3 comments

The studios need to get with the times. How is renting or buying a video from Netflix or iTunes any different than getting it from Blockbuster?

“But since first-release DVDs are also a lucrative revenue stream for Hollywood”. It seems to me that selling/renting via iTunes is pretty lucrative as well.

Quite simply, they will make more money by catering to the desires of the user. If I want to watch a movie, I want to do it without all the ads. So, I’d be getting it via iTunes instead of watching on TV.

Now, they are telling me I can’t rent it when I want just because they happen to be trying to make money off me a different way.

And they wonder why people resort to P2P file sharing….

AppBeacon, on December 11th, 2008 at 9:28 am

Hahaha… It is honestly funny.

Almost ten years after Napster, the studios are still trying to fight that “World Wide Web”, I believe they call it, where them young rascals do nothing but roam around and put illegally copied content into the tubes.

Seriously. You’ve had ten years. Doesn’t the studios have anybody employed under the age of 120?

But whatever. Die in peace. I don’t care. Not anymore. What I can’t stand is the constant sobbing and crying, so please find a corner, curl up and die quietly, while the rest of us continue this wonderful journey towards 2009. Yes. You heard me. 2009. And no. They we don’t have flying cars in year 2009.

Kim, on December 12th, 2008 at 7:33 am

It is stupid. Apparently it’s the culture in the movie industry or something.

Essentially they are deciding that whatever is easier for them as supplier is more important than what buyers want. Either they think they having copyright monopoly automatically assure channel control (it doesn’t) or they think they can control their buyers (they can’t). Buyers will find substitutes and likely that substitute will *not* be the TV (marketing) channel they are giving preference to. This drives people to the black market distribution channels.

And from a simple marketing point of view, this damages the brand value by breaking a promise of delivered service. Some of that could hit Apple. Maybe that’s the Machiavellian play here by the studios. But if the studios are behind this it doesn’t take more than an article like this to redirect the brand damage to them. Brand esteem is linked to respect which includes copyright respect. This drives people to black market distribution channels.

Another possibility is they hire stupid lawyers who write them into stupidly broad contracts (with broadcasters) and they aren’t smart enough or they are too lazy to actually read the contracts and understand what they mean. Again, this drives people to the black market distribution channels.

I just canceled my DirecTV because they were raising the rates by nearly 2x to more than $1000/year. I can get what I *actually* watch through iTunes Store for $300/year. Just like with the RIAA, I have to “buy the whole album” with DirecTV when all I want or have time for is “the one good song”. Even with broadcast TV you can the same - they are called commercials plus TV upgrades for digital plus HD plus BlueRay etc. So now they want to sabotage the only (legal) channel that respects my limited commodity of attention? One more time MPAA, this drives people to the black market distribution channels.

This is the lesson the RIAA never learned. Apparently the MPAA hasn’t learned it either.

Jes, on December 13th, 2008 at 7:21 am