RSS
Twitter
Still Probably Don't Want To Rent Movies Online
from the not-much-improvement dept
About a year ago, we linked to a review that absolutely trashes the two Hollywood-backed online movie rental operations, Movielink and CinemaNow. It looks like things haven't improved much over the past year. The Washington Post now has a review of both services that wonders who would ever bother using such services. It includes such descriptive phrases as "little here to lure anybody," "annoying to use," "agonizingly slow," and "pathetically thin selection." Oh yeah, plus they're fairly expensive for what you get, and unless you've got your PC hooked up to your TV, you're stuck watching them at your desk. As for the "pathetically thin selection" the companies blame problems in getting the internet rights to films. In fact, it's a bit amusing to hear him complain that the reason they can't offer a movie like "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" is because the music rights to the song "Twist and Shout" (which appears briefly in the movie) cost too much to obtain. Funny how that strict licensing rights for music are harming the ability to get movies online. In a more enlightened world, such a statement might make Hollywood wake up to the idea that perhaps our current intellectual property system is a bit too heavy handed - but clearly that's not going to happen any time soon.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
It's growing pains, I think.
These things take time. Especially when new media is involved, and old assholes still hold the rights to everything. I think this will probably change over the next two or three decades or so as motion picture studios and record companies are dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Espcially when they all get together and realize how much money there is to be made.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
Why should the rental place need to deal with that? Didn't the movie's producers pay for those rights when the movie was made? Shouldn't they have to pay for them out of their profits from the rentals? Seems backwards to me...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment