could be viewed as Apple "weakness" or "desperation", and may cause movie and music executives to demand additional restrictions or concessions by Apple.
 

bit density

macrumors 6502
Mar 5, 2004
398
2
Seattle
Dumb, and well, impossible.

The ipods do not have enough individuality/functionality to do this, without changing the entire underlying scheme. (Generally they fix this in Itunes).

What they do is prevent unwitting individuals to participate easily in large scale piracy, but allow local piracy.

This tends to INCREASE sales, not DECREASE sales. Local piracy creates obligation and requires work. Both of these create demand for legal product interestingly enough. (Large scale piracy does nothing for demand, but DRM does not affect large scale piracy).

At anyrate, the apple system is well done, the movie folks should just take thier money, and I suppose complain loudly, but just take the money
 

longofest

Editor emeritus
Jul 10, 2003
2,880
1,538
Falls Church, VA
I don't like the idea. The moment they start chipping away at devices, it'll set a bad precedent for future negotiations. It'll be hard to get back those rights. Apple, hold strong!! :)

Like I said in the post... I don't see them getting to far in negotiations, since the Disney/iTunes partnership has already shown some positive results. They are nit-picking, and if they are wise, they aren't going to shy away from $50+ million just because of nitpicking issues.
 

brsboarder

macrumors 6502a
Feb 16, 2004
760
14
the only problem is that 50million in sales is nothing when an individual movie costs over 100million these days, but realistically, if they limit it to 5 ipods like computers, I don't see the big deal
 

tk421

macrumors 6502a
Dec 7, 2005
655
2
Los Angeles
Honestly, I don't really see what the big deal is. Compared to previous demands of movies and music companies (variable pricing, etc.), asking Apple to limit the number of iPods the movie can be viewed on doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. How many iPods do you own? Yes, it is one more limitation, but I can't really see this limitation as dramatically effecting your ability to view the movie. And, if this small concession opens the floodgates of all of the major movie studios to begin selling movies on iTunes, then I think it's more than fair.

Yeah, I don't care one way or the other. At my parents' house, five iPods are fed from a single computer. But only one of these is even capable of playing video. And how often are people watching full-length movies on iPods? Other than maybe traveling, they'll watch on the iTV or on the computer itself.

On the other hand, it would add an unnecessary complication to things.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,870
703
Redondo Beach, California
What Apple needs to do is establish the "normal" rights a user gets when they buy a video. Of course every Disney film will come with the normal, default rights. Then if another studio wants to sell a video with different rights attached iTunes should clearly label the video in big red letters as being "crippled with restrictive usage rights" Then a pop-up dialog box should appear that explains this and asks "Do you really want this crap are would you prefer we mailed you the DVD copy" Finally after reading the warning label and clicking yes in the pop up you can download the film.

In my opinion the whole argument is moot. The video quality is so low I would never buy it.
 

maxterpiece

macrumors 6502a
Mar 5, 2003
729
0
see what i don't get is this:
Apple and the movie studios both lose from pirating. The more people who pirate, the fewer movies sell, the less $ everyone makes. There is no reason for movie studios to be so paranoid about apple's agenda.

There is no connection between the music industry's alleged loss of business bc of pirating, and apple's music store.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,634
0
Currently, Apple's usage rights allow downloadable content to be played on an unlimited number of iPods as well as up to 5 computers, although DVD burning is limited to archiving purposes only (DVD-Video burning is not supported).

There's unlimited, and there's unlimited. An iPod can only handle protected tracks or movies from five iTunes accounts at a time. That, plus the restrictions on who can load the stuff onto the iPod in the first place, make iTS downloads a lot less attractive than DVD rips for someone looking to get a free ride. The studios don't seem to understand that there is already a pretty comfortable environment set up for them.
 

irmongoose

macrumors 68030
Practically speaking...

If they limit the number of iPods you can transfer the movies onto, how are they going to differentiate between an additional iPod and one you replaced for a newer one? What I mean is, if they would only allow for a transfer to 5 iPods, and let's say you have 5 and one breaks, or eventually you replace them all for newly released ones, how will they be able to differentiate that from an "additional 6th iPod"?

The entire scheme is flawed. Practically speaking.



irmongoose
 

spicyapple

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2006
1,724
1
People who pirate movies wouldn't have bought the movie in the first place. Adding usage restrictions only hurts the customers who bought the movie. If the studios are worried people will transfer movies to their friend's iPods, then they probably have their heads in the sand regarding the swapping of DVDs.

Still, the concept of limiting consumers' rights is the issue at hand.
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 603
Mar 4, 2003
6,392
5,963
The studios want to avoid the experience of the music industry, which has yet to recover from years of illegal digital piracy.
The best way to avoid the experience of the music industry is to respond to a changing market and give people what they want before they get mad enough to expend the effort to just take it and feel justified.
 

kalikkalik

macrumors newbie
Nov 29, 2006
1
0
deal

Apple will do the deal so media companies won't start asking Apple to shell out some cash to them for each iPod sold...like Microsoft and the Zune
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 603
Mar 4, 2003
6,392
5,963
People who pirate movies wouldn't have bought the movie in the first place.
I don't think I completely agree with that... Yeah, there are some who will pirate just because it's free, but there are also those who will do it because it's the only way to get content in the form they want it in. Back before iTMS, Napster was the only game in town for digital downloads.

Regardless of how people feel about copyright, if their only access to flexible content is the black market they'll go there.
 

gekko513

macrumors 603
Oct 16, 2003
6,301
1
People who pirate movies wouldn't have bought the movie in the first place. Adding usage restrictions only hurts the customers who bought the movie. If the studios are worried people will transfer movies to their friend's iPods, then they probably have their heads in the sand regarding the swapping of DVDs.

Still, the concept of limiting consumers' rights is the issue at hand.
Perhaps not, but they may have rented them. I recently pirated a movie because I couldn't find it at the local rental place. I can't wait for online movie sales. I'm willing to pay as soon as the studios get their acts together and make it available to me, but you're right if the terms are too restrictive I won't bother buying online, either.
 

zelmo

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2004
5,490
1
Mac since 7.5
These movie and music execs just keep on going after the wrong people. Those of us who legally purchase audio and/or video content from iTunes are the law-abiding folk. If we were interested in pirating, we wouldn't be buying from iTunes when there are plenty of shady sources for the content.
I don't have the solution for their problem [piracy], but I know that penalizing the paying folks is only going cut off revenue for them and create more pirates in the long run.:rolleyes:
 

BoyBach

macrumors 68040
Feb 24, 2006
3,026
8
UK
The studios want Apple to limit the number of iPods that the downloads can be played on. Do they not realise that the entire point of the iTunes Store is to drive sales of the highly profitable iPods? I cannot see Apple agreeing.
 

Small White Car

macrumors G4
Aug 29, 2006
10,943
1,303
Washington DC
Practically speaking...

If they limit the number of iPods you can transfer the movies onto, how are they going to differentiate between an additional iPod and one you replaced for a newer one? What I mean is, if they would only allow for a transfer to 5 iPods, and let's say you have 5 and one breaks, or eventually you replace them all for newly released ones, how will they be able to differentiate that from an "additional 6th iPod"?

They entire scheme is flawed. Practically speaking.

irmongoose

Uh, maybe they'd do it the same way they enforce the "5 computers" rule? You would authorize your 5 iPods and if one breaks you would tell iTunes to forget about all iPods and then re-link your current 5 iPods to the system.

I think they SHOULD do this but it should be a high number like 15 or 20 iPods. A user would NEVER run into that limit but it would prevent someone from buying a movie and selling it to hundreds of people for a few bucks each and copying it onto their iPods.

A number like that would stop the big-time offenders without the average consumer ever noticing.

(Based on this theory, the current "5-computer" rule is a bit too tight. It really should be 10 computers.)

EDIT: I also thought of something Apple could steal from the Zune. The "iPod movie limit" COULD be limited to 5 iPods if thre was a "share" feature that worked like the Zune's wireless sharing. That is, it's encrypted to expire in 3 days. So, I could authorize 5 of my own iPods to always have the movie but I could ALSO choose to put it on my friend's iPod but his would only work for 3 days. Then, just like the Zune it would ask him if he wants to buy it.

This would be the equivilant of "loaning a DVD." It works out as free advertising in the end...SOME of those friends will end up buying the movie.

The key to making it work is to make this "sharing" feature an OPTIONAL addition to the way I copy my movies around from my own iPods. The experiation feature would only come into play when I copy films PAST my 5-iPod limit, so it would never affect me personally.
 

MacBoobsPro

macrumors 603
Jan 10, 2006
5,114
6
1. Buy DVD
2. Handbrake
3. ??????
4. PROFIT!

If you are commenting on what you do, then its people like you that make the studios demand limits on legitimate customers like me.

Imagine buying a car but the manufacturer keeping the wheels when you are not using it. Its stops car theft, but its a pain in the ass for the user.

Stop pirating! :mad:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.