Movie Exec Says Compressed Release Windows 'Not Technically Possible'
from the well-we're-still-digitizing-movies-on-a-486-DX-2-so-it-takes-a-while dept
You really have to admire the movie industry's ability to stick its head in the sand and hold it under for so long. They keep churning out content that's ridiculously expensive to produce, then, instead of melding it into a wide range products that people actually want to buy, they cling to business models built on restricting consumers' access to content and drive would-be customers to illegitimate sources. So forgive me for seeing the headline "Technology 'can beat film piracy'" and assuming the story was about another harebrained DRM scheme, when in actuality, the UK film minister was telling the movie industry that they need to take advantage of digital distribution to compete with piracy by offering people more ways to pay for movies, in particular making them available to download or on-demand services at the same time they're in theaters. The idea of compressing release windows certainly isn't new, but every time it's mentioned, movie theaters and studios throw a fit. So the response to the minister from a Sony Pictures UK is rather inevitable: "At the moment it's probably not technically possible." Huh? It's not technically possible to get a movie on to multiple platforms the same day it's released to theaters? That's sort of funny, because smaller independent movie companies don't seem to have any problem figuring it out, like IFC Entertainment, or Mark Cuban and Steven Soderbergh, or Morgan Freeman and Intel (well, we'll assume they'll actually do it, instead of just announcing it again). Maybe in some sense the guy is right -- it's not technically possible for the movie studios because it requires some effort, just like all the other things they could have done to compete with piracy instead of just trying to lock their content down even further. But, on the other hand, if by "not technically possible" he means "it's not technically possible for us to release movies for download without burdening them with copy protection that makes them wholly unattractive", perhaps he was right.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They could very well release it unprotected - but these days, unprotected media is as dirty as unprotected sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You seem to think that the movie studios own the theaters, but they don't. Allowing immediate download of a movie as soon as its out would hurt the theaters. Book publishers do the same thing, you see a book in hard copy, then later it comes out in paperback. How many people would buy the expensive hard copy if a paperback was available at a lower cost? You don't think the studio's would love to just beam their films to theaters instead of sending them the tapes? The tapes cost about $10,000. Only problem is that a lot of theaters don't have projectors that would be able to show them, and theater owners don't want to pay to upgrade their projectors.
I know this place likes to talk about technology, but why do you seem to ignore basic business models? It isn't a good idea to cannibalize your own products just because technology would allow you to do so. VoIP is a perfect example of this. Why should Verizon hurry to offer VoIP when a lot of their customers are not ready to accept VoIP yet. Why should Verizon try to convince people to not only buy VoIP but to buy it from Verizon. Let the media and Vonage spend money convincing the mass that VoIP is a serious phone replacement. Then when the market is ready, they can start pushing VoiceWing. If the cable companies were not successful selling VoIP, the telco's wouldn't even bother with it. Now their only response is to offer fiber and attack on the video front. Telco's didn't introduce VoIP until it made business sense to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is a good idea when the current business model is already beginning to fail. That's what the movie studios don't seem to understand. The current business model that counts on people paying for content two or three times, and counts on them not being able to copy/transfer the content to other mediums is dead or at least dying.
The industry needs to look at the current models and try to adapt them to the new technologies and new habits of their consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BS
First assumption - Innovation doesn't create; jobs, capital and new ways to create more of the same.
Second assumption - What differentiates movie theaters from what we can now call "home theaters". Why do we go to movies, get out of the house, see the big movie on the really big screen. excellent sound, etc.
None of the above would be in place if others weren't at the same time innovating the "Movie experience". Studios, distrubution, theaters need to embrace this and get ready.
Sidenote: As you are leaving a good movie make the DVD available for sale at a discount price right in the theater. (Ticket stub required)
Also start making better movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for piracy, you have to remember human nature, people will often take the path of least resistance - if it's easier to legitimately buy and download a movie verses finding the right torrent or newsgroup to download from, more people will do so. But thats not what any of this is really about anyway, look at the more recent trend, selling a TV sitcom season on DVD for around $100 US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Brits are Technically Juvenile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why they don't do it
1) Historically the studios have gotten away with selling overpriced products, due to the way the old business model functioned.
2) Switching to any other business model will, in the short term, cost them a lot of money from lost revenue streams.
3) Sticking to the old ways will, in the long term, cost them even more money (they will not even survive)
4) Shareholders don't like long term gambles, they want money now. Studio execs are not visionary people, they are suits who do as they are told.
5) Viola! Everybody keep going in the same old path, and hope something will give (and hopefully before they go out of business)
What is required is a capitalist with visions, who dare to gamble on how the future of the movie industry is going to play out. Only such a person can make this happen. Never, ever expect a high paid spreadsheet jockey like a movie studio exec to take such a bold step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey. Watch who you're calling juvenile!
I'm not trying to resist change. I'm trying to incite it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give us your money, or you're funding terrorism?
*sighs*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not technically possible
this may be a case of unfamiliarity with technology on the part of an executive (pause for collective gasp)
although I do lean towards the idea that perhapse the person mis-spoke and meant not technically possible while keeping copies from being made easily.
if you take his words at face value, you'd think he has never heard that some top movies are on the net BEFORE they are released in theaters.
that version of star wars ep 3 I saw at some party with the timer running along the top of the screen...
and I bet that guy would have still payed $8 to download it before it hit the theaters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, Walmart accounts for 40% of all DVD sales in the US, you think they will stand to have digital copies distributed at a cheaper price? Does anyone want to have that conversation with Walmart? Walmart always has the best deal, or they won't carry your product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Technically" isn't necessarily "technical"
Like responding to someone else's VP who gives you a hard time about something with "technically, I don't work for you".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dodged a bullet
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the gov't stepped in saying the studios had monopoly. they need to break something. so what did they do? well, if they didn't produce, they woudln't have ajob. and if they didn't distribute, they'd have an extreamly tough job, so they just sold their theaters. however they still have a "small choke" on theaters. because most films aren't big producesr, or even loss leaders, the studios say you can't have BIG move A (hyped to sell $$$$$) w/o taking in small movie B (that may even lose money). so it's all about control. they want to keep their money. they've had it for so long, they want to keep it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, don't you? You go around giving up your money for not benefit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, I think this is the first time I've seen "camcorder" turned into a verb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]