Crack Flixster Drm

Wed, Oct 26th 2011 7:41am —Remember UltraViolet? This was Hollywood's plan for a for movies that would try to provide some additional features. Or, rather, it would (oh so generously) grant you back just a few rights that anyone could get with an unauthorized version of a file. And you were supposed to thank them for this. As we noted at the time, what consumer problem does UltraViolet actually solve? The answer is absolutely none. It only attempts (and fails) to solve a perceived studio problem.

Meaning that it was destined to piss off customers.And that's exactly what's happening.Jeff Malfant points us to an amusingly satirical Wired article, pretending to be:UltraViolet will make purchasing a movie only slightly more of a pain in the ass than searching BitTorrent. Driving to a local video store and buying a copy on DVD or Blu-ray should only take about a half-hour more than downloading it, and I want to assure you that the legitimate copy will contain all the ads, auto-loading trailers and overproduced menu screens that even the pirates can’t figure out how to include.Once you’ve bought it, all you’ll have to do is take the time to register it and give us whatever information we decide we need.

We know pirates don’t have to do that, but we think you’ll find it fun. It’s sort of like Facebook, only instead of friends and family, you have a humongous powerful group of international corporations hanging on your every datum.Once you’ve signed in, that’s when the fun begins. Lets compare it to other older legal alternatives then.DVD - Cannot skip FBI Warning.

Cannot skip second warning. Cannot skip third warning. I OWN THE THING!VHS - Can fast forward through all that.DVD - Cannot LEGALLY make ANY copy.VHS - No restrictions on copying.DVD - Have to sit through coming soon ads, no skipping.VHS - Can fast forward through adds.BLU-Ray - Will intentionally degrade the quality if you have the wrong wire.DVD/VHS - Will always display to the best of their ability.Old Digital Copy - Worked in iTunes and any capable device.UltraViolet - Seems the players are more limited.So lets see. Have we been giving a better viewing experience with the increase of DRM and protectionism? The five minutes of my life wasted every time I put in a DVD and sit through unskippables says no. Then again maybe I am just a bitter old man trying to cherish every minute I can by having fun and not being annoyed, oh well.

The five minutes of my life wasted every time I put in a DVD and sit through unskippablesThe other night I had a Blu-Ray that not only took over the 'skip' and 'FFW' buttons, but also disabled the 'stop' and even the 'power' buttons as well. Basically once the disk and the ads started, you couldn't stop it short of physically yanking the power cord out of the wall and I was leery of even doing that- afraid maybe they programmed some sort of taser-like function into it that would shock me if I tried to interfere with their relentless marketing. It's possible to offer media without DRM and still be profitable. Look at iTunes. They sell totally DRM-free music and they make a good amount of money off of it.Ultraviolet is unnecessary DRM. It treats the customer like a criminal, as if using Ultraviolet is how pirates get their content. The point that this site has consistently made is that users will pay for content as long as the money is right and the product is easy to use.

Ultraviolet fails miserably at the 'easy to use' part. ' Look at iTunes. They sell totally DRM-free music and they make a good amount of money off of it. 'It's a little different, don't you think? ITunes makes money on every sale, technically.

Their costs for content are fixed per unit, not a large number that they have to recoup to break even. If they sell for $1, they make 10 cents profit, and it's a nice day. A movie company that sunk 50 million into a movie and sells it for $1 still has a long way to go to make a profit.iTunes compares well to a retail store, but not to the producer. 'Their costs for content are fixed per unit'Some of which is direct revenue for the content producer.' Not a large number that they have to recoup to break even'So, iTunes was free to set up?

You seem to confuse marginal and fixed costs, yet again.' A movie company that sunk 50 million into a movie and sells it for $1 still has a long way to go to make a profit.' Did he say that the price of a movie had to be the same as a single song on iTunes? Does 'no DRM' suddenly mean that it can't be sold for more (despite being realistically more valuable than DRMed product)?' ITunes compares well to a retail store, but not to the producer.' So, now you're saying that producers of content don't make money from things sold in retail stores?

Or is it that revenue from retail suddenly doesn't matter once the store's digital?. You do have a point; it would be stupid for the content-producers to try to sell the product and take all that risk.So, why not let someone else take that risk?

Someone like, say, iTunes?All your comparisons assumes that selling DRM-free digital copies is going to DECREASE sales, when in fact it would most likely do the opposite.Or in other words; how can you make more money by NOT selling your product at all?(The product in this case being an actually usable digital copy of the movie). Why not let someone else take that risk?Because that would mean that.gasp. someone other than the movie studio would be making money! And that's even.worse. than filesharing!Think about it - the movie industry thinks that filesharing costs them money. If someone else is making money, then not only is it costing the studios money (because the file is being transferred over the network), but they're losing.even more. money because the consumer is paying for it!

It's like a double-whammy!. 'DRM only sucks when compared to breaking the law. Not shocking, is it?' Back before the RIAA decided to stop being idiots and trying to enforce it on music, I chose to buy music only from non-DRM outlets like eMusic or to legally rip CDs I owned.DRM sucked completely because I couldn't even choose which device to play my music back on with DRMed files (which I why I didn't buy them).Which law, pray tell, was I breaking by listening to my non-sucky, non-DRMed files?You fail. One day, you will stop your idiot assumptions and join the rest of us in reality. DRM only sucks when compared to breaking the law.

Not shocking, is it?DRM is supposed to stop people from breaking the law. DRM is not effective.so if the DRM technology doesn't do what you want it to do (which is prevent illegal downloads) AND it makes your legitimate customers angry (and possibly increases illegal downloads) then why bother with the DRM technology in the first place.paying for media is optional. People pay you because they feel they should, not because they have to. Crappy services that limit choice and features erode that feeling of obligation that your revenue model is based on.

This is the essential point that media companies cannot grasp. Real Physical shops have been moving in the opposite direction.

100 years ago you went into a shop and had to ask for each item from an assistant. It meant you could never shoplift - but it was expensive and time consuming. SO the shops put the stuff on the customer's side of the counter - and you collected it and took it to the assistant before paying. Good films can still be made on the cheap.

I've seen more fan made and truly independent films posted to YouTube with lower budgets and higher quality than I have seen coming out of Hollywood. It is almost guaranteed the comments section of those films, people will ask, 'How come Hollywood can't make something this good?' A lot of people have this incorrect assumption that higher budget equates to higher quality. With good writing, good direction, and a supportive fan base, you can spend under $10,000 and use that to bring in success. This is what kills me.Love Actually 2003 - budget, 47.7 million, gross, 249 millionThe Proposal 2009 - budget, 40 million, gross, 163 millionTwo 'rom-coms' both good money makers but one cost 7 million more than the other. What is the real difference? Also, both spent most of their cash building sound stages for filming.

Love Actually has several scenes in an airport and they are all faked. The Proposal filmed in a real office but then had to do a re-shoot so they replicated the entire office on a sound stage. WTF?The problem is the movie business is run like a fraternity. A bunch of dudes want their friends to get into the business so they throw money around and hire people that just stand around or occasionally paint a backdrop but nobody cares because almost every movie makes a huge profit.In reality the vast majority of movies (including special effects) could be made for a under 10 million dollars.

But first they would need to start running it like an actual business where there are accounting practices, budgets, compromises on spending, etc. ' Or, rather, it would (oh so generously) grant you back just a few rights that anyone could get with an unauthorized version of a file. And you were supposed to thank them for this.' The unauthorized version shouldn't exist, just because something isn't packaged the way I want it packaged does not give me the right to obtain it illegally.Just because Coke isn't sold in 1 gallon jugs doesn't mean I can walk into a supermarket with a 1 gallon jug and open 2 liter bottles pooring the contents into my jug.

And then walk out of the supermarket with my 1 gallon jug and tell them, 'well if you would have offered 1 gallon jugs I would have bought it.' 'As we noted at the time, what consumer problem does UltraViolet actually solve? The answer is absolutely none.'

It provides streaming access to the movie at no additional cost to the end user. This is an additional format option that wasn't available to the end user before, but you're complaining about it.You will never be happy until the movie studios are out of business and all we are left with is indy movies. God I hate that crap, character-driven movies about whiny self-absorbed hipsters. I want huge explosions, cutting-edge special effects, and CGI that is indistinguishable from real-life footage.

And yes I have seen independently produced action movies with decent special effects but they are still embarassingly subpar when compared to LOTR, Avatar, etc.Even when the stuidos provide additional options for consumers you gripe. You're like the little kid that throws a temper tantrum because he doesn't get everything the way he wants it. There is no compromising with you, it's your way or no way. Absolute bullshit.

Ill give you a story about a tangential industry that has paced with the movie industry.The video game industry started up in the early 70's with games like Pong. It wasn't until the first PC's that it started to grow.Over time the games began to be pirated as it was relatively easy. Major corporations were dumbfounded and instead of figuring out what the problem was they moved to consoles, which ended up being just as heavily pirated.One day, a few companies decided to give people what pirates have been giving, relatively cheap and easy to obtain video games.Those companies, like Valve and Direct2Drive, and services like the Android Market led the industry into a Second Rennaissance of video games. Games became very cheap and very easy to obtain. The PC game industry began to expand faster than ever in the history of PC gaming.

Now its projected to outpace growth in console gaming.So don't say this bullshit that piracy is what caused DRM. DRM wasn't necessary to stop piracy. What happened to Movie Studios was that they lost control of the distribution channel by not paying attention. The video game industry learned that lesson by seeing how stupidly asinine the movie industry was. Now video games are set to outpace the movie industry, while the movie industry is readying increase in prices to make up for the fact that people are turning to video games instead of movies for entertainment.So no, piracy did not beget DRM. DRM was not necessary to compete with pirates, hell pirates don't care about DRM and customers actually paid for items that were locked by DRM. DRM is to punish people for doing things that the MPAA doesnt like.

If you're correct, then you're saying that the industry is full of dolts and idiots for pursuing a harmful (to them) strategy that fails to accomplish their goals. Personally, I don't think they're so stupid.What makes better sense, and is a supportable hypothesis is that the issue isn't primarily piracy. For background, this is a good article:'Actual value'? A person wants to watch a movie at home. That's the desired experience, that's where the value lies.End of story.That's a dramatic oversimplification. Most consumers want more than just that.

They also want to use their existing equipment. They want to be able to watch their movie from every room they have a TV in. A lot want to do this without paying a recurring cost, and without having to give up a lot of personal information. And so forth.

Do you really believe DRM would not exist if nobody 'pirated'?In a world where nobody 'pirated', the movie studios would still want to impose restrictions. For instance, they would love to have you pay extra to play the movie in more than one device, or play the movie more than a limited number of times.Of course, people would still try to bypass these restrictions on the movies they bought.

Remember, we are talking of a world where nobody 'pirated', so they can't simply download a copy. The shortsighted reaction of the movie studios to people bypassing their restrictions would be the same as happened in real life: to add DRM, making their product less convenient to use.There: we have the same DRM situation without 'pirating'. Only that it's worse, since in that world where nobody 'pirates' people would not have an alternative, and thus the studios would have much less fear of a backlash. You seem to misread the point of this article and a lot of the posts supporting it.

Its not they wont give us what we want to feel free to pirate it. It is offering you paying customers a crippled service and continually treating them like criminals is not a way to compete with piracy.

DRM doesn't stop piracy it only hurts paying customers and pushes people to piracy (not that that is a good thing, but it happens), if they stop trying to stomp out piracy (which is impossible) and focus on providing useful services to paying customers they will be better off. 'Just because Coke isn't sold in 1 gallon jugs doesn't mean I can walk into a supermarket with a 1 gallon jug and open 2 liter bottles pooring the contents into my jug. And then walk out of the supermarket with my 1 gallon jug and tell them, 'well if you would have offered 1 gallon jugs I would have bought it.'

'but after you buy the coke you can do whatever you want with it. Apparently buying this movie does not allow you to watch it let alone easily put it into a format you want. Following your analogy coke should have DRM(drink rights management) that if makes your pubic hair catch fire if you try to put in it glass with ice. Bad analogy:Difference is we want coke in a gallon container. We went to the store and legally purchased 2 2liter bottles of coke.

Took it to the privacy of our own home placed it in a gallon jug for our own personal consumption. We wanted coke to make gallon containers, but since they won't, we just have a way (bought our own gallon jug and funnel) of converting it into a state where it is readily consumable. We are not slapping a coke label and freely distributing it. Just wrapping it in a package we can use.My area doesn't have good 3G coverage so my iPad is wifi only. This makes ultraviolet cumbersome at best, totally unusable at worst and that's overlooking the cumbersome bug ridden drm and account management system. Knock off Oakleys shouldn't exist, but that still doesn't stop people from buying them for $5 a pair at flea markets.

I would think I have a RIGHT to copy a DVD I own to any device I own, but that is illegal. Just because a person does not have a RIGHT to something does not inherently stop them and all the crying in the world isn't going to change human nature.

What you can do though, is accept reality and find ways to discourage the behavior. Why is it so hard to comprehend the discussion of the methods that do not work in comparision to methods that have historically (and logically) work better is a good thing and not advocating the undesired behavior? You're like the little kid that does not get that his temper tantrum does not work and so he throws a bigger one for better results.

Is there subliminal messages in those million dollar special effects that implant this Beatings-Will-Continue-Until-Moral-Improves thinking?. 'It provides streaming access to the movie at no additional cost to the end user. This is an additional format option that wasn't available to the end user before, but you're complaining about it.'

I have a perfectly good streaming service directly from my seedbox. And I don't have to worry about DRM!There are some perfectly good legal streaming services out there, but they are being crippled by huge licensing fees, stupid restrictions etc. I can't even get Netflix because I live in the wrong country!If they kill the restrictions, the money I pay each month for a seedbox, for a VPN, for usenet access, etc can go to the creative industries - until then, my money goes to the services that give me the content in the most convenient way.Let me give you another example - guess how many pirated apps I have on my Android phone?

Zero - simply because I find the market way more convenient than finding torrents for them and in the majority of cases the prices are acceptable. That is not to say that I have not pirated apps on my phone - but only when I want to try them if I feel the price is a little too high - that is also a direct result of Google changing from a 24hr refund policy to a 15min refund policy!. Just because Coke isn't sold in 1 gallon jugs doesn't mean I can walk into a supermarket with a 1 gallon jug and open 2 liter bottles pooring the contents into my jug. And then walk out of the supermarket with my 1 gallon jug and tell them, 'well if you would have offered 1 gallon jugs I would have bought it.' This is a completely inaccurate analogy. Much closer would me buying the 2 liter bottles and then choosing, in my own home, to pour them into a 1 gallon jug.

This is something you probably think should be illegal. How about the soft drink industry opens up a special store where you can take your fizzy drink and pour it into gallon containers of their choice? Sure it might be the wrong shape to fit into your fridge where as your own gallon container fits perfectly, but you can't have everything. As an added bonus, there is no charge for this convenience!.

As Coke, I don't care what you do with the Coke once you pay for it, other than copy the formula and make your own which would harm my ability to sell it.As I have stated previous, I think you should be able to make a backup copy of a DVD in case the original media is broken or wears out. You should NOT be allowed to copy the DVD and then share it with 10 million other people.If you don't like the format something is offered in don't buy it, but don't download an illegal copy of it either. The unauthorized version shouldn't existBut it does, that's the reality. The main point that is underlying all of the posts on this subject on this site is that piracy exists, and it's not going anywhere, so the intelligent thing for content producers to do is find a way to thrive in the face of it - and use t to advantage. Instead, the big corps are trying to engage in activities that anger their legitimate customers, trample on the rights of everyone in general, and that will do nothing to solve their problem.It provides streaming access to the movie at no additional cost to the end user.Not true, unless you define 'cost' as being 'monetary expense.' From the reviews, it sounds like the system often doesn't work so they aren't even providing the streaming at all.

Even when they are, the cost to the consumer sounds substantial: the cost in time, effort, aggravation, and invasion of privacy.You will never be happy until the movie studios are out of business and all we are left with is indy movies.That's just stupid, and the opposite of the truth. The sentiments I've read here from people who would like the studios to go out of business come about because the studios are actively harmful as they currently operate, and there is no sign that this will change. If they went out of business, they would certainly be replaced by businesses who can operate in a more acceptable way. The movies you like would still get produced. 'Just because Coke isn't sold in 1 gallon jugs doesn't mean I can walk into a supermarket with a 1 gallon jug and open 2 liter bottles pooring the contents into my jug. And then walk out of the supermarket with my 1 gallon jug and tell them, 'well if you would have offered 1 gallon jugs I would have bought it.' 'The problem is that DRM is more like walking in a store to find the Coke is locked up and in order to buy any you need to present ID and fill out forms to buy it.

So instead of doing that people walk out and go to the guy on the street corner offering it for free in the gallon jugs. The thing is people are actually willing to risk that the guy on the street could be putting anything into those jugs just so they can avoid the hassle at the store. It's more like you buy the Coke and realize when you get home you can't get the cap off unless you login to coke.com, give them your personal info, get the unlock code and then press the secret button the cap, which may or may not get it off.If it doesn't come off, you can call and talk to Coca-Cola's computers for the next two hours (you know, that two hours you were going to spend watching a movie while having a nice drink). Your time isn't precious, but they can't afford to pay a human being to talk to you.So you figure you'll just get a knife and poke a hole in the bottle, but it's illegal to open the bottle any other way, because Coca-Cola gives millions of dollars to politicians every year and then suggests to them what the laws should be regarding bottlecaps. Just because you own it doesn't mean you can do anything you want to it.There's a silver lining though - in 120 years none of those laws apply and you can open the bottle and do anything you please (provided the laws are never, ever changed between now and then).So you say 'Fuck all that!' Poke a hole in the bottle and enjoy your Coke. Listen up, Techdirt.

'1 minute of investigation would clearly show these reviews were written for the express purpose of being anti-DRM'So? Does being anti-DRM rather than merely anti-Ultraviolet make the concern invalid? Or, are you saying that writing a review to expressly warn would-be customers that the DRM is present and damaging is of no use?' -'Average customer' seems to be quite content on the movie, not the DRM.'

'I'm not sure what point you're making here - it's suspicious that a person can be positive about the movie but not the DRM? If that's the case, well. In fact, enjoying the movie would make me.less.

accepting of the DRM, since its only purpose is to get in between me and my ability to watch the movie.' I would request, in the future, any reference to Amazon's comments be taken with a grain of salt.' As any intelligent reader already should, since there's no way to independently verify who wrote them.' If Disney ever gets its 'Keychest' program out there, however, 'Ultraviolet' will be considered a godsend.' So, we should be cool with this DRM because Disney have something more odious up their sleeve?No, I'll retain my opinions, thanks. Post above PaulT's sounds like those folks getting all dewey-eyed over the poor game developers when Securom was being viciously 'spored' in Amazon reviews a few years ago.This is a product that people BOUGHT. It is found to be DEFECTIVE.

They are doing a service to others at point of purchase.I'd never written an Amazon review in all the years of using the service until this very thing happened to me. The manufacturer of the product was deaf to direct complaints from paying customers. I felt compelled to give others information they would need to make an informed purchase and Amazon was how I could do it. I stopped no one from buying if they really wanted to, but at least they might have a better understanding of what they were really buying, something they wouldn't get from any product description.Great game! Great whatever! BUT.are the associated problems worth your time or money?. You work for TD now, PaulT?

Congratulations!;)Joking aside:'So? Does being anti-DRM rather than merely anti-Ultraviolet make the concern invalid?' My argument is about using strawmen to justify the attack on DRM, not the differences in DRM.' I'm not sure what point you're making here'TD's position is DRM is bad for consumers (no dispute), but for this particular issue, I'm not seeing consumers complaining, per a quick review of the reviews. What I'm seeing are the one-shot reviews of attacking the DRM specifically while saying nothing about the actual product in addition to.That's a red flag for me as a consumer. To put this more in perspective: Would you value a review of 1 star because they're reviewing shipping and not the product?' So, we should be cool with this DRM.'

Keychest has nothing to do with this. My apologies for the tangent.:)But to be clear: I'm not upset at anyone, but the use of strawmen is something I despise in these discussions.I should reasonably suspect people would check into this (as I did), but (and no offense to anyone in particular) some of the comments I've seen on this site leave me to believe any external linking is saved only when they're done reading this site.

'You work for TD now, PaulT? Congratulations!;)'I wish. Just wasting time while waiting for my car to be repaired!

Just stating my honest opinion here.' I'm not seeing consumers complaining, per a quick review of the reviews.' How do you know they're not consumers? At least a subset of them seem to be, even if there's a few new accounts created just to complain here.'

Would you value a review of 1 star because they're reviewing shipping and not the product?' No, but I'd certainly take notice if there were a lot of them.As mentioned above, this has happened a number of times when particularly odious DRM was introduced into games. It's a fairly easy way to protest, gaining a lot of visibility for little effort. It was also very effective in the cases of Spore and some other games which had their DRM removed after the backlash.If I were genuinely interested in just the product, it would be a trivial matter to ignore the 1 star reviews.

But, I couldn't say I wasn't warned when the DRM bit me on the ass after I bought it.' But to be clear: I'm not upset at anyone, but the use of strawmen is something I despise in these discussions.' The thing is, I'm not seeing strawmen. I'm seeing an example of how pissed off people are. It may be astroturfing, maybe not, but neither of us can prove either case.

I have made accounts on a few sites and used them one time, because I was so pissed off by the product being broken, that I told people it was broken, and then never went back.Since the DRM is tied to the 'digital copy' that is included in the price of the DVD, it IS a review of the product. Specifically, the not-working part of the product. So, so much for straw-man arguments.Plus, how many people with the time and willingness to use the digital copy aren't tech-savvy enough to expect better? My parents and sister buy a movie with a digital copy 'because it's digital,' and because they expect it to work just like bittorrent (and Steam). Download and play.

Because it makes sense. Because we pay $50+ a month for 20 gb/s internet, and our end can handle the bandwidth, why can't theirs? Because anyone with access to a search engine can find a copy that works better.We don't want free.

We want function. We want a price that is justified by the content. If you can't justify your price with your content, your price isn't worth it.

So I won't pay it.I will never buy a DVD with this broken DRM included, and if I can get to them first to explain the problem, neither will anyone in my family. Correction: 12.pre-approved. devices with the file available for a limited amount of time. Your next device isn't supported?

Your next computer runs a non-approved OS? You want to run it on a console that's not approved? You want to download it after an arbitrary cut-off point? You can have 4-5 decides every generation (very possible for the average consumer) and still be unable to play your legally obtained file on everything in the 3rd gen.Pirated files have no such restrictions.

In other words, it's an inferior system you're being charged extra for.' THATS ALOT OF DEVICES, why would you possible need anymore!' You're making the typical fallacy of assuming that people will only want to play their files with the current gen. I still play DVDs I bought in 1997, but the DVD devices I use are totally different and have changed greatly over the years. I should have the same freedom with the digital files I obtain. Over the last, say, 7 years I've gone through 4 laptops, 3 desktops, 1 10' tablet, 2 7' tablets, and 2 cell phones.

(Some similar devices, for various reasons, have sometimes been in simultaneous use.) My wife has gone through 4 TV's, 1 10' tablet, 1 7' tablet, 2 laptops, 1 desktop, and 2 cell phones. So-I should live the rest of my life without purchasing any more electronic device, and my wife can replace her cell phone once and nothing else, and DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT ONE ACCOUNT PER HOUSEHOLD because SOME ARROGANT MORON DOESN'T KNOW ELECTRONIC DEVICES BREAK OR GET OBSOLETE?It won't stop being pathetic until all the petty tyrants stop telling their honest paying customers what to do with legitimate purchases.

Most reviews only have one review written.I'm not so sure about this as a signifier. I've never written an Amazon review, good or bad. I will probably never write a good review, because if I'm happy with my purchase then I have no emotional motivation to go to the trouble of going back to a product page for a product I'm no longer considering buying (because I already have it).If I got a product that angered me severely, though, I could totally see myself going back and writing a bad review. Then I would be one of those people who only have 1 review.

Does that mean my review is somehow invalid?I actually am more suspicious of reviewers that have numerous reviews posted, because it seems like they just like to write reviews, or are paid to write reviews. If most of their reviews are bad, or most are good, then I do entirely dismiss their opinion as it's probably more about them than about the product. I take that assertion with skepticism. If true, then you could reasonably and morally share the cost or rent of the DVD with whoever watches it, rather than passing it around 'free', or ripping it to put online. There's no reason that you have to download except for convenience, and since you say the legal way to do that is NOT convenient, then just forget that content. That'll learn 'em.I've already covered these next points elsewhere, but as they keep being put up:) Music is cheaper to make than any movie. No comparision can be made with success of Itunes or whatever music.

Nor can shops with commodities be used to claim that /high/ priced items could be offered without guarding.) Blame /pirates/ for the presence of DRM. You can say loss of income is only perceived, but those who wish for that income even if hypothetical are fixated on it, so it's chiseled in granite, take it as a fact of their motives at least.Does anyone here /really/ wish to assert that /you/ after spending, oh, say (per Mike's example), $100M making a movie, would make it available online to everyone without DRM? - Want to identify yourself as at best a sappy idealist? You all know darn well that it'd be pirated and you'd never recover those pesky 'sunk (or fixed) costs'. What a bunch of impratical hypocrites.But to exact topic: Let's say, just for argument, that DRM streaming were made as convenient as bittorrent, after some one-time hoops are jumped through.

Price stays the same, but then you'd all be happy, right?. 'You all know darn well that it'd be pirated and you'd never recover those pesky 'sunk (or fixed) costs'. What a bunch of impratical hypocrites.' But its pirated anyway blue.

DRM doesnt stop pirates it just inconviences paying customers, and pushes them towards piracy. You like them seem to think this DRM system has any effect on piracy once you stop thinking that you will realize how stupid all this is. Some people will never pay and no DRM will ever stop that so why not do right by the people that will pay for things?. Does anyone here /really/ wish to assert that /you/ after spending, oh, say (per Mike's example), $100M making a movie, would make it available online to everyone without DRM?The movie is already available online to everyone without DRM, sometimes before it has even hit the shelves. For free, no less.

Whether or not it is morally right to do, every movie is and will be pirated.This is the entire point of the argument. If your paying customers are receiving broken products, and the non-paying thieves are receiving functional products, then you have failed as a business. There is no possible way you could be.worse off.

by having DRM-free content at the same price; everyone who paid will still pay (why wouldn't they pay the same price for a better product?), and everyone who would download still downloads (well not everyone, some more people would buy it once the hassles of DRM were gone).but you don't screw your customers over in the process.But to exact topic: Let's say, just for argument, that DRM streaming were made as convenient as bittorrent, after some one-time hoops are jumped through. Price stays the same, but then you'd all be happy, right?Netflix.

I'm quite happy with Netflix. And it's as easy as bittorrent. Hell, I would say it's even easier.

The quality is reliable, and it's available everywhere I go that has a decent Internet connection, even if I go to a friend's house.-A little off-topic, I want to see your honest opinion on something. I have pre-ordered the new Zelda game, Skyward Sword. Games are usually released on pirate websites a few days before they hit the store shelves. Seeing as how Nintendo has already had my money for about a month (remember, I pre-ordered), do you think it's okay to download the game to play it before it's released?. Does anyone here /really/ wish to assert that /you/ after spending, oh, say (per Mike's example), $100M making a movie, would make it available online to everyone without DRM? - Want to identify yourself as at best a sappy idealist?I would assert that, yes. Not because I'm a sappy idealist, but because I'm a realist.

Crack Flixster Drm Free

DRM does not stop piracy, or even slow it down, so the only effect of it is to cost me sales because I'm pissed off a portion of my legitimate customer base.The pragmatic business decision is to omit the DRM and, if necessary, address the piracy in a different way. On that score, there are a myriad of possibilities. Which is the best would depend on my exact business position. Look, I buy so many movies (DVD only.) that my wife steers me away from the movie section of the store.

So it's fair so say that I own several hundred of those shiny discs.And yes, just to make a point, I paid for the damn thing, Please make the multiple FBI warnings skippable!Anyway, back to the point, as you read in the original post, 'Ultraviolet' and it's associated service are not only broken but required several hoops to burn in order to get the 'Digital Download'. Obviously this is Draconian Fail aimed at someone that has already proven they are willing to PAY for the movie. So why make it is so damn hard and piss off existing customers?

Have me register my copy with you (So my copy can be tracked if its found on some server.) and then give me the clean file in.MPG or.AVI format.BING! I'm happy and feel like I got what I PAID for. Accordingly, I will continue my habit of buying movies, despite my wife's objections, making you money.Everyone wins. No one gets all pissy because of some Pain In The Ass DRM.But in reality, what I do now is buy the shiny disc, and rip it to make my own 'Digital copy' because the industry has it made getting their version of the digital copy so painful, I simply wont submit to the process.My point is:1 - I'm happy to buy your product.2 - I paid for the damn thing, make the stupid FBI warnings skippable. Really, this means a lot to me.3 - Watermark my digital copy and give me the file. I am willing to live with that.4 - Make it simple and I'm your man.5 - Make it painful and obnoxious and I simply wont do it. Why should I?

I paid for the shiny thingy.And finally, don't offer the movie at all and even though I've proven that I am willing to pay for it, I will find it in the Internet. I think you missed a paying customer there.Sigh, really how F'n hard is this for you guys to get? I'll give you cash and someone will always find a way to defeat the DRM crap. So why bother and lets trade cash for product. I'm more than willing!Good thing my wife doesn't read this blog. 'Does anyone here /really/ wish to assert that /you/ after spending, oh, say (per Mike's example), $100M making a movie, would make it available online to everyone without DRM?

- Want to identify yourself as at best a sappy idealist? You all know darn well that it'd be pirated and you'd never recover those pesky 'sunk (or fixed) costs'. What a bunch of impratical hypocrites.' Way to miss the point.

The fact is that if you spend $100M making a movie, the chances are that it will be available without DRM regardless of your wishes - so why spend the time and money applying a useless technology that pisses off the people who WILL actually buy your movie? - especially as that useless technology will have further costs attached to it as well - support calls and ongoing servers for example. Piracy happens REGARDLESS of DRM - DRM does nothing at all to stop it or even to slow it down.' But to exact topic: Let's say, just for argument, that DRM streaming were made as convenient as bittorrent, after some one-time hoops are jumped through. Price stays the same, but then you'd all be happy, right?'

Crack Flixster Drm Software

Only if I actually owned the content and not simply a license to view the content until the servers are turned off. That means that as well as streaming, I must be able to download for viewing offline, and it must work flawlessly on ANY of my media devices - that includes my Android phone, my tablet, my TV, my PVR, XBMC etc. Then we might be a little closer. This is not, and has not for some time now, been about customer service, but ownership.In times past, the pace of technology was such that by the time a new technology emerged, people were about ready to replace their old devices which were wearing out.

UltraViolet™ Service Terms Of UseYOUR USE OF ULTRAVIOLET IS GOVERNED BY THESE TERMS OF USE, THE ULTRAVIOLET PRIVACY POLICY AND ANY SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED TO YOU FOR ANY OF THE PRODUCTS, SERVICES, CONTENT, OR OTHER OFFERINGS MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT CONTENT ECOSYSTEM (DECE) LLC (“DECE” or “we”) IN CONNECTION WITH ULTRAVIOLET, (COLLECTIVELY, THE “ULTRAVIOLET TERMS OF USE”). THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND DECE. I am more generally pissed about the price schema of things.Physical DVD $25, Physical Blu-ray $30, Physical Blu-ray with digital download $35. Just the digital download $30 and in a couple of cases I saw it $39.99.

I could 'rent' the digital download for $20. What a deal!All I really want is the digital copy so I easily port it to what ever medium I want to watch it on. If the price was under $5 to own a non-DRMed digital download movie I would buy 2-5 a week.As it is now I typical just wait to it airs on TV and then PVR it and if I want to keep it around I edit out all the commercials. I am looking at the 'Green Lantern' DVD package and there is nothing classy about it. Design; thin flimsy case, no real features just trailer trash, marketing speak and no permanent mark for Ultraviolet anywhere.What did catch my eye is this sentence, 'Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Is not responsible for maintaining access to any website or its content.'

The only other DVD package I have handy that has that piece of legalese is, 'The Dark Night' which has a digital copy via wbdigitalcopy.com (expires Jun 9, 2009). Of course 'Blade Runner: The Final Cut' (two disc special edition) has no website disclaimer because it has no digital copy. Warner is just putting on the fix.Back in the Flixster insanity the three steps appear easy but as was said, are not.

Flixster Download

Warner may have been on the right track with wbdigitalcopy; four steps and no obvious registrations, just enter code and follow download directions. No doubt this system died because it was Windows only. The Flixster Ultraviolet system is going to die due to this rule: Lawyers design bad human interaction systems, especially the user interface procedures.I knew the Flixster was worthless and after paging thru that contract post I think nobody in their right mind should use this service. Even when Warner is being up front about the service via Flixster instruction sheet, 'Note: Neither Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Nor any affiliate is responsible for maintaining Ultraviolet service.'

All the red flags I see are not going to keep me awake at night because the entire 'Digital Copy' scheme is a scam.Pray the innocent stay out of mystery databases like warz, p0rn and Flixster. I didn't like having to sign up for multiple accounts and having to share my info with the studios just to get a digital copy. You should only need one account period. Nor did I like having to download another bloated piece of software called Flixster Collections just so I could watch the movie. It uses Adobe Air, which is the same program Vudu uses. The playback is choppy and in one instance at least the video and audio are out of sync. I constantly see the movies trying to buffer with the loading symbol as they play which is very annoying.

I would prefer the movies in itunes where I can keep my entire collection rather than trying to remember which player has which movie.I refuse to buy another movie with Ultraviolet as the digital copy. In fact, I recently passed up a buying a movie on Blue Ray and DVD because the digital copy was Ultraviolet.I have received no response from Flixster using their stupid form mail for support. Having even received a robot response in my email acknowledging they received my support ticket. I am going to say right now that pirating is what proves to the movie companies that they can sell a movie for as much as they do, that they can pay actors millions of dollars. Should they really get pad millions of dollars, not necessarily. But you want it and supply and demand follows in suit, there is more demand than there is supply and the price goes up, fact of the matter is pirating means there is a demand for the product.

Just cause you pirated it doesn't mean you didn't want it (why would you have pirated it then, duh). So if you really want prices to go down you have to not want the products, but that is never going to happen so just deal with it, Pirating is wrong (period). DRM is moral, it may not be like but it is legal and good for everyone, truly.

If the movie companies stop making money because pirating gets out of control, no more movies, fact of the matter. It lets them choose the price, and if you don't like it, sucks for you. Also, not a single one of you can tell me that if you where head of one of the companies you would be anti-DRM.