Blockbuster Takes Movielink Off Studios' Hands For A Pittance

from the on-the-cheap dept

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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Deidre, Aug 9th, 2007 @ 11:49am

    Restating the Obvious

    Of course what the studios really meant to say was that the sites "could have cost" $100 million. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Aug 9th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Andrew Pass, Aug 9th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Nismoto, Aug 9th, 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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Sanguine Dream, Aug 9th, 2007 @ 5:41pm

      Re: A Changed Economy

      Ewww gad.

      That page looks like it was made by a domain squatter.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TheDock22, Aug 9th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2007 @ 5:11pm

    That's $100 million they could have used advertising that their own customer-base are criminals!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anarchy_Creator, Aug 10th, 2007 @ 3:46am

    So...

    How long before we can pir8 moviez from BB's new website like we do with Netflix?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Overcast, Aug 10th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    superguy, Aug 10th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This