There are multiple Tom Cruises... Uh... sorry bout that but two of those guys are way overrated imho. Clones of meager talent.
The real talent are in the underground. Thought of Joey Lauren Adams or some dude like Asheru or Cut Chemist?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Movie Studios Seeking Usage Right Restrictions?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are multiple Tom Cruises... Uh... sorry bout that but two of those guys are way overrated imho. Clones of meager talent.
The real talent are in the underground. Thought of Joey Lauren Adams or some dude like Asheru or Cut Chemist?
I'm not sure if I agree with you. Broadening "Fair Use", treads a fine line between justice and public abduction of creative property. The real answer is to boycott Hollywood until they start offering reasonable solutions... and the easiest (albeit illegal) way to send them a message is piracy. If you're not cool with that, then you're just going to have to go without movies, and convince your friends to do the same.
-Clive
I'd be fine if they limit the number of iPods they can be viewed on, if they allow DVD burning... and add extras, scene selection, etc.
hehe
Why is it when I buy a table or chair I can do whatever the heck I want with it, but when I buy something digital, like a DVD or Software, I'm suddenly only "licensing" the friggin thing and have all sorts of dumb restrictions. Expecting me to buy the same movie twice just so I can put it on my iPod is insanity.
hehe
Why is it when I buy a table or chair I can do whatever the heck I want with it, but when I buy something digital, like a DVD or Software, I'm suddenly only "licensing" the friggin thing and have all sorts of dumb restrictions. Expecting me to buy the same movie twice just so I can put it on my iPod is insanity.
I believe you are all missing the point.
The studios want HDCP over DVI and HDMI or whatever. There are no current systems that properly use it, even if they say they do, because the licenses or permissions have not been distributed yet and they are HARDWARE objects.
HARDWARE is Apple's forte.
I suspect iTV is actually a series of devices that properly implement HDCP to suit the studios that demand seamless and enforceable content protection. As mentioned, mainly to protect the asset of a time sensitive and expensive major movie release.
There are really only two premium price revenue timeframes for movies. A few weeks after theatrical release and a few months after DVD (now online) release. They simply want to protect the "premiumness" of the price.
Apple does that in computers with methods to try to prevent installation and proper use of OSX on any computer but an Apple. It mainly works.
So I suspect we will see a "new" video iPod and iTV as a breakout box for your existing TV, and iTV enabled LCD TV's in the "media release".
Then no studio will hesitate.
Rocketman
The studios want HDCP over DVI and HDMI or whatever. There are no current systems that properly use it, even if they say they do, because the licenses or permissions have not been distributed yet and they are HARDWARE objects.
HARDWARE is Apple's forte.
I suspect iTV is actually a series of devices that properly implement HDCP to suit the studios that demand seamless and enforceable content protection. As mentioned, mainly to protect the asset of a time sensitive and expensive major movie release.
There are really only two premium price revenue timeframes for movies. A few weeks after theatrical release and a few months after DVD (now online) release. They simply want to protect the "premiumness" of the price.
Apple does that in computers with methods to try to prevent installation and proper use of OSX on any computer but an Apple. It mainly works.
So I suspect we will see a "new" video iPod and iTV as a breakout box for your existing TV, and iTV enabled LCD TV's in the "media release".
Then no studio will hesitate.
Rocketman
Your argument is kind of self-annihilating:
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
And teaching is easy??
So what do you have against teachers making more? If teachers made more competitive salaries, there would be more competition for teaching jobs, thus leading to better quality teachers, ultimately resulting in better education.
I'd rather spend an extra $100/yr for better teachers rather than helping to pay for Tom Cruise's 39 estates.
-Clive
Clive, I am with you, but unfortunately we live in a society that worship celebrities and violence. It won't change.
Teachers should start salaries in the $100k a year and climb up from there to the amount of years in the job. But it's a dream that will never happen.
Then you cannot display the "highest" resolution version of the media. Either none, or a resolution crippled version (ie 480p vs 1080i).
Rocketman
Clive, I am with you, but unfortunately we live in a society that worship celebrities and violence. It won't change.
Teachers should start salaries in the $100k a year and climb up from there to the amount of years in the job. But it's a dream that will never happen.
Okay, I think $100k is a *little* excessive... and could encourage those who aren't as passionate about children to pursue a teaching job just for the money.
I think starting at $50-60k would be more than reasonable... I mean for only working 9 months out of the year plus receiving the benefits that teachers usually do... that'll sweeten the deal a lot. Especially in my field, physics, the way things are now I could either start as a teacher for $40k if I'm very lucky, or $50k+ in the industry. I'm just out of college and as poor as a rat... what do you think I would do? I'm not Mr. Materialistic or anything, but I have school and an apartment to pay for.
I think the real monetary incentive in teaching should be the bottom right corner of the matrix... those who have higher degrees and have worked for many years. It'll encourage people to be into teaching for the long-haul. However, that might introduce problems with ever-changing research on effective teaching styles, so maybe that isn't just a great idea.
Just some thoughts.
-Clive
Limiting the number of ipods a movie can be played on will do absolutely nothing to curb piracy. It is merely
an errosion of what I consider 'fair use'. Heck, the existing
itunes DRM is too restrictive already - once I buy a movie, I should be able to view it anyway I damn well please, be it on a single ipod, multiple ipods, PSP, laptop, tv, at a friends house, burn to dvd, encode to another format, whatever. The only thing I shouldn't be able to do is re-distribute the movie.
What needs to be done is to figure out how to prevent movie downloads from being re-distribued while preserving 'fair use'. The movie industry needs to hire less lawyers and lobbyist, and hire tech people to figure out better ways to do this. Bittorrent is open source - it amazes me with the source code right in front of them that the industry hasn't figured out how to make files un-torrentable.
Until movie downloads are offered with minimal DRM restrictions and offered in a much higher quality HD format, I'll pass and just buy the DVD.
an errosion of what I consider 'fair use'. Heck, the existing
itunes DRM is too restrictive already - once I buy a movie, I should be able to view it anyway I damn well please, be it on a single ipod, multiple ipods, PSP, laptop, tv, at a friends house, burn to dvd, encode to another format, whatever. The only thing I shouldn't be able to do is re-distribute the movie.
What needs to be done is to figure out how to prevent movie downloads from being re-distribued while preserving 'fair use'. The movie industry needs to hire less lawyers and lobbyist, and hire tech people to figure out better ways to do this. Bittorrent is open source - it amazes me with the source code right in front of them that the industry hasn't figured out how to make files un-torrentable.
Until movie downloads are offered with minimal DRM restrictions and offered in a much higher quality HD format, I'll pass and just buy the DVD.
Clive, I am with you, but unfortunately we live in a society that worship celebrities and violence. It won't change.
Teachers should start salaries in the $100k a year and climb up from there to the amount of years in the job. But it's a dream that will never happen.
Beautifully said. I couldn't expound anymore on this wonderful observation. The iPod is against the grain of celebrity and violence thank goodness. Maybe bring us worldpeace eh?
Uh, yeah. I remember back in the Napster days, when that was the only way to get music.
It's a shame there weren't any record stores around back then, able to sell music on a form of portable media - sort of like those discs software comes on. You know, CDs. But for music! What a concept!
Anyone who downloaded from Napster with the excuse that they couldn't find contect elsewhere (like via Tower Records and a CD ripping program) is just plain lame...
"The severe beating of a Pokemon".
I've never seen that song anywhere BUT on napster. Not that I've looked, but I didn't look for it on Napster either. Napster just has it more prominent.
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
It was the only way to get a single track from a CD, which is really the appeal of iTMS, not so much the fact it's a download.
Naw...
Don't think it's neccessary. I don't think people take the video out on their ipods and record them onto DVD using DVD recorders....
Don't think it's neccessary. I don't think people take the video out on their ipods and record them onto DVD using DVD recorders....
You will find two things:
This sort of system will be the "price of admission", and
The features and benefits Apple iTV offers will be as compelling for TV as the iPod was for music.
One key benefit for example, is access to your video content including your DVR from anywhere.
Rocketman
Napster was AWESOME! It worked, had few viruses (at least in the beginning) and was fast for the time. Ah, good memories of getting home from middle school and loading up...
Ugh, now we get HDCP. Reminds me of that DIVX thing they pushed back in the day. Every time new stuff comes along, they try and DRM the crap out of it. Good thing DIVX went down in flames.
PS: DIVX is not the codec for video, it was a "self-destructing" DVD variant.
Ugh, now we get HDCP. Reminds me of that DIVX thing they pushed back in the day. Every time new stuff comes along, they try and DRM the crap out of it. Good thing DIVX went down in flames.
PS: DIVX is not the codec for video, it was a "self-destructing" DVD variant.
Don't the movie studios operate as commercial businesses? Don't they make a profit (overall - some movies flop I know)?
They couldn't affort to spend $100M/movie if they didn't get the money back!
Therefore, iPod sales are 'extra' income for them.
I know that there may be some drop-off in theatre ticket sales if the same movie is available via iPod sometime in the future, but don't they face this now with DVD sales?
It may be simplistic, but why not hold back offering the on-line sale of the movie until they have exhausted the 'theatre experience' the way they do with DVD sales, and then get ready for the '2nd wave' of additional income.
I agree that you should pay for what you have, but I also think you should get what you pay for without excessive restrictions. Yes, electronic media differs from physical media and some rules should be different, but the underlying principles stay the same.
Susan
They couldn't affort to spend $100M/movie if they didn't get the money back!
Therefore, iPod sales are 'extra' income for them.
I know that there may be some drop-off in theatre ticket sales if the same movie is available via iPod sometime in the future, but don't they face this now with DVD sales?
It may be simplistic, but why not hold back offering the on-line sale of the movie until they have exhausted the 'theatre experience' the way they do with DVD sales, and then get ready for the '2nd wave' of additional income.
I agree that you should pay for what you have, but I also think you should get what you pay for without excessive restrictions. Yes, electronic media differs from physical media and some rules should be different, but the underlying principles stay the same.
Susan
Except that iPod/iTMS sales would represent, generally speaking, the loss of a DVD sale. They would love, I am sure, to ONLY sell through iTMS and similar services, assuming:
1) They sold the same number of copies,
2) They had the same or great profit margin, and
3) They had better/stricter copy protection.
On that note, I'm still amazed no one has reverse engineered the iTMS video copy protection scheme. I hear DVDJohn has done it, but is using his powers for "good" (well, his good) and selling it to companies who want to offer DRM'd video for playback on iPods without going through Apple.