Blockbuster Takes Movielink Off Studios' Hands For A Pittance

from the on-the-cheap dept

Thu, Aug 9th 2007 11:11am — Carlo Longino

Movielink, the movie download site started by major movie studios, has been up for sale for quite some time. The studios have had a hard time finding a buyer, though, because it's blindingly obvious (to everybody but the studios, apparently) just how badly the site sucks. The studios' desire to lock down the content with restrictive DRM, along with other flaws make the site wholly unattractive for users. It now looks like the studios have finally talked Blockbuster into buying Movielink at a fire-sale price -- less than $20 million, according to the WSJ, compared to the $100 million-plus the studios pumped into the site. Blockbuster may have picked up some download infrastructure on the cheap, but if it hopes to wring any sort of success out of Movielink, it's going to have to completely change the way the site works. But the studios wouldn't let that happen before, since controlling the content was their top priority; since they'll still be licensing the content to Blockbuster, it's unlikely that they'll let it remove any of the barriers to uptake they've put in place.

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

Filed Under: downloads, entertainment, movies
Companies: blockbuster, movielink

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Deidre, 9 Aug 2007 @ 11:49am

Restating the Obvious
Of course what the studios really meant to say was that the sites "could have cost" $100 million. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 9 Aug 2007 @ 12:05pm

100million dollars
Wtf did they waste that much money on?
A shitty site idea.
I don't see how it could have taken so much money to put it together?
Must have been one of the higher executives nephews needed a summer job to screw over the businesses with so he got it.
Thats my only thought.
No clue how they could spend that much on it.

OHHH wait, they probably developed some NEW ultra hack proof DRM scheme. That must be it.
R&D monies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew Pass, 9 Aug 2007 @ 12:27pm

A Changed Economy
I began titling this entry "A Changing Economy," but then I changed it to "A Changed Economy." The change has already occurred. When will the major players recognize this? If they don't they won't remain major.

Check out my living textbook: http://www.pass-ed.com/Living-Textbook.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nismoto, 9 Aug 2007 @ 2:29pm
  
  Pimpin' Crap 2.0
  I began titling this entry "RE: A Changed Economy", but then I realized that you had absolutely nothing to say about the posted topic.
  
  You did, unfortunately, take the opportunity to advertise your website; a website that us readers would NEVER have found in the first 500 pages of a Google search.
  
  Trying to elevate your PageRank (tm) with a blog that contains over 80 occurrences to the phrase "web 2.0" this year alone is no substitute for REAL content. Really, only 70 comments to over 180 blog posts of mostly regurgitated crud?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Charles Griswold, 9 Aug 2007 @ 5:27pm
    
    Re: Pimpin' Crap 2.0
    Really, only 70 comments to over 180 blog posts of mostly regurgitated crud?
    Didn't you know? "Regurgitated crud" is the new "content." Get with the times, man.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sanguine Dream, 9 Aug 2007 @ 5:41pm
  
  Re: A Changed Economy
  Ewww gad.
  
  That page looks like it was made by a domain squatter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheDock22, 9 Aug 2007 @ 12:34pm

Again, no innovation
Blockbuster has a really poor business strategy. They seem to be spending most of their time competing with Netflix than trying to be innovative. Netflix comes out with on demand video and so what does Blockbuster do? They buy up a website to try and help them compete (although this will fail miserably as Blockbuster's online website already pales in comparison to Netflix).

Blockbuster needs some innovated ideas rather than the "let's keep up" game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2007 @ 5:11pm

That's $100 million they could have used advertising that their own customer-base are criminals!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anarchy_Creator, 10 Aug 2007 @ 3:46am

So...
How long before we can pir8 moviez from BB's new website like we do with Netflix?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 10 Aug 2007 @ 3:45pm

But the studios wouldn't let that happen before, since controlling the content was their top priority;

Isn't it true?

"The tighter you squeeze, the more sand slips through your fingers."

For a statement made ever-so-popular by a movie, you'd think Hollywood could listen to the words it puts out.

Guess not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anarchy_Creator, 16 Aug 2007 @ 2:21am
  
  Re: TMYTYGTTMSSWSTYF
  The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
superguy, 10 Aug 2007 @ 7:11pm

24
The 24 hour limit seems to be the standard with pay per view and I'm completely baffled by it. If I were to rent one of these movies and fell a sleep while watching it or had to leave for some reason, I would not shell out another $5 to watch it again. This is what keeps me from using services like this and PPV. Give unlimited viewing for 30 days. It's tied to one computer anyway and would make the service useful while traveling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]