<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;rentals&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:39:31 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Warner Brothers And Redbox Sign New Deal: Rental Blackout Window Cut From Ridiculous 56 Days To Equally Ridiculous 28 Days</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/20091920851/warner-brothers-redbox-sign-new-deal-rental-blackout-window-cut-ridiculous-56-days-to-equally-ridiculous-28-days.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/20091920851/warner-brothers-redbox-sign-new-deal-rental-blackout-window-cut-ridiculous-56-days-to-equally-ridiculous-28-days.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Redbox has ended its "standoff" with Warner Brothers and, despite its earlier moves, has come out on the losing end of the deal. If you'll recall, earlier in the year Redbox decided to let its contract with Warner Brothers expire after the studio decided to withhold its new releases for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120107/01435817321/wb-hbo-continue-to-suck-economics-new-policies-encourage-piracy.shtml" target="_blank"><i>56 days</i></a> -- up from the already ridiculous 28 days. Redbox looked at the obscene size of this window and said, thanks but no thanks, we'll just purchase <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/13421717628/redbox-wont-cave-to-warner-bros-demands-will-buy-wb-dvds-other-sources-rent-them.shtml" target="_blank">your movies elsewhere</a>.<br />
<br />
This couldn't have made WB too happy, what with Redbox exercising the right of First Sale to bypass the studio's window and let itself in the front door. As for those looking to rent new releases while they were still <i>new</i>, Warner Brothers basically told them to shove off, and go look elsewhere for their entertainment. Having cut off a source of income and given more than a few potential customers a reason to check out alternate sources, the studio finally decided to renegotiate.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.deadline.com/2012/10/redbox-will-promote-ultraviolet-in-new-disc-deal-with-warner-bros/" target="_blank">Here's how it all works out for Redbox</a> (and by extension, the customers):
<blockquote>
<i>For titles with street dates between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014, the studio will grant Redbox the rights to offer Warner Bros. theatrical titles on Blu-ray Disc and DVD 28 days after their retail release dates</i>.</blockquote>
Apparently, a stupid window is slightly less stupid when it's half the size it previously was. (But more stupidly, it's <i>exactly</i> where the window sat previously, before Warner decided not enough people were buying during the rental shutout). What Warner refuses to understand is that people want to rent movies when they <i>logically</i> should be available (i.e., day and date with the DVD release), rather than at some arbitrary point in the future. Warner is still willing to trade rentals for sales, even if it means giving up some rentals for file sharing. But the stupidity of the deal gets worse:
<blockquote>
<i>In addition, Redbox announced plans to join the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE) and has agreed to promote UltraViolet through a program of mutually agreed-upon promotions and marketing tactics designed to help retail customers discover UltraViolet.</i></blockquote>
On top of being forced to humor Warner's ignorant windowing, Redbox is now being made to play nice with the studio's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/12064316454/hollywoods-kinder-gentler-drm-ultraviolet-getting-slammed-reviews.shtml" target="_blank">too-little-too-late</a> digital "offering." It's a bad deal all around, but the press release ignores all reality to paint a gloriously rose-tinted future for all involved.
<blockquote>
<i>The arrangement will improve the economics for both Warner Bros. and Redbox while ensuring consistent availability of Warner Bros. titles for the consumer.</i></blockquote>
Really? Judging from past experience, it seems more likely that Warner will continue to cripple the rental service by adding ridiculous agreements and stipulations while slowly killing off the everything anyone liked about it. There's nothing about this equation that "improves economics." Warner opens itself up to more piracy by setting up arbitrary windows and consumers looking for the latest Warner releases still have 28 days to kill before they become "consistently available."<br />
<br />
Here's some more rah-rah, go team doublespeak from Warner Bros.
<blockquote>
<i>"We are pleased to once again have a direct relationship with Redbox, providing their consumers access to our movies," said Ron Sanders, president, Warner Home Video. "In addition, we look forward to working together on other key initiatives such as UltraViolet and creating promotional opportunities to offer consumers great content when and where they want it."</i></blockquote>
Translation: We are pleased that we have prevented Redbox from simply purchasing our movies from a third party and renting them out during our arbitrary blackout periods. In addition, we look forward to pushing our clunky digital services and creating restrictive "opportunities" to offer consumers great content when and where we say they can have it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/20091920851/warner-brothers-redbox-sign-new-deal-rental-blackout-window-cut-ridiculous-56-days-to-equally-ridiculous-28-days.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/20091920851/warner-brothers-redbox-sign-new-deal-rental-blackout-window-cut-ridiculous-56-days-to-equally-ridiculous-28-days.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/20091920851/warner-brothers-redbox-sign-new-deal-rental-blackout-window-cut-ridiculous-56-days-to-equally-ridiculous-28-days.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>'half-as-stupid'-isn't-the-same-as-'twice-as-smart'</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121025/20091920851</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:24:48 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Studio To Amazon Instant Video Customer: Thanks For The $$$. Enjoy Your Blank Screen.</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/16282620737/studio-to-amazon-instant-video-customer-thanks-enjoy-your-blank-screen.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/16282620737/studio-to-amazon-instant-video-customer-thanks-enjoy-your-blank-screen.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The best way to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120116/22095317427/real-scarcity-is-important-part-business-model-artificial-scarcity-is-terrible-business-model.shtml" target="_blank">combat piracy</a> is to offer content at a reasonable price, make it easily accessible and hamper it with as few limitations as possible. Very, very slowly, the major studios are coming around to this line of thinking. A few tentative (and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/18255119679/mpaa-points-to-its-roster-crappy-online-services-asks-what-were-complaining-about.shtml" target="_blank">pretty much awful</a>) steps have been taken, but it seems that for every minute, baby step forward, the motion picture industry staggers <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/19130920119/dvd-is-dying-hollywoods-plan-do-nothing-cede-ground-to-file-sharing.shtml" target="_blank">several steps back</a>.
<br /><br />
Case in point: Amazon's Instant Video service, which has "over 100,000 top movies and TV shows to rent or buy." This includes many new releases, and the purchaser can stream the movie indefinitely and at any time to compatible devices. The purchaser also has the option to download the movie to a PC or Kindle Fire for viewing without an internet connection.
<br /><br />
It all sounds like a pretty good deal, until you realize that <a href="http://consumerist.com/2012/10/16/that-amazon-video-you-bought-you-may-not-actually-be-able-to-watch-it/" target="_blank">the words "indefinitely" and "any time" mean something <i>completely different</i> to the studios</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Consumerist reader Rebecca found this out the hard way, when she purchased Puss In Boots for $14.99 from Amazon, believing that, per Amazon&rsquo;s marketing, she would be able to watch the movie when she wanted and for as many times as she wanted.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>And all was going well for a few weeks until Rebecca went to stream Puss In Boots and instead saw a message stating that the film was no longer available for viewing.</i>
</blockquote>
<center><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/pqMfY.png" style="width: 373px; height: 270px; " /></center>
<br /><br />
As Rebecca found out, "any time" means "any time the studio is not currently milking every last dollar out of its latest release by shuffling it in and out of rental, PPV and premium cable windows." Why these windows should matter to someone who has <i>already paid</i> for the movie is beyond me. After all, the purchaser should be able to set his or her own "window," starting from the point they paid for the movie and <i>going forward</i>.
<br /><br />
Amazon's marketing seems to agree with this customer-friendly "any time window." But once something like this happens, the real details come out. Rebecca contacted Amazon for some clarification on this <strike>bullshit</strike> "anomaly" and received this:
<blockquote>
<i>Due to licensing restrictions, videos can become temporarily unavailable for viewing or downloading. The video will automatically be made available again once that restriction ends.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>Availability of videos for purchase, re-download, or access from a backup copy is determined by the owners of the content. On very rare occasions, a video you previously purchased may become unavailable.</i>
</blockquote>
Well, that's <a href="http://store.engrish.com/woofcrt.html" target="_blank">kind of crap</a>. The video you "previously purchased" may become "unavailable" at the whims of "<b><i>THE OWNERS OF THE CONTENT</i></b>." No doubt wrinkles of incomprehension form on the brows of studio and label execs when customers make bizarre claims of "ownership" after purchasing movies and music. According to the execs, they only "<i>licensed</i>" the content to you (with all the billions of lousy stipulations that transaction entails). [Unless you're Eminem and demanding to be paid <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120629/16071619542/judge-slams-universal-music-trying-to-bamboozle-court-producers-over-eminem-royalties.shtml" target="_blank">larger "license" royalties</a>. In this specific case, you were sold actual songs.]
<br /><br />
While this studio chicanery is nothing new, especially when it comes to digital goods, Amazon isn't helping matters by burying the exceptions and limitations that come with purchasing "indefinite" access. The licensing restrictions Rebecca had detailed for her by Amazon appear <i>nowhere</i> on the purchase pages. In fact, the "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_lnav_dyn?ie=UTF8&amp;nodeId=200572830" target="_blank">Amazon Instant Video Usage Rules</a>" page carries none of this information either. Instead, it gives you this phrase and link:
<blockquote>
<i>Viewing Period: Indefinite &mdash; you may watch and re-watch your purchased videos as often as you want and as long as you want (subject to the limitations described in the Amazon Instant Video <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_left_sib?ie=UTF8&amp;nodeId=200026970" target="_blank">Terms of Use</a>).</i>
</blockquote>
The TOS link brings you to a less-than-helpful wall of text, leaving the purchaser to scroll up and down before finding the pertinent information that explains exactly <i>why</i> something they purchased is <i>unavailable</i>.
<blockquote>
<i>Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions and for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming. You may download and store your own copy of Purchased Digital Content on a Compatible Device authorized for such download so that you can view that Purchased Digital Content if it becomes unavailable for further download or streaming from the Service.</i>
</blockquote>
Nice, huh? For any reason, your purchase may be limited, unavailable or removed completely by the "content provider." Amazon suggests (when it's done letting you know that "hey, not our fault") that the purchaser download and store their own copies to avoid being locked out of their purchases by the content providers. Well, thanks for the suggestion, Amazon, but even that half-assed "workaround" is useless thanks to the fact that the content provider can also make purchases "unavailable for further download." It's not as if Dreamworks is going to send an email blast letting customers know that their purchased streams are about to vanish thanks to a six-week run on pay-per-view. And the studios certainly aren't going to tell customers "Download now because we're yanking that movie from Amazon completely." Everyone involved would just rather the problem be dealt with when the angry emails start pouring in, if at all.
<br /><br />
Now, Rebecca obviously prefers streaming, so getting shafted by the studios probably isn't going to drive her to massive torrenting. What <i>it may do</i>, however, is send her towards streaming services like Amazon Prime or Netflix. Because of its shortsighted urge to drain every last penny out of "Puss in Boots," Dreamworks seems willing to sacrifice actual "digital dollars" from Amazon Instant Video for the "digital dimes" of other streaming services. Of course, if the studio already has your $14.99, it's probably not very concerned about how satisfied you are with the spotty availability of your purchased <strike>movie</strike> license. It's not like Rebecca can <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_bc_nav?ie=UTF8&amp;nodeId=3757" target="_blank">return it</a>. All she can do is wait for Dreamworks to reopen her (prepaid) window.
<br /><br />
Streaming is becoming the preferred option for movies and music and Hollywood seems to be willing to fight it every step of the way. It's sad and it's ugly. The industry has crippled <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110930/13341216152/tv-companies-plan-to-make-hulu-suck-even-more-making-it-more-difficult-to-sell-hulu.shtml" target="_blank">Hulu</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110901/20203315773/starz-netflix-how-industry-jealousies-strangle-golden-goose.shtml" target="_blank">Netflix</a> (while offering nothing comparable of their own) and now seems ready and willing to kick Amazon and its customers around for as long as it can get away with it. It's one thing to play stupid games with content when customers are playing a flat rate for "all you can watch." It's quite another to yank content away from customers who have paid <i>directly</i> for a title at prices that rival a physical DVD purchase. That's not a "business model." That's abusing your customers for fun and profit.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/16282620737/studio-to-amazon-instant-video-customer-thanks-enjoy-your-blank-screen.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/16282620737/studio-to-amazon-instant-video-customer-thanks-enjoy-your-blank-screen.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/16282620737/studio-to-amazon-instant-video-customer-thanks-enjoy-your-blank-screen.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>watched-any-good-LICENSES-lately?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121017/16282620737</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:44:34 PST</pubDate>
<title>Redbox Won't Cave To Warner Bros. Demands; Will Buy WB DVDs From Other Sources And Rent Them</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/13421717628/redbox-wont-cave-to-warner-bros-demands-will-buy-wb-dvds-other-sources-rent-them.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/13421717628/redbox-wont-cave-to-warner-bros-demands-will-buy-wb-dvds-other-sources-rent-them.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With all the talk of movie studios trying to create a new window between DVD releases for sales, and DVD releases for rentals, it's sometimes forgotten that Redbox tried to fight this fight a few years ago... and ended up in a big <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0403026583.shtml">legal battle</a> with the studios, before <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1449188186.shtml">caving</a> and agreeing to delay rentals.  However, it appears that the company may be ready to fight back again.  Rather than accept an increased <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120107/01435817321/wb-hbo-continue-to-suck-economics-new-policies-encourage-piracy.shtml">56 day window</a> with other <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00110017595/warner-bros-just-keeps-pushing-people-to-piracy-new-deal-also-delays-queuing.shtml">annoying restrictions</a>, Redbox is apparently telling Warner Bros. to <a href="http://www.slashfilm.com/red-box-bow-warner-bros-unreasonable-56day-rental-delay/" target="_blank">take its dumb idea and to shove it</a>, because it'll just <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118049531.html?cmpid=RSS|News|LatestNews" target="_blank">buy the DVDs</a> from alternative sources:
<blockquote><i>
However, after lengthy talks between WB and Redbox this month, the companies couldn't come to an agreement over the new demands from the studio.
<br /><br />
Instead, Redbox has opted to turn to "alternate means" to purchase the films on DVD and Blu-ray it makes available to rent for as low as $1.20 a night through its more than 28,000 kiosks -- and offer them the same day they hit store shelves to buy, according to Redbox senior VP of marketing Gary Cohen.
</i></blockquote>
This could get interesting, because the last time they had this fight, the studios sought to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml">block</a> companies like Walmart from selling to Redbox, and Walmart put in place some restrictions to make it harder for Redbox to do this.  I still think Redbox could potentially <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1843016685.shtml">crowdsource</a> these purchases, and get around any restrictions. 
<br /><br />
 Either way, it's stories like this that show why the First Sale doctrine is so important.  Redbox should be able to buy from alternative sources and then be free to rent those movies.  And that's the case due to "first sale" rights -- even if Warner Brothers wants to pretend they don't exist.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/13421717628/redbox-wont-cave-to-warner-bros-demands-will-buy-wb-dvds-other-sources-rent-them.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/13421717628/redbox-wont-cave-to-warner-bros-demands-will-buy-wb-dvds-other-sources-rent-them.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/13421717628/redbox-wont-cave-to-warner-bros-demands-will-buy-wb-dvds-other-sources-rent-them.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-redbox</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120201/13421717628</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:44:43 PST</pubDate>
<title>Warner Bros. Wants You To 'Buy' Movies Instead Of Rent... And By 'Buy' It Means Spend More To Still 'Rent'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/03182816760/warner-bros-wants-you-to-buy-movies-instead-rent-buy-it-means-spend-more-to-still-rent.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/03182816760/warner-bros-wants-you-to-buy-movies-instead-rent-buy-it-means-spend-more-to-still-rent.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We pointed out that the early reviews of Hollywood's new UltraViolet DRM <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/12064316454/hollywoods-kinder-gentler-drm-ultraviolet-getting-slammed-reviews.shtml">aren't particularly good</a>, but the industry is still pushing forward with the idea.  Leading the way is Warner Bros., who is trying to turn the movie-based "social network" it bought a few months ago, Flixster, into the central hub for your movies.  The NY Times has an article about it, where it repeatedly claims that the strategy <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/business/media/with-flixster-studios-bet-consumers-will-buy-movies-again.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all" target="_blank">is all about trying to get people to "buy" movies again</a>, rather than just rent them via Netflix of Redbox.  Of course, I find this pretty funny, because <i>nothing</i> about UltraViolet is about actually "buying" anything.  You're still renting -- and if things ever went to court over, say, your first sale rights to resell a movie you "purchased" using UltraViolet, you can bet that Warner Bros. would be first in line to claim that the license shows you're merely renting the movie, and not buying it.  It's just that you're renting it on an open-ended timeline, basically until the studios bail on UltraViolet and shut down the servers.
<br /><br />
Rob Pegoraro, in commenting on the article, notes that oddly, <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/robpegoraro/status/135788086910132224" target="_blank">the article doesn't even mention DRM</a> in talking about why people don't want to buy from the studios or the fact that it's still much more convenient to get the content by unauthorized means.  But that concept still hasn't reached the brain trust at Warner Bros., who seems to insist that as long as you can access the movies you "bought" from anywhere, people will prefer that to file sharing.  While it's great that they're at least <i>trying</i> to add benefits, to make it more valuable and worth paying for, the whole thing smacks of someone's father trying to "act cool" for his kids' friends.  Warner Bros. still doesn't seem to understand <i>why</i> people like things like Netflix: the convenience.  Everything about Ultraviolet sounds inconvenient, and that hardly makes anyone want to "buy."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/03182816760/warner-bros-wants-you-to-buy-movies-instead-rent-buy-it-means-spend-more-to-still-rent.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/03182816760/warner-bros-wants-you-to-buy-movies-instead-rent-buy-it-means-spend-more-to-still-rent.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/03182816760/warner-bros-wants-you-to-buy-movies-instead-rent-buy-it-means-spend-more-to-still-rent.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-not-buying</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111114/03182816760</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Warner Bros. Hates Libraries, Wants To Embargo DVD Sales To Libraries For A Month</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/01403116466/warner-bros-hates-libraries-wants-to-embargo-dvd-sales-to-libraries-month.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/01403116466/warner-bros-hates-libraries-wants-to-embargo-dvd-sales-to-libraries-month.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The movie studios' short-sightedness knows no bounds, apparently.  Warner Bros., which has been the most aggressive of the big movie studios in getting companies like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml">Netflix</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1449188186.shtml">Redbox</a> not to rent its movies until 28-days after they go on sale, has now decided to <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Imposes-28-Day-New-Release-Library-Delay-116694" target="_blank">do the same thing for libraries</a>, putting in place a 28-day embargo on all DVD sales to libraries, from the time of the DVD release.  To make it even more obnoxious, they're removing bonus features and extras from movies sold to libraries.
<br /><br />
Here's the thing, though.  What's to stop a library from just buying an official version and lending it out?  The whole thing is pretty silly anyway.  Is Warner Bros. really thinking that if someone can't take out one of its movies from the library, that they'll really go buy the DVD from WB?  Also, doesn't this seem like a form of price fixing?
<br /><br />
In the end, though, it's unlikely to actually help.  Slightly more enlightened studios, such as Paramount, actually tested such 28-delays and looked at the data, which said Netflix and Redbox <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1842549841.shtml">don't cannibalize sales</a>, and appear to "expand" the movie business.  Too bad Warner Bros. hasn't seen that movie yet.  Perhaps they're still waiting for the 28-day delay to pass.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/01403116466/warner-bros-hates-libraries-wants-to-embargo-dvd-sales-to-libraries-month.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/01403116466/warner-bros-hates-libraries-wants-to-embargo-dvd-sales-to-libraries-month.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/01403116466/warner-bros-hates-libraries-wants-to-embargo-dvd-sales-to-libraries-month.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-come-on</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111022/01403116466</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 09:18:03 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Does Hollywood Insist On Making Online Movies So Annoying?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/11170014229/why-does-hollywood-insist-making-online-movies-so-annoying.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/11170014229/why-does-hollywood-insist-making-online-movies-so-annoying.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With Google announcing that it's now offering <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13347014" target="_blank">3,000 movies for "rental"</a> via both YouTube and Android, it's worth asking a simple question:
<blockquote><b>
Why does Hollywood insist on making online movies so damn annoying?
</b></blockquote>
If you look at pretty much all of the online rental options (with the exception of Netflix), the deal terms are almost always identical.  Prices range a bit, but for big name movies they're $3.99.  The rental term is 30 days from when you pay... but once you start watching, you only have 24 hours to watch.  This particular limitation is particularly annoying to those of us who don't always watch movies in a single sitting or a single day (it's amazing how your movie watching gets fragmented once you have little kids).
<br /><br />
Obviously, this has become the standard set of terms that the Hollywood studios are demanding, but these limitations are annoying and make no sense.  Why put artificial limitations on offerings like this, making them less valuable and a lot less interesting?  It also means that there's little innovation in the space.  Basically, every offering in the space (again, with the exception of Netflix, who got grandfathered in with its unlimited model) is basically the same.  The only innovation is around the device or the very front end of the service.  There's no innovation in the actual model, which is a shame, because this "standardized" offering is really quite annoying and not at all compelling.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/11170014229/why-does-hollywood-insist-making-online-movies-so-annoying.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/11170014229/why-does-hollywood-insist-making-online-movies-so-annoying.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/11170014229/why-does-hollywood-insist-making-online-movies-so-annoying.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>simple-questions</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110510/11170014229</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:40:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Studios Offering $30 Movie Rentals; Theater Owner Complains That He Can't Compete With That</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks back, we noted the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/03121213728/movie-studios-add-another-window-30-dollar-rental.shtml">rumors</a> that a bunch of studios were getting ready to offer $30 video-on-demand movie rentals, in an attempt to create a new tiered "window" much closer to the original theatrical release date.  It appears those stories are now confirmed, as DirecTV has said that it will, indeed, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-19/directv-starts-premium-rental-service-on-april-21-with-sony-film.html" target="_blank">be offering $30 film rentals</a> for movies just 10-weeks after their theatrical release.  Of course, before we discuss how bad an idea this is from the studio's perspective, let's look at the even more braindead response from movie theaters:
<blockquote><i>
Regency Theatres, based in Calabasas, California, will pull "Just Go With It" from its second-run theaters, where it was among the top two titles last weekend, said President Lyndon Golin.
<br><br>
"We don't want to show movies that are on TV," Golin said in a telephone interview. "We want to protect the movie-going experience."
</i></blockquote>
Protect the movie-going experience?  Huh? Does Golin even hear what he's saying.  First off, how does pulling the movie out of the theaters protect the movie-going experience?  It seems to do the opposite.  It seems to tell people "we <b>don't want</b> you to enjoy the movie-going experience" with this movie.  Golin seems to be <b>flat-out admitting that his movie theaters <i>suck</i></b>.  After all, if he can't provide a better movie-going experience than a TV at home, then apparently his theaters really aren't worth going to, right?
<br><br>
I've pointed this out in the past, but I can never understand theater owners who complain about competition from rentals or video streaming.  The whole point of a movie theater is that it's a social experience.  It's "going out" to the theaters.  It's enjoying the overall event on a giant screen.  Obviously with home theater systems, there is some competition, but theater owners can certainly provide an overall excellent theater experience, if they put some effort into it.  What Golin's statement here says is that he's not interested in trying, and he doesn't think his theater's experience can compete.  That's really more  of a statement about problems with his own theaters than about this new rental window.
<br><br>
As for the rental window, it'll be interesting to see who actually pays $30.  I understand the <i>studios'</i> logic.  They think they're providing extra value by making a movie available earlier.  But that's not -- at all -- how consumers are likely to view this.  They're going to compare it to Netflix or other PPV/rental options and have no idea why the studios and DirecTV think they can get away with charging many multiples higher.
<br><br>
Of course, going back to the theaters' response, it seems even more ridiculous when you realize that Regency doesn't even think it can compete with a ridiculously overprice home rental option that very few people are going to choose.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/10464213975/studios-offering-30-movie-rentals-theater-owner-complains-that-he-cant-compete-with-that.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah-that'll-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110420/10464213975</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:23:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Redbox Realizing That Caving To Hollywood On 28-Day Delay Was A Bad Idea</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/11010112671/redbox-realizing-that-caving-to-hollywood-28-day-delay-was-bad-idea.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/11010112671/redbox-realizing-that-caving-to-hollywood-28-day-delay-was-bad-idea.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We were pretty surprised when Redbox <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100423/1148439156.shtml">caved in</a> to the Hollywood studios, and agreed to annoy its customers with a ridiculous 28-day delay.  We had many commenters say that people wouldn't care and it wasn't much of a big deal.  However, the company is now admitting that the 28-day delay resulted in <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20028545-17.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">much lower holiday rentals than it had expected</a>.  Meanwhile, the only studio that has publicly released information about how its experiments with the 28-day delay went, Paramount, has said that such delays <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1842549841.shtml">are bad for business</a>, as it doesn't increase sales of DVDs, and that allowing Redbox to rent movies sooner actually helped the studio (and Redbox) make more money.  So why do we still have those delays?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/11010112671/redbox-realizing-that-caving-to-hollywood-28-day-delay-was-bad-idea.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/11010112671/redbox-realizing-that-caving-to-hollywood-28-day-delay-was-bad-idea.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/11010112671/redbox-realizing-that-caving-to-hollywood-28-day-delay-was-bad-idea.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>duh</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110114/11010112671</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:31:48 PST</pubDate>
<title>Movie Studios Purposely Crippling Rental DVDs In Misguided Effort To Get People To Buy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/16561912221/movie-studios-purposely-crippling-rental-dvds-misguided-effort-to-get-people-to-buy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/16561912221/movie-studios-purposely-crippling-rental-dvds-misguided-effort-to-get-people-to-buy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ What is it about the entertainment industry that actually makes them think that it's a smart move to take features away from consumers?  They seem to focus on building business models by pissing off as many people as possible, and then wondering why those people seek out alternatives.  Case in point, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=visual77">visual77</a> points us to the news that movie studios are increasingly offering up <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/12/movie-studios-blocking-special-features-on-rental-dvds.html" target="_blank">feature-limited DVDs for the rental market</a>, and then encouraging you to buy the DVD itself if you want all the features.  As Consumerist reports:
<blockquote><i>
Consumerist reader Joseph brought this to our attention after he spent $3.99 to rent the DVD of Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World from Blockbuster. When he went to the disc's main menu and attempted to watch the Blooper Reel special feature, he was greeted by a screen telling him: "This disc is intended for rental purposes and only includes the feature film. Own it on Blu-Ray or DVD to view these bonus features and complete your movie watching experience."
</i></blockquote>
This is the same thinking that leads the studios to seek to have rental places <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml">delay movies</a> for a month.  The entire business model seems to be centered on creating artificial scarcities that piss off people.  Is it really so difficult for the industry to realize that they can make more money by <i>adding value</i> and actually delivering what people want?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/16561912221/movie-studios-purposely-crippling-rental-dvds-misguided-effort-to-get-people-to-buy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/16561912221/movie-studios-purposely-crippling-rental-dvds-misguided-effort-to-get-people-to-buy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/16561912221/movie-studios-purposely-crippling-rental-dvds-misguided-effort-to-get-people-to-buy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>taking-away-features-is-not-a-strategy</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101209/16561912221</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:32:27 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Warner Bros. So Thrilled With Netflix 28-Day Delays, It Wants To Have Longer Delays</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101103/12122611707/warner-bros-so-thrilled-with-netflix-28-day-delays-it-wants-to-have-longer-delays.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101103/12122611707/warner-bros-so-thrilled-with-netflix-28-day-delays-it-wants-to-have-longer-delays.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Hollywood continues to seek new and ever-more creative ways to shoot itself in the foot and drive movie fans to unauthorized copies of movies.  Earlier this year, Warner Bros. studios was successful in pressuring Netflix and Redbox to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml">delay rental releases</a> by 28-days, with the hope that people who couldn't rent the movie would buy it.  Warner Bros. has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12213211291/warner-bros-claims-that-annoying-customers-with-28-day-rental-delay-is-working.shtml">claiming this strategy succeeded</a> and that they've sold more DVDs because of it.  I would doubt that it's the delay that's increasing sales, and it seems like a pretty short-sighted strategy to look to increase sales of a format like DVD right now.  Either way, Warner Bros. is now <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-03/time-warner-may-consider-longer-delay-for-netflix-redbox.html" target="_blank">claiming it may try to <i>increase</i> the window over 28-days</a>.  It's as if they <i>want</i> to drive more people to get the movie from unauthorized providers.  Making it <i>more difficult</i> to let people watch movies the way they want to isn't a solution that will work long-term.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101103/12122611707/warner-bros-so-thrilled-with-netflix-28-day-delays-it-wants-to-have-longer-delays.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101103/12122611707/warner-bros-so-thrilled-with-netflix-28-day-delays-it-wants-to-have-longer-delays.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101103/12122611707/warner-bros-so-thrilled-with-netflix-28-day-delays-it-wants-to-have-longer-delays.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>driving-fans-to-piracy</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101103/12122611707</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:48:02 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Story Recycler: Oh Look, Google Interested In Renting Videos... Yet Again</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100830/01112910814.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100830/01112910814.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Almost exactly a year ago, the tech press went nuts over rumors that Google was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090903/0340246095.shtml">negotiating with movie studios</a> to allow movie rentals via YouTube.  At the time, we pointed out how odd it was that none of the press coverage seemed to point out that when Google first launched its Google Video offering, it was all based around video rentals with annoying DRM, and it failed miserably.  Instead, everyone went to YouTube, and Google eventually had to buy up the site.  And, again, when the company ran a trial earlier this year, reports came out about the fact that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100202/1915328019.shtml">very, very few</a> people actually paid.  Google and video rentals don't have a very good history.
<br /><br />
So again, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the tech press is pushing a story of rumors that <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20015000-93.html" target="_blank">Google is negotiating with the Hollywood studios to do movie rentals via YouTube</a>.  It's nearly the identical story to the one this week last year.  If I didn't know any better, I'd think that someone at the Financial Times, who "broke" this story, just misread the year on an email somewhere.  Perhaps somewhere along the line Google will figure out a way to do movie rentals that work, but the silly fawning over "video rentals" just because (oh my goodness!) Google is supposedly entering the market seems misplaced (especially when no one seems to want to talk about its previous failures).  The Financial Times report says that Google's new offering "has caused excitement in Hollywood," but, if anything, that seems like even more evidence that it's doomed to fail.
<br /><br />
Separately, I should note that I'm not linking to the FT version of this article, because FT's paywall makes it difficult for most people here to read it.  A PR person from the FT sent me the article, but I'm not sure what they expect me to do with it.  It doesn't do much good for me to link all of the readers here to an article they can't read, does it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100830/01112910814.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100830/01112910814.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100830/01112910814.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>we've-heard-this-before</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100830/01112910814</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:35:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Comcast And Blockbuster Team Up To Make Us Wonder Why They've Teamed Up</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/00525710543.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/00525710543.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It seems like Comcast is a bit confused about the technology that it offers to its customers, which involves a generally fat broadband pipe to users, through which they can access all sorts of content, including on demand videos.  So, you might think that if Comcast were to team up with a company like Netflix or Blockbuster, it would be to deliver streaming content.  Nope.  Apparently Comcast has <a href="http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2010-08/comcast-blockbuster-devolve-dvds-by-mail/" target="_blank">done a deal with Blockbuster to deliver DVDs by mail</a>.  That's literally what the two companies are calling the product: "DVDsByMail."  It's not like this hasn't been done for ages by both Netflix and Blockbuster.  It's not clear what Comcast brings to the table here other than the "um... why?" factor it adds by wondering why Comcast is involved in something that doesn't involved delivering content over its own network, but using the US Postal Service's "network" instead.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/00525710543.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/00525710543.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/00525710543.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hey,-Comcast,-you-have-a-fat-pipe</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100809/00525710543</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:53:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Paramount Says 28 Day Delay On Redbox Makes No Sense; Doesn't Cannibalize DVD Sales</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1842549841.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1842549841.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While some of the Big 6 studios have been incredibly anti-Redbox, Viacom's Paramount has always been the most reasonable towards the DVD-rental kiosk provider.  So it really comes as little surprise that Paramount has announced that, after testing delayed movie releases through Redbox <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/homeentertainment/la-fi-ct-paramount-20100616,0,6627188.story" target="_blank">it sees absolutely no reason to keep delaying such releases</a> and instead will offer new release movies on Redbox at the same time the DVD goes on sale:
<blockquote><i>
"There were two conclusions we came to," said Dennis Maguire, president of Paramount Home Entertainment. "There hasn't been a cannibalization of DVD sales from Redbox, and Redbox was allowing us to expand our business and ultimately make more money" than if the studio held back its DVDs to Redbox for a period of time.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, this is exactly what many people said when studios like Warner Bros., Universal and Fox demanded the 28 day release, but it's nice to at least see Paramount actually looking at the data and realizing that Redbox isn't the evil destroyer of Hollywood that some of its competitors have made it out to be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1842549841.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1842549841.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/1842549841.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100615/1842549841</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Blockbuster Using Its Deal With Warner Bros. To Mock Redbox And Netflix</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1833238859.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1833238859.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall that, at the end of March, Warner Bros. studios did a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100323/1418578683.shtml">new deal with Blockbuster</a> that seemed likely to confuse the hell out of consumers.  That's because Warner Bros., in its backwards-looking wisdom, had already done deals with both <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1853427844.shtml">Netflix</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1449188186.shtml">Redbox</a> to <i>not</i> make new release movies available to rent until 28 days after their release.  There is no good reason for this, other than it pisses off customers all around, and makes them less interested or inclined to bother watching Warner Bros. movies (hint to WB: you have competitors).
<br /><br />
But the Blockbuster deal seemed confusing -- because most consumers wouldn't be following these silly deals and wouldn't understand why a movie had been "released" but wasn't available via their favorite rental service.  Apparently, Blockbuster's answer to all this is to mock Netflix and Redbox for not carrying new releases.  Seriously.  Reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=kip256">Daylyn</a> sends in the following ad he recently saw that points out that Netflix and Redbox don't carry this movie:
<center>
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/4485090593_e56a7ed20d.jpg"/>
</center>
Apparently, this is all part of Blockbuster's new WB-partnered advertising campaign: "hey, the movie studios screwed over our competitors! rent from us!"  Looking around, it appears <a href="http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/25/new-blockbuster-advertising-slams-netflixredbox/" target="_blank">a few others have noticed this campaign as well</a>, which went into place quite quickly after the WB deal was announced.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1833238859.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1833238859.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1833238859.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>getting-desperate?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100402/1833238859</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:50:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Warner Bros. Latest Movie Release Strategy? Confuse The Hell Out Of The Market And Prop Up Blockbuster?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100323/1418578683.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100323/1418578683.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's tough to figure Warner Bros. out these days.  It got both <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1853427844.shtml">Netflix</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1449188186.shtml">Redbox</a> to agree to delay renting new release movies for 28 days in an effort to get more people to purchase DVDs.  For this, it got hit with a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/1548298442.shtml">class action lawsuit</a>.  But now comes the news that it's <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/23/warner-bros-blockbuster/" target="_blank">signed a new deal with the financially troubled Blockbuster that has no such restriction</a>.  This has lots of people scratching their heads.  The obvious answer is that Blockbuster is promising Warner a lot more money...
<br /><br />
But there's a bigger issue here, which goes beyond just commentators scratching their heads: this is going to confuse a lot of customers at a time when that's the <i>last thing</i> Warner Bros. should be doing.  Your average movie renter isn't paying attention to the silly games that Warner execs are playing, and all they want to know is how come they can't rent the latest release.  If Warner somehow convinced all players not to rent until a certain date, then that would effectively have just shifted the release date further back (a dumb move in an age when windows are shrinking... but that's Hollywood for you).  However, by having the movie available for rental in some places, but not others, it's now setting itself up for mass customer confusion, where people will hear that a movie is available, but then get pissed off that it's not available in their preferred rental system.
<br /><br />
It's as if the folks in Hollywood haven't been paying attention to what happens to companies that aren't providing what their customers want.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100323/1418578683.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100323/1418578683.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100323/1418578683.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>at-least-that's-what-it-appears-to-be</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100323/1418578683</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:59:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Netflix, Warner Bros., Sued In Class Action Lawsuit Over Delayed Movie Window</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/1548298442.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/1548298442.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Warner Bros. has been busy getting both <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml">Netflix</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1449188186.shtml">Redbox</a> to agree to delay renting new release DVDs for 28 days, in the misguided belief that this will get more people to buy the DVDs.  While Netflix has tried to spin this as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1853427844.shtml">benefiting customers</a> it appears plenty of customers see otherwise.  Specifically, at least one customer has <a href="http://gothamist.com/2010/03/05/manhattan_woman_sues_netflix.php" target="_blank">filed a class action lawsuit against both Warner Bros. and Netflix</a>, alleging that this is restraint of trade and has decreased the value of a Netflix subscription (thanks to Eric for sending this over).  It seems unlikely that this lawsuit will get very far, but it certainly suggests that at least some Netflix customers are none too pleased with this move, despite Netflix's claims.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/1548298442.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/1548298442.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/1548298442.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pissing-off-customers-left-and-right</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100305/1548298442</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:10:42 PST</pubDate>
<title>Redbox Caves To Warner Bros., Will Delay New Movie Releases From Kiosks</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1449188186.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1449188186.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Some of the movie studios (admittedly, not all of them) have been on a braindead fight against Redbox -- despite the fact that Redbox had created a service that people <i>liked</i> and were <i>paying for</i> and that <i>generated revenue</i> for the movie industry.  There are still <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0403026583.shtml">ongoing lawsuits</a>, but today came the news that <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10454366-261.html" target="_blank">Redbox caved to Warner Bros., on the most important point: delaying the availability of new release movies</a> until 28 days after the release.  Yes, this is the same deal that Warner Bros. <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml">convinced Netflix to agree to</a> last month.  Basically, Warner Bros. is telling people to either <i>not rent</i> its video or to download them from an unauthorized source.
<br /><br />
The whole thing makes no sense at all.  Warner Bros. mistakenly thinks that if people can't rent a particular DVD in the first four weeks of release, they're more likely to shell out money to actually buy the DVD.  This is Warner Bros. pretending that it can influence customer behavior by denying them what they want.  That's a strategy that has never worked well.  What this means is that at the moment when Warner Bros. actually puts some marketing effort behind the DVD release, that movie <i>will not be available</i> from the most popular rental options.  And, the bizarre reasoning put forth by Netflix that this would <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1853427844.shtml">benefit customers</a> by improving inventory and availability of movies is <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/16/warner-bros-redbox-rentals/" target="_blank">not seen in reality</a>.  So rather than pissing off some customers because a movie is not available, you're now pissing off <i>all customers</i> by making the movie not be available <i>on purpose</i>, and then effectively massively <i>increasing</i> the amount of time they have to wait to see the movie?  Does no one at Warner realize that a lot of those "customers" will simply decide to go see other movies or to download an unauthorized copy instead?
<br /><br />
Based on Warner Bros., logic here, why release movies at all?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1449188186.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1449188186.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1449188186.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>dumber-and-dumber</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100216/1449188186</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:51:16 PST</pubDate>
<title>Blockbuster Blames 'Piracy' Rather Than Bad Strategy For Bankruptcy In Portugal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100210/1137578112.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100210/1137578112.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=paperbag">paperbag</a> was the first of a whole bunch of you to send in the news of Blockbuster declaring bankruptcy in Portugal and claiming that <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/10/blockbuster-files-for-bankruptcy-in-portugal-blames-internet-pi/" target="_blank">it's all the fault of those darn kids and their downloading</a>.  Well, more specifically, it blames the government for not doing enough to stop the sun from rising every morning... I mean, from stopping people from engaging in unauthorized file trading online.  This is just an excuse for a company that failed to execute.  The number of folks accessing unauthorized movies online is still a blip, and almost certainly had little impact on Blockbuster's bottom line.  The simple fact is that Blockbuster, worldwide, has done a really poor job of adapting to a changing world.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100210/1137578112.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100210/1137578112.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100210/1137578112.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>gotta-blame-someone</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100210/1137578112</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:40:33 PST</pubDate>
<title>Wal-Mart, Target Trying To Block Redbox From Purchasing DVDs?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've described how some film studios are in a huge <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0403026583.shtml">legal fight</a> with Redbox over DVD rentals.  While some studios have come to their senses and are happy to work with Redbox, others have been trying to pressure the company into giving it a cut of rental revenue and/or delaying when it rents newly-released movies.  Those studios convinced the big distribution wholesalers to stop selling to Redbox (which seems like a pretty clear restraint of trade or antitrust issue), and in at least one case had convinced <i>retailers</i> not to sell to Redbox.  Of course, there are ways around that as well, and we even suggested that Redbox could <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1843016685.shtml">crowdsource</a> its movie purchasing.
<br /><br />
In fact, to get around the studio blocks, Redbox was apparently already purchasing 40% of its DVDs at retail locations like Target and Wal-Mart.  But both retailers are now making that more difficult.  They've <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2010/tc2010022_125668.htm" target="_blank">put in place limits directly targeted at Redbox</a>, saying they won't sell more than five DVDs at any one time to any buyer.  Yes, here we have a customer willing to buy an awful lot of product -- at full retail price -- and these retailers won't let them?  While they claim it's to make sure movies are available for other customers, given the earlier reports of studios specifically asking retailers to block Redbox from buying, it makes you wonder.  What sort of company would tell willing customers they can't buy a product that is available and in stock?
<br /><br />
Still, in the end I doubt those limits will be very effective.  Redbox still could go with that crowdsourced concept, and get its subscribers to purchase five DVDs at a time in exchange for free rentals.  Eventually, the industry is going to have to realize that fighting Redbox is a mistake.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-nice-of-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100204/1222178053</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:34:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Netflix Exec Claims That Delaying Movie Rentals For A Month Benefits Customers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1853427844.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1853427844.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With Netflix caving in to Warner Bros. and agreeing to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml">delay</a> offering DVDs for 28 days after release in order to get movies to stream online, it certainly pissed off a bunch of Netflix subscribers.  But, you've apparently got it all wrong.  A Netflix exec is now trying to explain how <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Netflix-Exec-Defends-28-Day-Deal-106496" target="_blank">the deal is pro-customer</a> because it will keep demand down for the DVDs, meaning that when they finally do come out, you may have a better chance to rent them.  Seriously:
<blockquote><i>
The most practical reason is that the savings derived from this deal enable us to be in stock completely on day 29. Remember that we're a subscription service and the way that you manage the economics of a subscription service is to manage the demand of any disc, depending on the economics of the disc. In the case of the most expensive disc, which in this case is a Warner Bros. disc, purchased through a 3rd party, those discs were out of stock for far longer than 29 days for most Netflix subscribers.
<br /><br />
So what were able to is create a deal with them that gave them a little open running room in terms of creating a sell-through window ahead of rental, for us, and hopefully that they'll find enough value in that it'll extend to other retailers and other studios will take note and it'll extend across other studios as well. The net savings derived from technically creating a better customer experience have been redeployed in additional streaming content for all customers.
</i></blockquote>
I'm still trying to parse this, but it really does sound like he's saying that Netflix couldn't handle the demand for new releases before, so by getting rid of them entirely, it may be able to handle them on the 29th day, since fewer people will care about renting that movie then.  Now, you could claim that's a better customer experience if you ignore the 28 days in which <i>no one</i> on Netflix can rent the movie (though they can get it elsewhere).  But if you realize that you're now taking away the ability to serve all of your customers for nearly a month at the point when their demand is likely to be the highest... well, that doesn't seem very customer friendly at all.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1853427844.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1853427844.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/1853427844.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>assuming-you-didn't-want-to-see-that-movie-when-it-was-released</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100120/1853427844</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:23:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Warner Bros. Gets Netflix To Delay Movies; You Don't Save Your Business By Pissing Off Your Customers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While not a huge surprise, it's worth discussing just how <i>bad</i> an idea it was for Warner Bros. Studios to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10426792-261.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">get Netflix to delay renting DVDs of its movies for 28 days</a> in order to offer up more streaming content.  To recap, the very, very, very confused movie studios seem to think that the way to deal with increasing competition is to just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0347016672.shtml">add more windows</a> to releases -- and one way to do that is to delay when you can rent a movie.  In the studios' incredibly short-sighted thinking, they believe this will make more people <i>buy</i> DVDs -- the one area of the movie business that has been on the decline of late.  At the same time, the studios have been pissed off at Netflix for routing around them and getting rights to stream movies from Starz, and as such, have been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091230/0956577549.shtml">denying requests</a> to stream more movies.
<br /><br />
So, the compromise is getting Netflix to delay the rentals in exchange for more streaming content.
<br /><br />
It's hard to express just how bad an idea this is for Warner Bros., and how far out of touch with their customers they must be to think this makes any sense from a business standpoint.  What they are saying is that they are <i>not</i> going to give in to customer demand and offer them what they want, but actually make it <i>more difficult</i>, <i>more annoying</i> and <i>more confusing</i> for them to get what they want -- and (at the same time!) screwing up basic marketing plans as well.  Now, when movies are released on DVD and the large group of people who prefers renting to buying goes online to their Netflix account to do so, <i>they won't be able to</i>.  Four weeks later, they'll be looking for something else.  And, for those who simply want to see it right away, they're now <i>more likely</i> to get it in an unauthorized manner.
<br /><br />
Under what set of logic would it ever make sense to give the customer less of what they want in an era when increased competition from other sources is causing them to already wonder if they should buy your product?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100106/1804437638.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-a-mistake</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100106/1804437638</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 03:49:14 PST</pubDate>
<title>Amazon Announces It Sold More Kindle Books Than Physical Books On Christmas... But Doesn't It Mean Rented?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091227/2149027505.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091227/2149027505.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lots of folks have sent in various versions of Amazon's hyped up press release about how it <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&#038;p=irol-newsArticle&#038;ID=1369429&#038;highlight=" target="_blank">sold more ebooks on Christmas than physical books</a>.  While this ought to make some publishers <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091210/0529527289.shtml">reconsider</a> their hatred of ebooks, there are two points that make this rather meaningless.  First, how many physical books are usually sold on Amazon on Christmas day?  My guess is not very many.  Books are purchased before Christmas day.  However, I'm sure plenty of people did get new Kindles on Christmas, and quite a few then went and "purchased" an ebook or two to test it out.
<br /><br />
But, again, since this is the Kindle we're talking about, shouldn't Amazon make the distinction between purchased and rented?  When someone buys a physical book from Amazon, they then own that book and can do pretty much what they want with it, including reselling it or giving it away.  When they "purchase" an ebook from Amazon, that's not the case at all.  They're quite limited in what they can do with it.  They can't resell it.  They can't share it with a friend (unless they give up their entire Kindle and all the books on it).  And, of course, Amazon can make the ebook disappear at will -- though, it insists it will never do this <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1559425587.shtml">again</a>.  Even though it can.  So, congrats to Amazon, for renting more books on a day when such rentals are to be expected and when physical book sales are probably at their very lowest.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091227/2149027505.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091227/2149027505.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091227/2149027505.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it-ain't-a-purchase-if-you-don't-own-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091227/2149027505</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:49:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Study Being Promoted As 'Redbox Kills Jobs' Actually Shows That Hollywood Jobs Will Grow</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091207/2310207240.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091207/2310207240.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already been covering <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0403026583.shtml">Redbox's legal fight</a> with a few movie studios who so hate the idea that Redbox is actually giving people something they want (legally) at a reasonable price (legally), that they want to kill it.  The whole thing is so ridiculous that it's difficult to believe there's anyone out there defending the anti-Redbox studios' position (and, in fact, a couple of the other studios, with Paramount in the lead, have realized that it's smarter to partner with Redbox than to try to kill it).  Yet, the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (a non-profit with LA government connections) has put out a report claiming that <a href="http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/12/07/study-says-low-cost-dvd-rentals-could-lead-1-billi/" target="_blank">Redbox kills jobs and harms the economy throughout Los Angeles</a> (thanks to reader Valkor for sending this in).  If you want, you can read the <a href="http://www.laedc.org/reports/consulting/2009_RedboxRentals.pdf" target="_blank">full report</a> (pdf) -- but prepare to be amazed as what the report actually says is quite different than the press release headline.
<br /><br />
Hidden within the report are claims that the industry will continue to <i>grow</i> nicely for the next decade and that alternative business models will develop that <i>more than compensate</i> for any loss of revenue from reduced rental prices.  But that's not what the headline of the press release says.  No, it reads:
<blockquote><i>
Study says low-cost DVD rentals could lead to $1 billion, 9,280 jobs lost
</i></blockquote>
But, deep in the actual report?  Why, it says the following:
<blockquote><i>
The shift to digital delivery will provide new revenue streams for the industry and new opportunities... Increased availability of all types of digital content and media have changed lifestyles and will continue to contribute to demand for video products.  Indeed, SNL Kagan forecasts continuing growth in overall industry revenues as alternative streams compensate for this loss of revenue.  In total, SNL Kagan projects an increase in distributor revenues from all sources worldwide from $51.3 billion in 2008 to $67.6 billion in 2017.  While the composition of these revenues will clearly change, distributors will continue to experience revenue growth into the next decade.
</i></blockquote>
So how does it get from that to the headline?  Well, it assumes that Redbox is decreasing revenue from traditional rental, and seems to assume that these other alternative revenue streams are not influenced by Redbox or other forms of distribution that are more convenient and cheaper and attract a new or different audience -- which seems like a dubious assumption.  Another way of looking at this: it's as if the horse and buggy industry put out a report just as automobiles were coming to market that said, yes, the auto industry will be huge and will create millions of new jobs, but because a much smaller number of jobs are lost due to downsizing the carriage market, we can release a report saying that the auto industry is "killing jobs."  Logically, that's ridiculous.
<br /><br />
On top of that, it makes some odd assumptions throughout the report, continually throwing out the idea that Redbox itself might increase the revenue for the industry, repeatedly suggesting that the industry is mature and if there were a way to get more revenue out of it, it would have already been discovered.  Of course, considering that the market has long been dominated by a single player, not prone to innovating, and with close ties to studios that have limited some of how it could act -- that assumption is highly suspect.  In fact, the very reason that Redbox has been so popular (and which also explains the rise of Netflix) has been consumer dissatisfaction with the old Blockbuster model, which was designed to squeeze consumers.
<br /><br />
To the authors' credit, they do try to be fair on other numbers and assumptions, recognizing that effects go in multiple directions and that there are other issues at play, but the press release headline claiming that Redbox costs the industry a billion dollars and nearly 10,000 jobs, when the actual report claims that revenue is increasing and will continue to do so, just seems hard to swallow.  Unfortunately, <i>every single</i> press report covering this study seems to only take the PR headline from the report and repeat it, without anyone appearing to have read the part of the report that says the exact opposite of what the headline claims.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091207/2310207240.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091207/2310207240.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091207/2310207240.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-what-they-said...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091207/2310207240</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dear Hollywood: Don't Be Idiots; Don't Delay Movie Rentals</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0347016672.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0347016672.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Sometimes you just shake your head at ideas that come out of some executives that are just so incredibly dumb, it makes you wonder how anyone ever took them seriously.  There have been some hints about this latest one, though.  Just last week, in discussing the latest IP Colloquium podcast, we noted (with surprise) that Paramount's top lawyer thought the solution to business model problems in the entertainment industry was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/0251446630.shtml">"more windows."</a>  Windows, of course, are the different time periods in which movies are released solely for different formats/media.  So, it starts with the theater (the first window), followed by video, pay per view, cable and network TV -- each representing another window, and another chance to squeeze more money out of the same content.
<br /><br />
Yet, with the industry facing some challenges, rather than actually looking at <i>what users want</i>, its top brains seem to think that the answer is <i>more windows</i>.  It's hard to explain how incredibly short-sighted this is, because it's so monumentally backwards that it makes you wonder what they're thinking.  At best, my guess is that the execs are extrapolating out in the simplest form that with the launch of each "window" they make more money, so the way to make even more money must be to offer more windows.  Of course, this assumes two rather basic things that are totally wrong.  One, is that these windows won't <i>piss off users</i> and two, that those users have no alternatives.
<br /><br />
But, apparently not realizing that, these execs have hit upon a few different attempts to add more windows.  First, they've been pushing for the permission to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080721/0742051745.shtml">break your TV or DVR</a> with selectable output control barring your ability to tape movies.  This way, they can create a new "window" of movies on TV that <i>you can't record</i>, that they can offer before the movies even get out on video.  Of course, this will (a) piss people off and (b) drive them to more piracy.  Brilliant.
<br /><br />
The other attempt, is to get video rental places to <i>stop renting movies</i> when the DVDs first come out.  The LA Times had an entire article <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-dvd23-2009oct23,0,1148449.story" target="_blank">explaining this plan</a>, whereby the studios would force all rental services, including Netflix and Blockbuster to not rent certain films -- but only offer them for sale.  The idea (short-sighted as it is), is that this would somehow force people to buy more DVDs, which gives the studios a higher margin than rentals.  We actually heard about this earlier this year with the contract terms that the studios tried to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0506145885.shtml">put on Redbox</a>, but it's apparently trying to do the same with Netflix and Blockbuster as well.
<br /><br />
This idea is so bad that even the LA Times, who tends to support its hometown industry more often than go against it, put out a separate <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/10/the-hollywood-plot-to-turn-dvd-renters-into-buyers.html" target="_blank">opinion piece</a> with the original article, calling this new idea "crazy" and "absurd."
<br /><br />
In the meantime, what do customers actually want?  Well, there's pretty good evidence they prefer <i>choice</i> not being limited by windows.  They've been clamoring for so-called "day-and-date" release, whereby all these windows are compressed.  If you don't want to see a movie in the theater, why not be able to get the DVD?  It's as if the studios don't realize that part of what they're selling is the social experience of "going out" to the theater.  Even better, if the DVD comes out at the same time as the theater version of the film, less marketing money needs to be spent to sell more DVDs, and you can do nice tie-ins, like having the ability to buy the DVD as you walk out of the theater.  Giving people more value and more choice is what the market is asking for.
<br /><br />
Instead, Hollywood execs are trying to take away choice and limit value.  Incredible.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0347016672.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0347016672.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0347016672.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seriously</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091026/0347016672</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:53:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hollywood's War With Redbox Expanding To Netflix As Well?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0506145885.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0506145885.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Hollywood really never learns, does it?  Following 20th Century Fox's decision to try to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090807/0321005804.shtml">stop Redbox</a> from getting movies to rent via its kiosks (to which Redbox has responded by <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-redbox13-2009aug13,0,3034157.story" target="_blank">suing Fox</a>), Warner Bros. has joined in as well, but <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/08/warner-bros-going-after-netflix-along-with-redbox.html" target="_blank">isn't just trying to stop Redbox, but Netflix, too</a>.  It wants to force both companies not to rent DVDs until a month after the DVDs are actually released... unless the companies agree to share revenue from the rentals.
<br /><br />
There's basically no legal basis for this move, which would only serve to piss off consumers (yet again).  These companies are free to buy the DVDs and rent them out, but the studios want a cut of every rental.  It's sort of like video game makes demanding a cut of every used game sale, or an artist demanding a cut every time a piece of his artwork is sold.  It's entitlement society all over again.  Nothing should happen without the original company getting paid.  What they don't realize is how this limits them.  Netflix and Redbox become <i>less</i> interested in promoting Warner Bros.' movies, because they're now a lot more expensive to those companies.  Instead, Hollywood is handing incentives over to these companies to promote other films that don't demand their tithe.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0506145885.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0506145885.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0506145885.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>shooting-the-foot</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090814/0506145885</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>