Rent, rip and return - Hollywood, RealNetworks square off on DVD copying

[Sanjin Jukic]

Rent, rip and return - Hollywood, RealNetworks square off on DVD copying

"SAN FRANCISCO - (By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer - Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:17AM EDT)

Hollywood calls it "rent, rip and return" and contends it's one of the biggest technological threats to the movie industry's

annual $20 billion DVD market — software that allows you to copy a film without paying for it."

Read more>>>

 

[Imran Farouk]

heh, I believe im apart of this pulll...
gotta love Handbrake :beer:

 

[David M]

The whole thing is kinda bizarre considering that anybody can buy really sophisticated DVD copying software as a download. Most vendors allow you to download a time-limited trial version for free, and you can then pay online for an unlocking key. Actually many of them can be downloaded from file-sharing sites already unlocked. Yes, the pirates have been pirated!

In my experience anyway, one thing that users really appreciate is the "movie only" function offered by DVD Fab and some others. This gets rid of all the "extras", FBI warnings, unnecessary menus, Mandatory trademarks and so on, leaving a disc that starts playing just the movie as soon as it is inserted. More often than not "just the movie" will fit on a single-sided DVD without any compression.

It all sounds suspiciously like highly paid executives pretending to be working to solve a problem that really has no solution.

 

[Curran Giddens]

Ha ha. I used to do that with Netflix when they first started since they didn't have any distribution centers near me. To cut down on the turnaround time to get my next DVD in the mail. I would get the disc in the mail around noon, rip it, and send it back out that same day. Of course, when I finally did have time to watch it, I would erase it afterward....

 

[Danish P.V.]

Of course, when I finally did have time to watch it, I would erase it afterward....

...yes, of course you did!
Just kidding, Curran

 

[Tom Lowe]

This is madness. What about people who buy their kid some $20 Disney DVD and want to back it up, since the chances of the kid eventually scratching or damaging the DVD are about 100%?

The only people who get punished by anti-piracy measures are the people who actually pay for the product.

 

[Thom Steinhoff]

They don't want you to back up DVD's, but where is the policy that allows me to trade my scratched and useless Toy Story DVD for a new one by only paying a small processing fee? I've already licensed the movie--I just want to replace the media. They smugly sit quiet when that question is raised.

My kids speak Chinese (Manderin and Cantonese), so I buy all of the kids movies in Chinese, paying 20-30$ for all of the Disney Movies that would otherwise cost $15 just so my kids can keep their languages.

After scratching several of them beyond usable, I was forced to come up with a better solution.

 

[Curran Giddens]

There are also cases where the only way to watch the scratched-up DVD you rented from Netflix without it freezing / skipping is to rip it to the hard drive. The ripping program can slow down and take its time reading the 1's and 0's to make sure it is accurate before copying to the hard drive.

 

[Dominique Grenier]

I also use this method for "time-shifting" the DVDs I rent. Sometimes I don't have time to watch it for whatever reason, so I rip it and return the DVD. I'm then free to watch whenever I have the time. I always delete it after watching it, though. I realise I might be in a minority.

I've bought all the DVDs I own, and I refuse to lend a DVD I own to someone I know will make copies and share it with all his friends I finally. Partly because I don't want to be the bozo who actually pay for the thing so everybody else can enjoy it for free. I'm not that generous...

 

[David M]

Another interesting fact is that quite a few DVD releases now can be simply directly copied without needing any ripping software. Obviously the distribution company has realized that current copy protection methods are a waste of time, and they refuse to pay royalties for them

 

[David M]

This is madness. What about people who buy their kid some $20 Disney DVD and want to back it up, since the chances of the kid eventually scratching or damaging the DVD are about 100%?

The only people who get punished by anti-piracy measures are the people who actually pay for the product.

The crazy thing is that people making a single copy of a DVD for their own use are hardly going to harm the distributors. In most cases people only watch the movie once, and if anybody else happens to borrow it, chances are if they weren't able to do this for free, they simply would do without, they wouldn't be buying or renting it. In any case, once you buy a DVD you can lend it to as many people as you please, and they won't be paying a cent either.

The real threat is from people engaging in bulk bootleg duplication, and current copy prevention technology is not even going to slow them down.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Rent, rip and return - Hollywood, RealNetworks square off on DVD copying

This is clearly a substantial loss for Hollywood, because I'm sure those people ripping 20 movies a month from Netflix were totally going to spend $5000/year buying that many movies instead.

Right.

Study after study with music has shown that piracy (actually, we should probably switch to calling it "bootlegging" now that actual piracy is getting popular again) doesn't substantially decrease sales. What happens instead is that people buy about the same amount of content, but also illegally download a bunch of content. So they spend about the same amount of money, they just get more for it.

The logical conclusion is that, since this stuff has almost no physical per-unit cost, content rights owners should just lower their prices. Think about this. If price has ever prevented you from purchasing a movie, that's money out of Hollywood's pocket, since the copy of the movie they could have sold you (at a price you were willing to pay) would have cost them almost nothing to produce. Of course, they can't sell you a movie for $5 (because that's all you're willing to pay) and still charge some other guy $25 (because that's what he's willing to pay). But given how little content people buy (the average American adult buys about three DVDs/year), it's hard to avoid the conclusion that things are badly overpriced and that total revenues would be much higher with lower prices. People spend $800+ on cable every year. It seems ludicrous to think Hollywood couldn't get more than $60/year out of people by offering better value. They've just completely misunderstood the demand elasticity that exists with respect to movies.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Well I definitely disagree with anyone who says that piracy does not harm sales of DVDs, CDs, etc. To be honest, I have not purchased a CD in like 8 years -- ever since Napster. I used to buy dozens of them every year.

But the broader is these companies and artists need to find newer business models that fit the realities of the digital age, rather than trying to sue or punish their customers -- just to be able to cling onto the way things were before.

I have been saying for a very long time that music artists should try to concentrate more on making money with concerts and live performances, and now we are very much starting to see that happen. A much greater percentage of revenue now is coming from live events and much less coming from CDs. This actually cuts out all the useless fatcats and "marketing" geniuses at the labels, which is a good thing. The artists get paid, the fans get a live show, and the recording industry clowns who have been cramming Britney Spears and Nelly down our throats can go get jobs doing something useful and productive.

Movies and DVDs are kind of a tougher situation. But it will probably come down to making the theater experience better and more unique (larger IMAX-style screens, better seats, serving cocktails, 3D, etc). And of course I have been arguing for years that the best way to fight DVD and Bluray piracy is to slash prices on those discs to like $5. The volume would make up for the price drop, and people would be less likely to tie up their broadband connections for 10 hours downloading a Bluray if they could buy it at the local store for 5 bucks.

But of course, all this assumes that people in the recording and movie industry are logical and reasonable -- which has been proven time and again to be untrue.

 

[Roberto B]

To be honest, I have not purchased a CD in like 8 years -- ever since Napster.

here's part of why sometimes the gang loves you

 

[Chris Kenny]

Well I definitely disagree with anyone who says that piracy does not harm sales of DVDs, CDs, etc.

Have some links:

http://www.psfk.com/2009/04/music-piracy-may-actually-help-sales.html

"The research examined the buying habits of 2,000 online music users, and found that those who downloaded tracks for free (both legally and illegally), were 10 times more likely to pay for music. The subjects often said that the freely gotten music was used to inform their subsequent purchases."

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=243454&start=0

"Overall the researchers found no difference between pirates and other people in the number of CDs they buy. They did not find a positive or a negative relationship between filesharing and CD sales."

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/2/9/6/p172966_index.html

"The results show that the overall impact of piracy is slightly positive. This implies the counterintuitive conclusion that theatrical movie sales have at least slight benefits from movie piracy."

It's counterintuitive. But it's substantially less counterintuitive when one considers just how few DVDs and CDs people normally buy, and just how small a fraction of available content people are exposed to. Someone who discovers they like a movie by illegally downloading it becomes far more likely to buy it than someone who isn't really aware of it. Obscurity, not piracy, is the major threat to most content, especially the stuff that doesn't have hundred million dollar marketing budgets behind it.

 

[Tom Lowe]

the only gang members i want to impress are the rumored sexy female members. :ihih::ihih: :beer:

 

[michael zaletel]

And the biggest culprit, ironically?

REDBOX.

-michael zaletel
(shooter)

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

When HD-DVDs were competitive with rental prices I bought 40 of them. That doubled my owned movie collection.

Steam has seen 1500% increases in sales by reducing their prices by 75%.

People are willing to buy stuff. If they're at rental prices. If movies were $4-5 Netflix's rental model would implode. Especially if that was an on demand subscription.

I have a Zune Pass. I buy like MAYBE 1 CD per year. Before Napster I bought MAYBEEEEEE 1 CD per year. I'm a radio junkie. I want new stuff not the cd over and over and over again unles it's really that good. If piracy went away I would just listen to ther adio. Now I have a zune pass.. even piracy is obsolete. I get to keep 10 songs a month permanently and I have free access to hundreds of thousands more on a rental system. Price? $15 a month. So I've gone from buying 1 maybe 2 CDs a year to now effectively buying a CD a month for $10 and getting access to every other song while I'm subscribed fro an additional $5. That's the kind of deal that makes the music industry money.

If the movie industry wants the same thing they need to offer: HD. On Demand. For less than $3 for rental $6 to own (offer the sale after they've rented it.) "Would you like to purchase this movie for an additional $3? Truth is almost nobody actually watches a movie more than once but we think we will. So we watch a great film. We're on that movie credits high and it asks if we want to own it? You bet! $3 extra into their pockets. All it does is remove the DRM which sets the movie to expire. No additional download (unless maybe you want to download the 1080p version but stream downloaded a 720p).

Are people more likely to rent and rip if it's even easier? You bet. Who has actually bought WinZip or WinRar? It's been pestering me for like 18 years that my demo has expired. But it's free and it keeps working... so I don't bother spending any money. It's human nature. "Why would I pay for this. It's working fine and it's free."

But at $6 a pop. I'm not sure it makes any sense what so ever to rent and rip. That's half the price of a DVD. If you increased your rental habits to get more movies you're still paying $6 to blockbuster. The bottleneck on my Netflix account is always ME, not netflix. I haven't sent back a movie in about 18 months. As soon as their entire portfolio is instant-view this debate will be meaningless.

A) I can view it instantly on Netflix
B) I can rent it on netflix. Rip it and then watch it later.

Either way I can watch it on Netflix whenever I damn well please!

 

[Chris Kenny]

When HD-DVDs were competitive with Steam has seen 1500% increases in sales by reducing their prices by 75%.

This is a great example. I'm probably going to have to steal it.

Either way I can watch it on Netflix whenever I damn well please!

See, I bet that when studio and network executives hear things like this, they don't think "Wow, we really need to offer our customers a better value", but rather "I wonder if we can pass a law against Netflix".

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Here is an even better one from steam:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/57308

Valve co-founder Gabe Newell announced during a DICE keynote today that last weekend's half-price sale of Left 4 Dead resulted in a 3000% increase in sales of the game, posting overall sales that beat the title's original launch performance.
Newell also mentioned that new Steam customers jumped 1600% over the same weekend, according to G4TV. Retail sales remained constant.

Sales of Team Fortress 2 went up 106% following a free update to the game. Retail wasn't left out in this case, with sales jumping 28%.

The massive Steam holiday sale was also a big win for Valve and its partners. The following holiday sales data was released, showing the sales breakdown organized by price reduction:

■10% sale = 35% increase in sales (real dollars, not units shipped)
■25% sale = 245% increase in sales
■50% sale = 320% increase in sales
■75% sale = 1470% increase in sales
Furthermore, Valve has hired an experimental psychologist to maximize the excitement of Steam sales and other marketing opportunities. According to Newell, one suggestion by the psychologist was to provide one free copy of a Valve game to every 25th buyer of Left 4 Dead.

Steam is also selling old games right now for like $3. I admit. I've bought 2 of them. Haven't even installed them yet. But hell for $3 I know I've got a good night's worth of entertainment if I'm ever bored.

Take special note when they say "3000%" they're talking about PROFIT. Not sales. PROFIT. They increased their profit by 3000% by selling it at discount.

This is great for indies too. Why? Because if you're a nobody who is going to drop $10 to see your movie? Who is going to walk into Hastings and see "Primer" and say. "Sure $10 for an unknown... why not!?" Now change that and make movies $2-3 for an on demand movie. Suddenly it becomes "meh if I quit half way through, it's still worth the risk." And they rent 5 movies. You make the cost in their brain so cheap that it's 'free'. For me a $5 movie that you own is free. And I will spend a ton of money buying lots of 'free' movies. Even if I have seen no reviews for it.

The studios will be wary of this though because suddenly the blockbusters (which they assume everyone will see anyway) aren't commanding a premium. The AAA titles which they assume will do gang busters anyway and cost a ton of money to produce will be sold for less. So there is an argument that the expensive films would need a slightly higher price. But if you want to move lesser name movies or if you want to sell older films (maybe 3 weeks after DVD release) then I definitely think a huge sale should be available.