Techdirt. Stories filed under "vod"

Is Comcast Thumbing Its Nose At FCC's Open Internet Rules By Exempting Xbox VOD From Data Cap?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:26:34 PDT

As was somewhat expected, this week Comcast announced its plans to offer Xfinity video on demand via the Xbox 360... which will require customers to subscribe to both Xfinity TV and the broadband service, meaning that this isn't a solution for getting around your cable subscription (of course, because Comcast doesn't want you ditching your cable TV). But what's getting much more attention is the announcement that such streaming video won't count against Comcasts' broadband caps, raising some significant questions concerning whether or not Comcast is following the FCC's open internet rules -- the same rules that were put in place to stop Comcast from degrading certain services in favor of others. Comcast, for it part, insists that the rules don't apply to this VOD service, since it's coming over its private network, rather than the public internet, but it's certainly tiptoeing along a fairly fine line. I think the bigger issue is why the cap exists in the first place. But, in the long run, Comcast is definitely trying to back its way into being able set up "most favored nation" status with certain providers, which really does impinge on the internet's basic end-to-end principles.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Universal Backs Away From Planned $60 VOD Release Of Tower Heist

Zachary Knight — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:01:00 PDT

It was barely a week ago when we reported that Universal was planning to test a $60 Video On Demand release of Tower Heist only 3 weeks after the theatrical release of the film. In that report, we noted that theater owners were threatening to boycott the film if Universal went ahead with its plans. We now learn that Universal has given into the demands of theater owners and will be putting off its early VOD release of this film. This is not all too surprising as Universal would not want to damage its relationships with theater owners. However, Universal still plans to go forward in the future with this plan as soon as it finds a mutually beneficial deal with theater owners. Nowhere, however, is there any indication that Universal is seeking a plan that is mutually beneficial to consumers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Kevin Smith Continues To Innovate: Offering VOD Before Theatrical Release... But Also Offering Incentives To Go To The Theater

Mike Masnick — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:26:00 PDT

We've been following, with great interest, entertainer Kevin Smith's business model improvisations for quite some time now, including some of his podcasting and speaking efforts (beyond just being a filmmaker). We've also been interested in his attempt to go around the "traditional" movie marketing and distribution schemes with his latest flick, Red State. While many attacked or panned his plans to tour directly with the movie and then self-release it in theaters, that plan has made the movie profitable, even before the theatrical release. And, in the land of Hollywood accounting, where most movies -- even the most "successful" are never "profitable," that's quite a feat.

The latest in this plan is that Smith has done a deal with Lionsgate for Video-on-Demand and DVD/Blu-ray distribution. From the beginning, he'd made it clear that he wanted to partner on those things, so this isn't a huge surprise. Where it does get interesting is that the VOD plan will hit the market on Labor Day this September. That's noteworthy, because the theatrical release doesn't happen until October, over a month after the VOD release. And... as we've noted, theater owners are so clueless about what it is they really offer the public, that they're absolutely spooked by any kind of non-theatrical release that doesn't happen many months after the theatrical release, insisting that they just can't compete.

So I would imagine that some theater owners who don't bother to actually understand what's going on will freak out about this as well (and potentially refuse to show Red State). However, as per usual, and very much in keeping with Smith's standard way of operating, he's put together a plan that gives people even more value for going to catch the flick in the theaters. Sure, you'll be able to watch the movie at home via VOD, but he's making sure that the theater experience includes a ton of scarce value as well:

Like let’s say Red State is showing at your local multiplex. But then right after the movie ends, a live, interactive Q&A with the filmmaker starts, beamed into the theater via satellite. Even if you’re not there in the room, you’re Tweeting questions from your theater and getting responses from the guy on the big screen. And then, after three hours of movie and interactive Q&A? Boom: LIVE PODCAST! That’s four hours of once-in-a-lifetime entertainment for less than $20: a movie, a show, then another show.

Oh, look at that. Not only is he connecting with fans, but he's giving them a real, scarce reason to buy. He's adding additional value to the theatrical performance so that people have more reasons to go out to that, even if they can access the VOD version at home. And, he seems pretty aware of how clueless the big theater chains are about these things, as he walks them through the basics here, step by step:

Now, before some old dick like ol’ cranky Mr. “GET OFF HOLLYWOOD’S LAWN!” tries to make a beef with me and theatrical exhibitors in their ongoing war with the studios over the shrinking theatrical window and premium VOD’s role in decreasing box office revenue, let me remind REGAL and AMC, CINEPLEX or any other theater chain that I’m not the enemy. Please don’t lump me in with people trying to take money out of your pockets, Exhibitors. This is a (not-so) new way to make money and fill your empty buildings when there isn’t a Transformer to save you. On a fucking Monday night, no less.

Want fresh eyes and asses in your theaters? Try a one-night-only screening of a movie, a Q&A, and a live podcast: all for under $20 a ticket. The positive feedback you’ll receive from your paying customers alone will be worth it, but the concessions loot you’ll rake in that night will make you richer than the pharaohs (my people like to eat snacks). And if I can make this work? That means anybody can make this work. And that means more people coming to your theaters. Jump into digital bed with us: there’s not enough money going around anymore to quibble over restrictions that shouldn’t apply to a specialized film in the first place. I can sell these events out and make you money without spending money to do so – all while giving a normally slow night a massive shot in the arm. If not, no worries: there are lots of Mom & Pop single-screens out there who’ll welcome us warmly as well.

Of course, this is no different than what many of us have been saying for years, but Smith can back it up with paying customers, so maybe (just maybe?) one of those theater owners will take notice.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Not Every Theater Owner Fears Competing With Your Home Theater System

Mike Masnick — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:22:51 PDT

We recently wrote about how various theater owners were freaking out about new plans by studios to release movies for video on demand ten weeks after they went into the theaters... though for the astoundingly ridiculous price of $30. We noted that the complaining theater owners were more or less admitting that their theaters and the theater-going experience they provided sucked. If you can't compete with a home theater, you don't really know what business you're in. It would be like restaurant owners complaining that people can buy fresh food to cook in their own kitchen, so they'll never go out to restaurants again. Going out to the movies is a social experience, and theaters can easily compete by providing a better experience. The only ones who have anything to fear are those who know they provide a terrible experience and therefore can't compete.

Thankfully, some theater owners who do provide a good experience recognize this. Carlo points us to some comments from the owner of the famed Alamo Drafthouse theater in Austin, Texas, Tim League, in a blog post written by Caitlin Stevens (who, it should be noted, works for Tim):

He's not terribly worried. He's taking very much a wait and see attitude. "I think some of the charges that have been made [about premium VOD] are invalid and reactionary," he said. "It remains to be seen if this does impact theatrical. If you look back historically all the way to the 1950s everytime there has been a challenge -- from TV to VHS to DVD -- there has always been a component of the theatrical community that has said this will be the death of cinema."

Tim's also really skeptical of the claim that this VOD system will hurt smaller films that have platform releases, and points to distributors like Magnet, who have had great success with films they release on VOD before even hitting theaters. Those films tend to do well at the Alamo as well. "We've had good successes with those films even when they're playing VOD at the same time they're in the theater," he said.

Ultimately a lot of this comes down to the theatrical experience. Not to be a total shill here, but part of the reason people go to the Alamo is for the complete experience, which includes food and drink, high quality projection and a firm policy against talking and texting in movies. The big chains simply don't offer that -- not even protection from noisy patrons. "It's an industry that's vulnerable because if you give people the choice they won't choose a flawed option," Tim explained.

Exactly. Furthermore, he notes the key point that these complaining theater owners don't seem to grasp, despite their jobs running theaters:

"People -- especially on a Friday and a Saturday -- inherently want to get out of the house," he said. If theater owners can offer them a good option for getting out of the house at the movies, they'll take it.

Indeed. What stuns me is that theater owners who are complaining don't even recognize what they're telegraphing: that their theater experiences suck and they know you'd be better off staying at home. If that's the case, it's easy to decide to stay home, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. However, for theater owners who really do provide a great experience, they have nothing to worry about. Many years ago, theater owner Marcus Loew famously stated: "We sell tickets to theaters, not movies." It's really unfortunate that so few theater owners recognize that today, but it's always nice to be reminded of the few that do... such as Tim League and the Alamo Drafthouse.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hollywood Got The FCC To Break Your TV Because It Thought You'd Pay $30 For A PPV Movie?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:37:34 PDT

You may remember that earlier this year the FCC gave Hollywood the right to break your TV, by enabling "selectable output control" on your television, to keep you from actually recording certain movies or shows (um, unless, of course HDCP DRM is broken... oops). Months later, people realized that despite these urgent pleas from Hollywood, no studios had actually moved forward to offer such films in this "new window" closer to the theatrical release, but before the DVD was released.

Reader cc points out that some studios are finally interested in moving forward with such offerings, but they somehow think that people will pay $20 to $30 to view such movies. Yes, you read that right. I'm half wondering if this is really Hollywood's way of introducing this concept while trying not to piss off the theaters. They can basically say "hey, look, the only people willing to do this wouldn't pay cheaper prices to go to the flick in the theater, so they're not cannibalizing theater sales." Of course, you have to wonder if they're cannibalizing anything at such ridiculous prices.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

FCC Gives Hollywood The Right To Break Your TV/DVR... Just 'Cause

Mike Masnick — Fri, 7 May 2010 19:42:47 PDT

For a couple years now, the MPAA has been asking the FCC to break your TV/DVR, and let them effectively put a type of DRM (by enabling "Selectable Output Control" or SOC) on video content, such that you will not be able to access the content via third party devices, such as your DVR or your Slingbox. Effectively, they want to break the ability of your equipment to work. You wouldn't be able to legally record the movie that was playing on your TV. The MPAA's argument here makes absolutely no sense at all -- and when they're called on it, the doubletalk comes out.

The MPAA's argument is that if it could block people from recording movies, they could release the movies on things like PPV before they release them on DVD, adding yet another window to the long list of windows that Hollywood uses. It's still not clear how more windows helps anyone but Hollywood, but they keep claiming this is some sort of consumer benefit. The thing is, their argument makes absolutely no sense at all when you look at the details. First of all, there was nothing whatsoever stopping them from releasing movies on PPV prior to the DVD release. Nothing. You don't need DRM to do it. In fact, some major studios already do this without breaking your TV in the process.

Of course, the MPAA's response is that it would never release movies this way without SOC, because then people would copy them and... um... piracy... oh mygod... Hollywood is dying. Or something like that. But that makes no sense. First, as noted, some studios already release movies this way. They don't need SOC. Second, the whole claim that this will lead to more unauthorized file sharing is a total red herring -- because all of the movies they're talking about were already in theaters -- and once a movie is in the theaters, it's already available widely on file sharing networks. There is no increase possible, because the content would already be widely available. On top of that, of course, as the GAO just noted, the MPAA's ridiculous claims of losses from "piracy" are totally bogus.

Given all that, it seemed ridiculous to think that the FCC would give in... but late last year the reports were that the FCC had already decided to give in to Hollywood, and today the FCC made it official (pdf): The FCC's reasoning is bizarrely troubling and blatantly wrong. First, it claims that the studios "are unlikely to offer the service absent the ability to activate SOC." But... as noted, some studios already do offer such a service. On top of that, why is it the FCC's job to give the MPAA yet another window? Windows are anti-consumer, not pro-consumer. But, the FCC claims it's good for the consumers, and the MPAA's victory announcement makes the same ridiculous claim:

"This action is an important victory for consumers who will now have far greater access to see recent high definition movies in their homes..."

That logic is backwards. Basically, Hollywood is saying that it held the public hostage until the FCC let it break your TVs, and because the FCC caved in and Hollywood will release the movies it easily could have released before, consumers win. When someone is taken hostage and the family pays up, that's not a "win" for the family. As Public Knowledge points out, this appears to be the FCC doing this just as a favor to Hollywood.

Of course, in typical Genachowski FCC fashion, this ruling tries to walk that line between each side, in that it didn't grant the MPAA's full waiver, but tries to limit it, by saying it can only be used on films before the DVDs are released or for 90 days on a particular film (whichever comes first). The FCC will also "revisit" the issue in two years -- even under threats from the MPAA that if the FCC could revisit this issue, that uncertainty would lead the studios to scamper away, run and hide and not offer this service out of fear that the FCC would take away their right to break your TV. The FCC thought that was silly. It's not clear why the FCC didn't believe the MPAA's threat not to invest if the ruling could be reviewed, but do believe the threat not to release movies on TV earlier without this ruling... but that's the way this particular FCC seems to function.

In the meantime, now that the FCC has opened this door, expect more efforts to expand it much wider. Already -- before it had even been approved -- there was talk among politicians that it should be expanded to cover sporting events as well -- because, you know, we can't have people DVR'ing a sporting event any more.

The really ridiculous thing about all of this is that it's taking away functionality from the vast majority of law-abiding TV viewers who bought their TVs and DVRs expecting -- reasonably and accurately -- that they'd be able to record whatever is on TV, because of an amorphous and unproven "threat" of "piracy" which is based on bogus numbers and totally irrelevant given that the movies in question will already be widely available on file sharing networks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story