Bad news for Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon, etc

[gully_foyle]

Up until recently, I've been using Netflix and Blockbuster for most all of my movie viewing, with some films being bought from Amazon, especially HD DVD.

I've not used the D* PPV or premium movie channels, removing all of them from my favorites list, since D* standard def is horrid. 480x480i AFTER a lossy decompression is garbage for viewing on an HDTV. Looks like a video tape (and I've given away nearly all of mine). I have not used D* PPV in about 5 years, and never will for SD Lite.

Now, however, instead of 2 good HD movie channels (HBO and HDNet Movies) plus Showtime, and a couple weak PPV offerings (all a bit overcompressed), we have 4 Starz channels, MGM, 2 SHO, and about 12 PPV channels added, all in MPeg4. And the promise of about a half dozen more HBO channels soon.

I find I am no longer renting movies. Unless I _need_ a new movie Right Now, I have plenty available on DirecTV. The HD format war enhances that effect, especially since MGM won't publish on HD DVD. So I buy fewer as well.

As DirecTV adds VoD HD movies and TV shows (not interested in ANY D* SD content until they go back to a 640x480 non-lossy format), this effect will multiply.

People keep talking about HD downloading overtaking Blu-ray and HD DVD "someday." I'm seeing the beginnings of that right now. Someday is nearly here.

[spartanstew]

I've never ordered a PPV movie. What's the cost?

Depending upon the cost, I'd still rather have my BB online account. For $10 per month, I get 8-10 movie of my choice (including Blu-Ray and HD DVD). That's as many movies as I can watch in one month anyway due to traveling. If PPV were $1 per movie, I'd consider dropping BB, but I think they're more than that.

[NYSmoker]

I take my BB rentals, burn them, convert for iPod and watch on the commute home from work. Until I can do that with content from HBO, etc. BB will get my 9.99 a month.

[Mike728]

I take my BB rentals, burn them, convert for iPod and watch on the commute home from work.

How can you watch anything on an Ipod? That would give me a headache.

[gcisko]

I've never ordered a PPV movie. What's the cost?

Depending upon the cost, I'd still rather have my BB online account. For $10 per month, I get 8-10 movie of my choice (including Blu-Ray and HD DVD). That's as many movies as I can watch in one month anyway due to traveling. If PPV were $1 per movie, I'd consider dropping BB, but I think they're more than that.

Last time I did it, the cost was $3.99 I believe. But I will not do it anymore unless it is HD. So while it is $2.99 above your $1 point, you do have the convienience of not having to go anywhere or do anything and will get it ASAP.

[NYSmoker]

How can you watch anything on an Ipod? That would give me a headache.

The screen on the new touch is surprisingly large enough for 40 minute increments.

[Steveknj]

I take my BB rentals, burn them, convert for iPod and watch on the commute home from work. Until I can do that with content from HBO, etc. BB will get my 9.99 a month.

We won't report you to the cops for copyright infringement :D When I had a Netflix account, I used to just copy the movies and watch them at my convenience, this way I could get more movies per month than I could actually watch. I've since cancelled my Netlix account (about 2 years ago), since between shows I have on my DVR, movies I've copied over to DVD from my DVR, sports, which I like to watch live, and my local library which rents DVDs for $1 for 3 days, I never had time to watch the Netflix movies I rented except during the holidays and the summer. But I have enough backlog now to even get me through those periods.

The one thing I DO miss about Netflix is TV Show rentals I would want to watch but not buy at $40 a pop and up. I can get some at my library, but I've pretty much gone through the ones I wanted to watch and it costs me a few extra dineros because they are mulitple disks

[P Smith]

"(not interested in ANY D* SD content until they go back to a 640x480 non-lossy format)"

Originally it was 704x480 for premium content like PPV, at least on Dish.
Unfortunately in lossy MPEG-2, but PQ was close to DVD. (Ole good time).

[satex]

Wake me up when theres an affordable monthly subscription based On Demand Service that includes all programming including HD/PPV etc. I want to pay once a month not once per download.

[photostudent]

About 6 months ago they put a $1 movie kiosk at the Krogers a block from my house. I play them on an upconverting DVD player and the quality is excellent. They have all the new releases. I drop the movies to my daughter to watch and she returns them so you might say out cost is really only .50. I assume when the demand is there they will also rent HD disks. At some point DBS will have to get competitive on movie rentals. I do not know the numbers but services like Netflix have to have taken a big bite out of PPV. I have gone from about 10 PPV rentals a month to zero.

[Stuart Sweet]

Personally I haven't rented a movie in over 6 months. It's just not worth it.

[Chris Blount]

People keep talking about HD downloading overtaking Blu-ray and HD DVD "someday." I'm seeing the beginnings of that right now. Someday is nearly here.This is the reason why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have always been considered "Transitory" formats. At some point in the future, all content will be delivered via the internet. Even satellite companies should keep watch.

[sawCME]

FWIW - I stopped ordering PPV movies when DIRECTV stopped offering the coupon for 1 free PPV every month.

Shows how long I've been a subscriber, eh?

[oakwcj]

This is the reason why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have always been considered "Transitory" formats. At some point in the future, all content will be delivered via the internet. Even satellite companies should keep watch.

Yes, but when will pizza be delivered over the internet through my replicator?

[Steveknj]

This is the reason why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have always been considered "Transitory" formats. At some point in the future, all content will be delivered via the internet.

I have to agree, and it will be within 5 years that it's common place. And I think the movie studios and the DVD Player manufacturers are very stupid in this battle of formats. Simply, why not come up with a machine that does both, like they have with regular DVD players that handle all the standard DVD formats? That solves the whole issue on what format to put these movies on. That's what leads me to believe the studios believe like you do, it's transitional.

[Mike728]

Yes, but when will pizza be delivered over the internet through my replicator?

Well, you can order it on-line.

[schlar01]

I'll be renting movies until they come out via PPV or some other method on the same day as rental. I like watching the newer movies like Oceans 13, Spiderman 3, etc so waiting until they hit a premium channel makes little sense.

[ansky]

Generally most PPV movies are $3.99. Some are available in HD for $4.99. To me it's not worth the extra dollar for HD. Also, there are usually about 1-2 older PPV movies offered per month for $1.99 as a "last chance" offer.

[dalepm]

The screen on the new touch is surprisingly large enough for 40 minute increments.

For me movies are made to watch on large screens in HD with surround sound!

[jheda]

with ppv HD and then the ability to burn them, i wont be at BB again except for renting a tv series....and its WELL worth it for the buck to get it in HD... i have become an admitted HD snob

[c152driver]

I've actually been pondering doing the opposite--significantly curtailing my DirecTV subscription in favor of Netflix. The selection is far larger. I also think $4.99 for HD PPV is too much. It also helps that I am grandfathered in the 4 disc at a time plan at the 3 disc at a time price.

[HDRulz]

How can you watch anything on an Ipod? That would give me a headache.

I dunno about this whole theory of abandoning rental places for PPV/HBO. I mean, it's ok for watching the latest WWE wrestler movie or whatever Hollywood's trash is being pumped through PPV at the moment. But if you want to watch a movie that you really want to watch, or a classic movie that isn't PPV or HBO material, you kind of have to go to a DVD library like Netflix, BB, etc.

I don't know about BB, but Netflix is beginning with "Instant" movies - a small selection of movies and TV shows you can watch on your computer currently included with your regular DVD membership. Will be interesting to see where it goes.

The DVD medium of storing and renting movies needs to be over. The plastic, shipping, handling, and all that stuff isn't necessary for everyone anymore. Trouble is, you need a broadband hookup for everyone who wants to rent a movie to make that realistic.

I'm just thinking out loud, part of a larger conversation I'm having with myself...

[jake14mw]

I think it's great that there are more HD PPV channels now, but $4.99 is too much for me. They should do some promotion advertising the expansion and give you your first one for 99 cents. Maybe it would hook some people on the fence.

[TMullenJr]

why not come up with a machine that does both, like they have with regular DVD players that handle all the standard DVD formats?

LG has a model available that does this already. I'm sure there are others as well.

[gully_foyle]

FWIW - I stopped ordering PPV movies when DIRECTV stopped offering the coupon for 1 free PPV every month.

Shows how long I've been a subscriber, eh?Yeah. Probably remember USSB and the two bills.

[stewa348]

This is the reason why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have always been considered "Transitory" formats. At some point in the future, all content will be delivered via the internet. Even satellite companies should keep watch.

Of course they are "transitory". Just like VHS and DVD were "transitory". The internet is also "transitory", we just don't know yet what is going to replace it.:D

[Steveknj]

with ppv HD and then the ability to burn them, i wont be at BB again except for renting a tv series....and its WELL worth it for the buck to get it in HD... i have become an admitted HD snob

The problem is, (unless something has changed), you can't burn to DVD with DD 5.1 and above sound. So you WILL lose something if you burn them and watch. Still, I'd rather rent the movie for less money than PPV.

[Steveknj]

LG has a model available that does this already. I'm sure there are others as well.

I've heard about that one, but have yet to see it. Considering that the 2 formats are out a couple of years, it seemed only natural that more and more of these would be available. I won't buy an "HD" format DVD player until there is a reasonably priced unit that can do both. To me, the $150 range is the sweet spot (my wife might think it's $100 though :) )

[Huey]

Count me in the club that dropped Netflix in favor of adding Starz when they went hi-def. I own a bluray player, and it was rather frustrating to receive a movie from netflix that usually had to be cleaned before it would play.

I loved netflix when I first joined, but it grew tiresome getting blurays. Then with Starz having a very stellar hi-def picture, it really became an easy decision. My only problem now, is I've dvr'd way to many movies, and there just doesn't seem to be enough time to watch them.:D
Rob

[man_rob]

If D* offered a Netflix type subscription model with their PPV channels, I'd definitely try it out. Why pay $4.99 for a movie that will be on a premium channel in a month or two? I already pay too much for the premiums as it is.

[kki000]

I went to the 1 movie out at 4.99 at netflix. The movies were just sitting there.

Starz has been a goldmine, signed up for it when they all went hd, been finding all kinds of fun movies on there.

[tonyd79]

About 6 months ago they put a $1 movie kiosk at the Krogers a block from my house. I play them on an upconverting DVD player and the quality is excellent. They have all the new releases. I drop the movies to my daughter to watch and she returns them so you might say out cost is really only .50. I assume when the demand is there they will also rent HD disks. At some point DBS will have to get competitive on movie rentals. I do not know the numbers but services like Netflix have to have taken a big bite out of PPV. I have gone from about 10 PPV rentals a month to zero.

Redbox? Excellent system. You can even reserve on line and pick it up when you get to the store. And you can return DVDs anywhere not just where you picked them up.

[man_rob]

Redbox? Excellent system. You can even reserve on line and pick it up when you get to the store. And you can return DVDs anywhere not just where you picked them up.


I've done Redbox, and that is a good deal. I've heard that some people have had checks bounce after using it though. When you rent a movie, they actually put a hold on $25 from your account until the movie is returned. I always have enough of a balance that it's not a problem for me, but folks who don't keep much money in their accounts need to be aware.

[bigben7]

IMO I actually think Netflix is a better deal than Starz, HBO, etc. I watch about 5 or 6 Blu ray movies a month for 8.99. That's cheaper than any of the movie channel packages and I can watch current releases. Also the PQ is also better than the HD movie channels. After having Starz for a month or two you'll notice the same movies over and over.

[Paul Secic]

How can you watch anything on an Ipod? That would give me a headache.

Yuck! I'd never watch anything on an Ipod/zune. Too hard on the eyes.:eek2: :eek2:

[spartanstew]

Last time I did it, the cost was $3.99 I believe. But I will not do it anymore unless it is HD. So while it is $2.99 above your $1 point, you do have the convienience of not having to go anywhere or do anything and will get it ASAP.

Part of it is situation specific. The majority of my BB rentals come in the mail (4-6 per month) and the other ones are exchanged at the local store. My local BB is right down the street and I have to pass it every time I leave my house so it's not much of an inconvenience.

The screen on the new touch is surprisingly large enough for 40 minute increments.

I can't even watch movies on my 60" in the living room. It's way too small for movie viewing. We watch all our movies on the 126" in the theater.

[ccr1958]

i have the 4.99 a month netflix...beens the HDDVD offerings
are becomming more available all the time & some of the older stuff is
now HD...last week i watched Caddyshack in HD & it was almost
like i never seen it before.....but if the HD VOD gets rolling
& has some good older free or .99 per DL then i might drop netflix....

[Steve]

Right now Netflix is a better deal for me than PPV or even HBO. In fact, once the Sopranos ended, I canceled HBO, so now I feel like I'm getting 6-8 NetFlix movies per month delivered to my mailbox for free. :) /steve

[Paul Secic]

LG has a model available that does this already. I'm sure there are others as well.

They cost a fortune though.

[Agrajag]

I took stopped renting PPV's back after the coupon went away. It was a combination of things.

1) The costs went up.

2) The quality of the picture dropped way off.

3) I decided it was worth it to just buy the DVD and watch it at my convenience once their prices came down.

4) New STB's are, in my view, poorly designed when it comes to Guide viewing. I have to jump through several steps (and then undo it) just to see the PPV channels in my Guide and there's no way I'm keeping them in there all the time.

I just this morning rented my first PPV in ages. I did it because it was an HD movie and I wanted to see what it looked like. Not even sure of the price. It never came up. I selected it. It said it would record it. I'm assuming it's on the DVR now and will prompt me with the price when I go to watch it.

[ohioviper]

I love my Netflix. We do 6 movies a week . Got the 3 out at at time for $14 a month. I go to the DVD release date web site and see whats coming out when and go back to netfix and put in que. I had 300 on Blue ray in my mail box the day it was released. I have been very happy with Netflix and its much cheaper . I can put DVD in mail on Monday and get new DVD on Wednesday. Back in mail Thursday and new ones again Saturday. Now if Direct wants to make an extra $14 a month from me all they have to do is offer me the same abilitys. Watch all the latest movies I want for $14 a month

[Keeska]

FWIW - I stopped ordering PPV movies when DIRECTV stopped offering the coupon for 1 free PPV every month.

Shows how long I've been a subscriber, eh?
We stopped within a few months of getting DirecTV. Offering a coupon for 1 free PPV every month didn't overcome the low quality. My wife and I never rented/purchased VHS tapes for the same reason.

[speedy4022]

Yeah. Probably remember USSB and the two bills.


I remember that and hated it 2 bills sucked.

[perilous]

I love my Netflix. We do 6 movies a week . Got the 3 out at at time for $14 a month. I go to the DVD release date web site and see whats coming out when and go back to netfix and put in que. I had 300 on Blue ray in my mail box the day it was released. I have been very happy with Netflix and its much cheaper . I can put DVD in mail on Monday and get new DVD on Wednesday. Back in mail Thursday and new ones again Saturday. Now if Direct wants to make an extra $14 a month from me all they have to do is offer me the same abilitys. Watch all the latest movies I want for $14 a month

+1!!! D*TV HD PPV is too darn expensive....Netflix HD-DVD and BluRay for me all the way!!!!

[Ryan]

With all the new HD channels, we've been building up a library of movies on the HR20. Now if only we had time to watch them!

[TheRatPatrol]

I take my BB rentals, burn them, convert for iPod and watch on the commute home from work. Until I can do that with content from HBO, etc. BB will get my 9.99 a month.
I hope you're not driving while watching a movie on your ipod. ;)

[sigma1914]

As a new owner of an HD-DVD player, I'll never watch HD movies on D* the same way. I'll admit, HD-DVD has spoiled me.

[JerryElbow]

...not interested in ANY D* SD content until they go back to a 640x480 non-lossy format...
Has DirecTV or DISH Network every broadcast ANYTHING that wasn't in a lossy format (whether it's MPEG-2 or MPEG-4)? True, you can crank up or down the compression level on these lossy formats until they either look like garbage or look pretty darn good (DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray all use lossy formats too, after all).

Years ago I was a DISH customer and loved it as the picture was SO much better than analog cable. However, when DISH (and DirecTV) started adding hundreds of local stations, the compression level seemed to go up and up until the video was getting as bad (though for MPEG artifacting instead of analog noise) as cable. When HDTV came out, I dropped DISH for cable and put up with the nasty SD analog signals to get the greater number of good-looking HD signals. However, cable companies (at least not mine) haven't been keen on adding lots of new HD stations. With DirecTV's recent huge strides in numbers of HD stations, I just had to give them a look. I jumped on the DirecTV bandwagon just before the first October wave of stations and I have so far been thrilled. The HD stations look great (particularly the MPEG-4 offerings, though the MPEG-2 offerings are normally pretty good too) and the few SD stations I watch (Comedy Central and not much else) look pretty good too. The major MPEG artifacting seems to have gone away or at least reduced significantly with the bandwidth shared across several satellites. I got on the NFL package and have so many movie offerings now that I haven't even thought about trying a PPV movie. When I do, it will of course be an HD offering and I'm sure it'll look good too. Other than occaisional audio/video synch problems, I am really very happy with DirecTV and am recommending it to friends and family.

[NYSmoker]

I hope you're not driving while watching a movie on your ipod. ;)

Like most good NYers I take mass transit. Only a fool would drive in rush hour.

[gully_foyle]

Has DirecTV or DISH Network every broadcast ANYTHING that wasn't in a lossy format (whether it's MPEG-2 or MPEG-4)? True, you can crank up or down the compression level on these lossy formats until they either look like garbage or look pretty darn good (DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray all use lossy formats too, after all).

Until they were forced by a CBS lawsuit to abandon the idea of regional network feeds and go to local-in-local, DirecTV had SD that was the best there was, comparable to C-band sat. My best-Sony-ever-made 32" XBR SDTV was well complemented by the D* picture. DVD quality.

But sometime in the late 1990's, D* was forced by the courts and, later, Congress to provide every broadcast station in the country a free satellite channel. Some stations they had to PAY for the privilege. Further, they could not send that channel to anyone who did not live locally, so they had about 3000 extra channels to broadcast, even though any particular customer could get only a few of them. This was a BIG issue for customers. At this time, Distant Network Service was grandfathered in for those that already subscribed, and future customers had to get waivers (best of luck).

Until spot beams came about, this meant that every "cable" channel had to compete with every local station in existence for bandwidth. Enter massive compression, and the beautiful D* signal turned to dog turds.

D*'s SD signal went from 702x480i, with no evidence of compression, to 480x480i with hugely visible compression artifacts that reduced its effective resolution further. Currently, D*'s resolution on some unfavored channels is worse than my VHS player due to compression washout. And since HDTVs magnify any analog signal's problems, D* SD looks particularly bad on an HDTV.

Which brings me to my point of D*'s SD PPV being worthless. If the HR20 had a "channels I never want to be told about ever" list like TiVo did, these PPV channels would be the first up against the wall.

[Steveknj]

I love my Netflix. We do 6 movies a week . Got the 3 out at at time for $14 a month. I go to the DVD release date web site and see whats coming out when and go back to netfix and put in que. I had 300 on Blue ray in my mail box the day it was released. I have been very happy with Netflix and its much cheaper . I can put DVD in mail on Monday and get new DVD on Wednesday. Back in mail Thursday and new ones again Saturday. Now if Direct wants to make an extra $14 a month from me all they have to do is offer me the same abilitys. Watch all the latest movies I want for $14 a month

When I had Netflix a couple of years ago, I did the same thing as you, but what I found, is as time went on, getting those brand new movies on or around release day was almost impossible, even if I had them in my queue for weeks prior. I had HEARD that it was an unwritten rule that new subs got first priority on new releases. It had gotten to the point that I would have to wait a month or more to get the new releases even if they were at the top of my queue. It was one of various reasons I dropped Netflix. Has this gotten better? With the writer's strike, I might reconsider resigning with Netflix (or BB if the deal is better).

[schlar01]

When I had Netflix a couple of years ago, I did the same thing as you, but what I found, is as time went on, getting those brand new movies on or around release day was almost impossible, even if I had them in my queue for weeks prior. I had HEARD that it was an unwritten rule that new subs got first priority on new releases. It had gotten to the point that I would have to wait a month or more to get the new releases even if they were at the top of my queue. It was one of various reasons I dropped Netflix. Has this gotten better? With the writer's strike, I might reconsider resigning with Netflix (or BB if the deal is better).

I have had both Netflix and Blockbuster and in my experience its hard to get popular new releases in BOTH services. You can try to time it just right so your movie is received on a Saturday or Monday and they ship the new movie out but it doesn't always work.

I do the 1 at a time Blockbuster plan because I can watch a movie over the weekend and return it to the store on Tuesday for the new release, which they usually have a lot of. I find that it works the best. I think its $18 per month but most places charge at least $4 for a move now and if I can get 2 per week it ends up being $2.25 per movie. Not bad.

The only problem I have with Blockbuster is that it seems like they may be trying to do the stupid delay tactics that Netflix has tried. I returned a movie to the store on Tuesday, as I was sick, and the new movie just shipped out today. They say that its supposed to ship out immediately but it took almost 3 days to ship out and the movies at the top of my list are available. Kind of bothers me that I returned it mid-day Tuesday and I may not have a movie for the weekend.

[cartrivision]

LG has a model available that does this already. I'm sure there are others as well.

But right now the dual format player costs more than a Bluray and an HD DVD player would cost in total. The day that I buy a high def format DVD player is when they reach the $150 or below price point for a player that can play every DVD released by every major studio, whether that be via a dual format player, studios releasing everything in both formats, or one of the formats becoming the de facto winner of the format war.

[JerryElbow]

Until spot beams came about, this meant that every "cable" channel had to compete with every local station in existence for bandwidth. Enter massive compression, and the beautiful D* signal turned to dog turds.

D*'s SD signal went from 702x480i, with no evidence of compression, to 480x480i with hugely visible compression artifacts that reduced its effective resolution further. Currently, D*'s resolution on some unfavored channels is worse than my VHS player due to compression washout. And since HDTVs magnify any analog signal's problems, D* SD looks particularly bad on an HDTV.

I'm not arguing that satellite-based small-dish video quality didn't go downhill badly and since I've never ordered an SD PPV movie from DirecTV, I can't defend the quality of that signal. I also totally agree that a bad SD signal that may look borderline viewable on a small SD TV set is completely unwatchable on a large HDTV.

However, the original comment referred to waiting until DirecTV started broadcasting a "lossless" signal and that's just not going to happen with any satellite-based small-dish service. The best we can hope for is that the vendors continue to launch additional satellites (especially higher-capacity satellites if that's possible) to increase the bandwidth commensurate with the increase in programming being carried so that the high level of compression can be reduced back to reasonable levels.

[Paul Secic]

Count me in the club that dropped Netflix in favor of adding Starz when they went hi-def. I own a bluray player, and it was rather frustrating to receive a movie from netflix that usually had to be cleaned before it would play.

I loved netflix when I first joined, but it grew tiresome getting blurays. Then with Starz having a very stellar hi-def picture, it really became an easy decision. My only problem now, is I've dvr'd way to many movies, and there just doesn't seem to be enough time to watch them.:D
Rob

STARZ is the bomb! Last night I saw Deju Vu. ******+

[rcoleman111]

+1!!! D*TV HD PPV is too darn expensive....Netflix HD-DVD and BluRay for me all the way!!!!

The only thing keeping high-def DVDs from taking off is the format war. When we start to see affordable dual-format DVD players and recorders, there will be a lot more people buying and renting high-def DVDs.

[Steve]

The only thing keeping high-def DVDs from taking off is the format war. When we start to see affordable dual-format DVD players and recorders, there will be a lot more people buying and renting high-def DVDs.Actually, Sony may be laying the PR ground to throw in the towel, according to this (http://www.betanews.com/article/Sony_CEO_Declares_Stalemate_in_BlurayHD_DVD_Battle/1194623457). Beta vs. VHS all over again. /steve

[Ken S]

How can you watch anything on an Ipod? That would give me a headache.

You keep the other eye on the road.

[Ken S]

We have tried Netflix twice and it just never clicked. The delivery time also was close to six days at times.

Mostly we either rent from the kiosk machine at Publix (dominant grocery store chain in SE Florida). $1/day and they have all the new releases.
We seldom use PPV...it's overpriced and the schedule never meshes with our's.
I have been very, very impressed with the content on HDNet Movies and more and more disappointed with the quality and quantity of movies on the premiums. I've been an HBO subscriber since the mid 1970s too.

If I really want to see a movie though, even with the thousands of dollars of equipment in my home there's really nothing like the experience at a Muvico (www.muvico.com). Hands down the nicest theater I've ever visited.

[Ken S]

This is the reason why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have always been considered "Transitory" formats. At some point in the future, all content will be delivered via the internet. Even satellite companies should keep watch.

It's funny...as quickly as we kill off one form of "sneaker net" another pops up.

First it was floppy discs, then albums/tapes, then CDs....

People just keep jamming data on or in various plastics and carrying it around until someone puts it back on the network where it belongs :)

[thefoyboy]

Yeah. Probably remember USSB and the two bills.

You know you have been a customer a long time when your first dish install was the pizza pan single lnb and that was the high end.

[BobbyK]

DVD sales in the U.S. are estimated to reach $17.3 billion this year, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, and are forecast to surpass $20 billion by 2011.

[gully_foyle]

We have tried Netflix twice and it just never clicked. The delivery time also was close to six days at times.Hmm. I have issues with them, but 99% of mailings, both ways, are 1 day. Six days will get a letter from Nome, Alaska to DelRey Beach. I'd blame your Post Awful.

[gully_foyle]

You know you have been a customer a long time when your first dish install was the pizza pan single lnb and that was the high end.When it hit LA, you could get a dual LNB system for only about $900, plus installation.

[Ken S]

Hmm. I have issues with them, but 99% of mailings, both ways, are 1 day. Six days will get a letter from Nome, Alaska to DelRey Beach. I'd blame your Post Awful.

kc,
I'm not saying it's NefFlix fault...we have similar problems with Game Fly...but something tells me the Post Office isn't going to be getting a lot better anytime soon.

[rcoleman111]

Hmm. I have issues with them, but 99% of mailings, both ways, are 1 day. Six days will get a letter from Nome, Alaska to DelRey Beach. I'd blame your Post Awful.

When I had a Netflix account, the DVDs always seemed to arrive in one day as long as I didn't go through them too quickly. When I turned them around quickly, the time it took for them to acknowledge that the discs had come back seemed to increase. I think they slow it down to minimize their mailing costs for high-volume customers. They know they can blame the delays on the Post Office.

[ejjames]

I have a xbox HD DVD drive hooked to my computer and my son just got a PS3, so I find I can rent anywhere from 10-15 DVDs a month from netflix, not bad when HD discs can be so much more than stanard def.

[TK6411]

Exactly! The fanboys just don't get it. I'll take my HD in whatever format I can and Directv's got an impressive HD movie offering...just the tip of the iceberg and it shows what direction the future holds.



This is the reason why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have always been considered "Transitory" formats. At some point in the future, all content will be delivered via the internet. Even satellite companies should keep watch.

[rcoleman111]

People just keep jamming data on or in various plastics and carrying it around until someone puts it back on the network where it belongs :)

Some of us just like those shiny discs, Ken. :)

[gully_foyle]

When I had a Netflix account, the DVDs always seemed to arrive in one day as long as I didn't go through them too quickly. When I turned them around quickly, the time it took for them to acknowledge that the discs had come back seemed to increase. I think they slow it down to minimize their mailing costs for high-volume customers. They know they can blame the delays on the Post Office.Occasionally, they'd send me an email asking how long X took to arrive. Even though it was always 1 day, I told them "2 days." I wanted them to redouble their efforts. ;)

[ejjames]

I have noticed a marked slow down when i would turn discs around quickly as well/.

[rcoleman111]

I have noticed a marked slow down when i would turn discs around quickly as well/.

Netflix reps deny it, but I think they have some logic built into their system that slows down the turnaround if you go through too many discs. Instead of arriving back at Netflix (or showing up in their computer as returned) in one day, they start taking 2 to 3 days.

[Ken S]

The service was very slow for us and we were nowhere high volume. I'd look more at the post office than NetFlix for the answer.

[Steve Mehs]

A lot of people noticed the slowdowns in turn around, but when I had Netflix, I never noticed any throttling. I did Burn N' Return for about a year and a half with Netflix averaging 30 discs a month. I built up quite the DVD collection, but even now 2 years after I canceled, I still have a few hundred movies that I never watched. And since all the movies were burned on single layer DVDs, I get no increase in picture quality when playing on my HD upconversion DVD player.

[Agrajag]

I had what I think was a fairly typical Netflix experience. I got in on it when it was still fairly new and was 4 DVD's for $20 a month. It was early enough that they only had the one distribution center so mailing was multiple days and hit-and-miss.

At first it was great. You could tell the software that you returned a movie and they'd send the next one before it arrived back. I could rent upwards of 20 movies a month initially.

Over time this went away and it dropped me down to about 10 a month. Then I depleted the viewing queue and found that the same 4 movies sat in my house for months at a time. After about a year of that I'd had enough and canceled.

BTW, I mentioned early that I bought my first PPV in many years. Turns out I didn't. I tried to but the system failed. I chose a movie on one of the HD PPV channels (Fantastic Four) and told it to record (due on about 30 minutes from the current time). It appeared to record. I then went to watch it. Never at any time did I get a notification of a cost. A few minutes into the movie it just froze and gave me the "Searching for authorized content" message. So much for that.

[MikeR]

http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071119/NEWS01/711190327
Many more factors in the locally owned video rental business, but one specifically named:

"One of our biggest competitors was the satellite dish. People who live out in the country like me, they rented a lot of movies," he said. "DirecTV came out, and we lost a bunch of business. I've got DirecTV so it's kind of, I was happy to see it come, but I wasn't happy to see it come."

[c152driver]

I am surprised at how many people openly admit to copying the DVDs they receive from Netflix. I guess there's no shame in piracy these days!

[bhelton71]

I am surprised at how many people openly admit to copying the DVDs they receive from Netflix. I guess there's no shame in piracy these days!


I think that speaks to a need or want - people want portable media. Its true piracy gets the attention - but I honestly believe a larger majority just wants to be able to get media when and where it is convenient for them. They pay the rental for the media - but its not necessarily in a format they are ready to consume. Many people have ripped all of their owned cd and dvd libraries - because they want access to the metadata and management capabilities that come with it. I don't think that makes one a crook - but the RIAA and MPAA say that it does and anyone doing that should be fined or jailed. But they and the consumer electronics industry in general have failed to provide a 'legal' alternative.

I think a possible future is in a net based content delivery - but it will be a while before that could be a reliable and secure delivery system.

[Steve Mehs]

I am surprised at how many people openly admit to copying the DVDs they receive from Netflix. I guess there's no shame in piracy these days!

Nope not at all. I have nothing to be shameful about. I have no respect for intellectual property rights. I copied VHS tapes I rented 15 years ago and do the same with DVDs. I don't really care what the DMCA or whatever has to say. I'll do what I want to do. The RIAA and MPAA can kiss my ass.

[c152driver]

Nope not at all. I have nothing to be shameful about. I have no respect for intellectual property rights. I copied VHS tapes I rented 15 years ago and do the same with DVDs. I don't really care what the DMCA or whatever has to say. I'll do what I want to do. The RIAA and MPAA can kiss my ass.

I am no fan of the tactics that the RIAA and MPAA use and think the DMCA is one of the worst pieces of legislation to come out of Washington in recent history. I fully support DRM free media so that consumers can move the entertainment they purchase from one device to another.

But, on the other hand, I also think the content producers deserve to be paid for what they produce.

I could say more, but in the interest of not drifting too far off topic I'll leave it at that. :)

[Ken S]

Nope not at all. I have nothing to be shameful about. I have no respect for intellectual property rights. I copied VHS tapes I rented 15 years ago and do the same with DVDs. I don't really care what the DMCA or whatever has to say. I'll do what I want to do. The RIAA and MPAA can kiss my ass.

You feel the same way about your own property as well I hope. I mean you really don't mind if someone takes your car?

[Steve Mehs]

Intellectual property and real property are two different things.

[Steveknj]

I look at it this way....

I rent DVDs and copy them, mostly because I don't always have the time to watch them during the rental period. I feel that if I paid for the rental, then I should be able to watch it at my convenience in the format I want. I rarely save these movies, usually burn them to rewritable media and then reuse the media. And I NEVER sell it or give it away.

Now, look at it this way as well. D* actually gives you the ability to copy anything they broadcast, be it PPV, Premium, sports or whatever. The old D* TIvos always had a "save to VCR" function, and there's no stopping you from hitting play and recording to DVD at the same time. And, you can keep anything you record on the DVR as long as you want, essentionly giving you the ability to "keep" anything.

I think as long as you keep it for yourself and don't sell it or give it away then it should be legal. Years ago, there was the same controversy when cassette tapes came out, and the ruling was, that as long as you copy an LP record or another tape to a tape for your own personal use, then it's legal. In fact, many of us had dual cassette players.

Why is that different than copying a movie for your own use?

[braven]

All this talk about "stealing" DVD's says a lot about a persons character... or lack there of. But that's just me. :rolleyes:


Until HD PPV's are much less than $5 a pop, Netflix and BB have nothing to worry about.

[Steve Mehs]

All this talk about "stealing" DVD's says a lot about a persons character... or lack there of. But that's just me. :rolleyes:

It really makes no difference what you or anyone else thinks about me. You may be a perfect angel but I'm not, nor do I want to be.

[photostudent]

I can understand some paying the premium for PPV HD, (unless you read restaurant menus right to left like me). But I heard a rumor of a $99 HD DVD player at Walmart this coming Black Friday. That kind of pricing could pump up disk rentals and sales at the expense of PPV HD.

[dbsdave]

I don't rent as much as I used to, but I wouldn't attribute that just to the new movie channels in hd channels. Unless you get all of them, which is rather expensive per month, even compared to netflix, the selection is not nearly the same. But mainly I now just rent things I really want to see since they usually come out sooner on hd dvd or bluray, or dvds that have appealing extra features. I never order pay per view.

[Ken S]

Intellectual property and real property are two different things.

Stealing is stealing. Unfortunately, to some it's "justifiable" as long as it's not their property being stolen.

[Mike728]

I heard a rumor of a $99 HD DVD player at Walmart this coming Black Friday.

That was their pre Black Friday sale from a couple weeks ago. Already done and gone.

[NYSmoker]

Stealing is stealing. Unfortunately, to some it's "justifiable" as long as it's not their property being stolen.

Stealing is stealing, copyright infringement is not stealing, fair use is also not stealing.

I see the propaganda has worked on you though.

[Ken S]

Stealing is stealing, copyright infringement is not stealing, fair use is also not stealing.

I see the propaganda has worked on you though.

Copyright infrigement is very much theft. Fair Use is an exception to the law. If you qualify under that exception than it's not theft. The people that state "Fair Use" generally have never read the law and have no clue as to what Fair Use actually applies to....but then, why let the facts get in the way of soothing a guilty conscience.

It's amazing what people will say and do to justify in their minds that it's alright to take/use someone else's property without right or permission. I see and hear it all the time...I also see them come in screaming and red-faced when the same happens to them. You may not like the way something is sold or licensed...that's understandable...but that doesn't give you the right to take it.

I'm not telling you what to do..that's your own decision.

[Steve Mehs]

The people that state "Fair Use" generally have never read the law and have no clue as to what Fair Use actually applies to....but then, why let the facts get in the way of soothing a guilty conscience.

Who said anything about a guilty conscience? I just plain don't care. I don't have a guilty conscience for driving 10 MPH over the speed limit and I sure as hell don't have a guilty conscience for copying movies from Netflix and just pissing all over everything related to copyrights. Ohhh I copied Die Hard 4, now Bruce Willis' kids can't attend that elite private school. Oooh I got Office 2007 from BitTorrent now Bill Gates will have to go down the the welfare office. I'm such a bad bad boy :lol:

[Ken S]

Who said anything about a guilty conscience? I just plain don't care. I don't have a guilty conscience for driving 10 MPH over the speed limit and I sure as hell don't have a guilty conscience for copying movies from Netflix and just pissing all over everything related to copyrights. Ohhh I copied Die Hard 4, now Bruce Willis' kids can't attend that elite private school. Oooh I got Office 2007 from BitTorrent now Bill Gates will have to go down the the welfare office. I'm such a bad bad boy :lol:

You've convinced me as to what you are.

[Steve Mehs]

Ouch :lol:

Well I'm not an angel like you.

[gully_foyle]

Many people have ripped all of their owned cd and dvd libraries - because they want access to the metadata and management capabilities that come with it. I don't think that makes one a crook - but the RIAA and MPAA say that it does and anyone doing that should be fined or jailed. But they and the consumer electronics industry in general have failed to provide a 'legal' alternative.Actually they have provided such an alternative -- it's called buying the retail disc.

[gully_foyle]

Ouch :lol:

Well I'm not an angel like you.So, Steve Mehs of Marilla, NY, if someone were to forward your posts ( being your "intellectual property" ) about how you copy all your movies to the MPAA, you'd have no problem with that? I mean, they'd be jerks to do that, but since you think being a jerk is OK, that shouldn't be a problem. Or are your posts your property somehow? Just asking....

[Mike728]

Who said anything about a guilty conscience? I just plain don't care. I don't have a guilty conscience for driving 10 MPH over the speed limit and I sure as hell don't have a guilty conscience for copying movies from Netflix and just pissing all over everything related to copyrights. Ohhh I copied Die Hard 4, now Bruce Willis' kids can't attend that elite private school. Oooh I got Office 2007 from BitTorrent now Bill Gates will have to go down the the welfare office. I'm such a bad bad boy :lol:


Wow! I really hope you're using an alias.

[braven]

Wow! I really hope you're using an alias.


...and really hope he's not. :rolleyes:

[JonW]

I rent DVDs and copy them, mostly because I don't always have the time to watch them during the rental period. I feel that if I paid for the rental, then I should be able to watch it at my convenience in the format I want. I rarely save these movies, usually burn them to rewritable media and then reuse the media. And I NEVER sell it or give it away.

But rentals are not the same as broadcast. HBO buys the rights to broadcast movies. Time shifting of broadcast media *is* an accepted practice. But rentals rely on the principal that if you own something you can freely give it to someone else for them to enjoy. But you have to give them the original media, not a copy.

Borland used to have a policy for their software which was very reasonable. They said if you can do it with a book, then you can do it with our s/w. Can you read a book in any room you want? Sure. So it was ok to load their s/w on all of your computers. You could also use the program for an hour on your computer, and then your friend could use the program on his computer for an hour. This would be like you handed the book to your friend. But you and your friend were not allowed to operate the program at the same time. You simply cannot do that with a book.

So even by the most liberal copyright standards I can think of, what you're doing is not legit.

As for the DMCA ... you broke the law the instant you started copying.

[man_rob]

Ouch :lol:

Well I'm not an angel like you.

I wonder how you'd feel if some less than angelic folks found a way of diverting some of your paycheck away from you? If it was some person, not as fortunate as you, would you accept it if they said, "Oh too bad for you, now you can't afford to...", in the same unapologetic way you so easily rationalize what you are doing?

When my house was robbed a few months ago, I would imagine that is how the people who cleaned me out squared it away in their minds, saying to themselves that it was okay to take from me, because I have more than them.

[P Smith]

I would imagine how you upsetting when someone reading same newspapers/magazines in dentist office or barber shop. :D

[JonW]

Sharing media is legal. Copying is the issue. Does your dentist and barber copy their magazine subs or something?

[P Smith]

Only if xerox machine is not busy :p

[Steve Mehs]

I really did forget about this. Just to let all you angels and goody goodies know, I haven’t pirated DVDs in years. So you can all sleep tight knowing your millionaire buddies in Hollyweird are getting their full cuts. Not that I have a change in heart or anything, but as I explained, with my HD Upconversion DVD player I get zero increase in picture quality with my burned copies. A good portion of my burned copies have been replaced by legally purchased discs or I caught the movies I burned on the movies channels and they sucked and I never purchased them. So get the MPAA goon squad after me for a bunch of pirated DVDs that aren’t in existence anymore. While you're at it call the sheriffs department. I did 60MPH in 45 today.

[sNEIRBO]

I had been using Blockbuster Online for my HD DVD rentals - I haven't watched one in weeks now. I get them in the mail, open them, seal them back up, then take them to the store for a new release exchange (or something the kiddo wants). I got Grandfathered on the old plans at Bbuster Online I can't beat the $7.99 / month for 1 at a time with unlimited exchanges. I'll keep that even if DirecTV on Demand does start offering HD content.

[JonW]

I really did forget about this. Just to let all you angels and goody goodies know, I haven’t pirated DVDs in years.

So what you're saying is someone has to be an angel or a goody goody in order to be able to resist stealing someone else's property or respect a contract these days? :eek2:

That's pretty sad...

[Bribo]

I take my BB rentals, burn them, convert for iPod and watch on the commute home from work. Until I can do that with content from HBO, etc. BB will get my 9.99 a month.

I hope your not driving...

[dcrabtree]

Copyright infrigement is very much theft. Fair Use is an exception to the law. If you qualify under that exception than it's not theft. The people that state "Fair Use" generally have never read the law and have no clue as to what Fair Use actually applies to....but then, why let the facts get in the way of soothing a guilty conscience.

It's amazing what people will say and do to justify in their minds that it's alright to take/use someone else's property without right or permission. I see and hear it all the time...I also see them come in screaming and red-faced when the same happens to them. You may not like the way something is sold or licensed...that's understandable...but that doesn't give you the right to take it.

I'm not telling you what to do..that's your own decision.
Hey Ken, your avatar (peace sign) and your views don't seem to match...the only thing your counter-culture to is the counter-culture, ie. you seem to be pro-establishment :)

[JonW]

Hey Ken, your avatar (peace sign) and your views don't seem to match...the only thing your counter-culture to is the counter-culture, ie. you seem to be pro-establishment :)

No one is forcing you to buy or rent media. If you want to be part of the "counter-culture" then go support the *true* counter-culture, aka the folks who aren't relying on copyright laws let alone DCMA to protect their works.

When you steal from the movie studios or the major software houses you only reinforce their position in the world. You continue the unabated demand for their product (legal or illegal).

That's the difference between taking a moral stand, and stealing.

[Steve Mehs]

So what you're saying is someone has to be an angel or a goody goody in order to be able to resist stealing someone else's property or respect a contract these days? :eek2:

That's pretty sad...

No what's pretty sad is this is even an issue. I'm sure there’s some minuscule law you ignore every day, probably some you don't even know about. I'm not inflicting pain into anyone, I'm not damaging anything, hell it's not like I even sell this crap. I use it for my own personal use. People have been copying VHS tapes since they came out. And after 6 or 7 years I’ve stopped with the music piracy as well. Again, not because I care, but because I wanted more consistent quality, that and I can’t find jack on Limewire anymore, so over the past 8 months I’ve been rebuilding my MP3 collection with legally purchased music from iTunes. So all you church going fancy lads who pledge allegiance to the DMCA, while it pains me to do so, I’ve pretty much given up pirating, but I will always defend someones God given right to steal intellectual property (for the final time NOT REAL PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!) via the internet.

[Ken S]

Hey Ken, your avatar (peace sign) and your views don't seem to match...the only thing your counter-culture to is the counter-culture, ie. you seem to be pro-establishment :)

Thanks for your opinion. I just don't believe in stealing whether it's from the guy next door or a large multinational corporation.
What believing in peace and stealing intellectual property have to do with each other I'm not sure....but hey make of it what you will.

[JonW]

I'm sure there’s some minuscule law you ignore every day, probably some you don't even know about. I'm not inflicting pain into anyone, I'm not damaging anything, hell it's not like I even sell this crap. I use it for my own personal use.

Rationalization is a fun game, but I don't see how your *opinion* about what is or is not harming someone has to do with wishing peace, or explains why only angels can avoid being media pirates.

If the people who publish the movies and the music didn't think you were causing them financial harm by pirating their media wouldn't they just freely distribute it?

It is their media, right? Did they not create it?

Don't you think they deserve first dibs on deciding what is or is not harmfull to their business?

[Steve Mehs]

Geeze you really don't understand what I've been referring to? How about the old saying people in glass house shouldn't throw stones. I'm sure there's something you do or did in your life that wasn't exactly 'moral' or whatever and you knew it. So stop with the holier than thou act because we're all human and do things 'immoral' and if those actions are something as non threatening as copying a freakin movie then I think that’s pretty damn good. And don’t pull the rationalization thing again, I’m not rationalizing anything. I’m just saying I’m not perfect so before you angels grill me take a look in your own damn closets.

[steve053]

...... but I will always defend someones God given right to steal intellectual property (for the final time NOT REAL PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!) via the internet.

:bad_nono:

I don't even know where to begin.

[Steve Mehs]

You begin at the beginning of course.

[JonW]

I’m not rationalizing anything. I’m just saying I’m not perfect so before you angels grill me take a look in your own damn closets.

Of course you're rationalizing, otherwise you'd be answering the actual question.

And since you brought up "angels" even christianity understands that people are weak and will commit sins, but those "angels" don't get to go to heaven unless they try to do something to stop committing sin. Just saying it's ok because other people do it, doesn't really cut it in any moral or ethical system I can recall... unless you count hedonism ...

[OneOfOne]

I am surprised at how many people openly admit to copying the DVDs they receive from Netflix. I guess there's no shame in piracy these days!

copying dvds isnt piracy unless you sell the copy. its not really fair use either but no one is harmed when would view what you rented anyway and paid for it. the copy you make probably isnt as good in quality as the original but you get to watch it at your convenience forever. a fair deal to me. the real shame is in being judgmental. of course theres no hypocrites in this forum are there?

[JonW]

copying dvds isnt piracy unless you sell the copy. its not really fair use either but no one is harmed when would view what you rented anyway and paid for it. the copy you make probably isnt as good in quality as the original but you get to watch it at your convenience forever. a fair deal to me. the real shame is in being judgmental. of course theres no hypocrites in this forum are there?

A copy is as good as you make it. Since you only rented the movie you do not have the right to make copies, even for personal use. That's the whole idea of renting, you know? If you were supposed to make your own copy and keep it, they'd call it selling.

[Steve Mehs]

Of course you're rationalizing, otherwise you'd be answering the actual question.

And since you brought up "angels" even christianity understands that people are weak and will commit sins, but those "angels" don't get to go to heaven unless they try to do something to stop committing sin. Just saying it's ok because other people do it, doesn't really cut it in any moral or ethical system I can recall... unless you count hedonism ...

And what was the original question? Rationalizing is making excuses. I haven’t made any excuses, I think I’ve been quite frank.

And don't spew religion at me! I used the word angel as a figure of speech. In the midst of your Sunday School lecture you said “unless they try to do something to stop committing sin.” I’ve said it two or three times already, I haven’t pirated DVDs in YEARS. So this alleged sin of pirating no longer applies to me as I haven’t TRIED to stop I HAVE stopped. Again not because had a change in heart, but for quality reasons. And not only have I stopped, but a good portion of the movies and music I acquired illegally, I have legally purchased, with more to come.

[man_rob]

No what's pretty sad is this is even an issue. I'm sure there’s some minuscule law you ignore every day, probably some you don't even know about. I'm not inflicting pain into anyone, I'm not damaging anything, hell it's not like I even sell this crap. I use it for my own personal use. People have been copying VHS tapes since they came out. And after 6 or 7 years I’ve stopped with the music piracy as well. Again, not because I care, but because I wanted more consistent quality, that and I can’t find jack on Limewire anymore, so over the past 8 months I’ve been rebuilding my MP3 collection with legally purchased music from iTunes. So all you church going fancy lads who pledge allegiance to the DMCA, while it pains me to do so, I’ve pretty much given up pirating, but I will always defend someones God given right to steal intellectual property (for the final time NOT REAL PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!) via the internet.


And if someone steals your identity? That isn't real property. You are still the same person.

[DirecTV3049]

A copy is as good as you make it. Since you only rented the movie you do not have the right to make copies, even for personal use. That's the whole idea of renting, you know? If you were supposed to make your own copy and keep it, they'd call it selling.

On the other hand, JonW, the same "logic" never applied to content - especially songs (even entire albums) - copied off the radio for free for personal use. Or to content you checked out from the libary (albums and VHS tapes). You didn't "own" the songs or movies then either, but it was "legal" to make the copies for your own personal use under the "fair use" doctrine.

What changed between the 1960s/1970s and today is NOT the inherent nature of the "property" - which, being intangible, remains "ephemeral" in nature - but the copying technology. In theory (though often not in practice), copies can be as good as the original . . . which was not the case with FM songs copied to cassette tape (or other media/devices).

So with a flick of it's magic wand, Congress (at the behest of various industry groups) says you cannot break encryption to make a copy (DMCA) even a copy for person use . . . while all the while saying that copying for personal use is still legal under "Fair Use."

So, if we stay with these "analogies," copying a DVD you don't own is NOT illegal . . . it's not even "theft" (assuming, again, personal use only) . You can still checkout CDs and VHS tapes from your library - if you can find them - and make copies for your personal use).

But, breaking the encryption to make a copy of a DVD (or CD) is illegal. And, technically, breaking encryption wouldn't be considered theft - in fact, it's a very hard "crime" to find an analogy for. If anything, it's more like trespassing than theft.

So, if it's "analogies" were talking: take the sweater from Macy's if you want (for your personal use only), that's not illegal . . . just don't tamper with the inventory control tag. IF (and it's a big IF) you can get the sweater without tampering with the control tag, you're scot free in terms of any liability for criminal prosecution. It just so happens that (currently) you can't take the sweater without tampering with the inventory control tag.

You also cannot sell that sweater on eBay (because it's not "personal use" covered under "fair use") or let others have it (if a sweater could be bit torrented).

I grant that it's a "fine distinction" that I am making . . . but it IS the distinction Congress makes and, hence, a distinction the law itself makes. And on such fine distinctions many things can and do turn.

Now copying for personal use (or otherwise) - with or without breaking encryption - may also be a breach of the agreement you have with Netflix, BB, or whomever . . . but that's a different matter. Violating that agreement just makes you a dirty little contract breacher.

With regard to contract breaching, well it's not illegal - no criminal penalty applies. The matter is wholly between you and Netflix, BB, etc. . . . though breaching a contract may net you some liability for damages. Most people - including most corporations (Netflix and BB included) - will weigh the benefits of breaching a contract against the costs of doing so.

There is is a suit now between HDnet and DirecTV in Texas state court wherein HDnet alleges that DirecTV is breaching their contract. From the pleadings (so far) it appears that HDnet has a strong case. Few people, however, would shun the individual managers/directors of DirecTV over the "immorality" (if any) they demonstrate when DirecTV breaches its agreements because its in its business interest to so do. It's simply business - a simple cost/benefit analysis.

Yet, if an *individual* consumer breaks an agreement - when he deems it to his benefit to do so - it somehows casts a shadow on his/her "morals."

It's a very odd asymmetrical world.

DirecTV3049

[Ken S]

DirecTV3049 your use of the "Fair Use" doctrine is overly broad and incorrect. Fair Use of a copyrighted work does not simply encompass personal copying of an item. Just because you're not using the copy for commercial purposes does not automatically qualify it as a "fair use" of that property.
While I don't often point people to Wikipedia for information on legal issues...their discussion of the doctrine is pretty good ...check it out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use).


On to the other issue. As you suggest, breaking the law and being ethically or morally wrong aren't one in the same. But stating something is "simply business" and doing what you desire despite agreements or laws to the contrary certainly does not cast a cloak of immunity over the people involved. Corporations and other business entities are entities only for the purpose of the law. They are not thinking beings. While a corporate veil can protect an employee from legal liability it does not serve as a shield from a societal obligation to act ethically or morally.

The underlying acts (and their knowledge of their possible outcome) by people are what would determine an ethical issue. You use HDNet v. DirecTV and state...that's just business. What about a corporation that pollutes a water source that either kills or sickens people because a cost/benefit analysis made that the better choice. What of the executives that determine that using a dangerous design for a car is less expensive even when they take into account the wrongful death suits? Is that just business and therefor not an ethical or moral issue?

This is really no different on an individual basis. While some work hard to disprove this fact...we're all thinking and reasoning beings. The things we do coupled with our knowledge of what will/may happen is what will determine whether something is ethically or morally wrong. Society, or certain applicable subparts generally determine ethics and morals generally come from someone's religion.

The person that innocently copied a piece of software,music or movie as a pure backup years ago may have been legally liable in some way but was probably not committing an ethical or moral breach.

The person that says "F" the BSA, RIAA, MPAA they all make too much money and does the same with a rented/borrowed disc is fully away that they are depriving someone of something and in so doing are most likely ethically and morally wrong.

This is getting way too long and dull...

j

[Slip Jigs]

There certainly a lot more delivery optiions for HD content these days.

But until the bandwidth of Sat, Cable or internet downloads expands, those just match the quality of BD or HDDVD. And it's not about the "i" or the "p", it's about the bitrate that's delivered from the medium. And you can tell the difference both the the video and audio.

[DirecTV3049]

DirecTV3049 your use of the "Fair Use" doctrine is overly broad and incorrect. Fair Use of a copyrighted work does not simply encompass personal copying of an item. Just because you're not using the copy for commercial purposes does not automatically qualify it as a "fair use" of that property.

Cut the b.s. I take it for granted that this forum isn't a scholarly law review discussion of copyrights.

With regard to the specific examples given: (1) recording from FM radio and (2) copying from library materials, my description of "Fair Use" is accurate and correct. I stand by every word written. I emphasized personal use to point out that commercial distribution of such copied materials or even widespread non-commercial distribution of such copied materials would not fall within "Fair Use." And that's accurate and correct enough too for this forum and this discussion.

The fact remains: ownership of the underlying media (song, speech, movie, whathave you) is NOT a prerequisite to being able to make and own a copy it under "Fair Use" principles.


On to the other issue. As you suggest, breaking the law and being ethically or morally wrong aren't one in the same. But stating something is "simply business" and doing what you desire despite agreements or laws to the contrary certainly does not cast a cloak of immunity over the people involved. Corporations and other business entities are entities only for the purpose of the law. They are not thinking beings. While a corporate veil can protect an employee from legal liability it does not serve as a shield from a societal obligation to act ethically or morally.

Sorry Ken S, but you missed my point entirely.

Corporations don't break contracts . . . the people within those corporations do.

Society does not cast "aspersion" on the people who run corporations and cause the corporations to break contracts . . . at least not nearly to the degree that society condemns *individuals* who break contracts in their private lifes.

It's only in the *rare* cases like Enron where the corporate officers face *personal* consequences at the hands of "polite society." These cases are notable EXACTLY because there is societal revulsion to the individuals. In the main, however, contract breaching, double dealing, etc. are accepted in business in a way that would never be tolerated by society in general if done by an individual in a non-business setting.

THAT's the asymmetry I'm talking about. What a person does in the business world that's ethically suspect or problematic will get often get that person promoted . . . but in private life in a personal situtation, will get them (figuratively) tarred and feathered.

I've NEVER heard of a corporate bankruptcy (Chapter 11 or Chapter 7) being regarded as a shameful thing - even for the officers who ran the corporation into the ground . . . but I used to hear a lot of "shame" being heaped upon *individuals* who filed for personal (Chapter 7 or Chapter 13) bankruptcy.

The underlying acts (and their knowledge of their possible outcome) by people are what would determine an ethical issue. You use HDNet v. DirecTV and state...that's just business.

*I* don't say that, Ken S, but society clearly does. Where's the Wall Street Journal editorial decrying DirecTV's actions?? Where's the outrage?

There is none. We've had pages and pages written about the case on this very forum and not ONE post calling the individuals involved "dirty little contract breachers" or questioning their ethics or their morality. Almost all of the discussion is about how DirecTV's actions might be tactical or strategic with regard to a possible upcoming agreement between the two corporations. How it is good business or bad business. No (or very little) comment on the ethics of breaching the agreement.

Do you think the Board Chairman, CEO or CFO of DirecTV is shunned by his/her neighbors, country club members, friends because of it's contract breaching in the HDNet case?

I don't. Not that I know them personally, but I've been involved in enough similar cases to believe that they do not.

Fact is, society's actions clearly reflect that contract breaching in business is "par for the course." It's only when it raises to a "certain level" . . . when it is so shocking . . . that there's any outrage or revulsion to the people who made the decision.

Otherwise, ho-hum, not even backpage news. How many civil cases alleging business wrong doings get filed in your local state court and are (usually) listed in the "docket report" section of your local "lawyer" newspaper compared to how many stories concerning contract breaches by businesses make the general circulation newspaper? Maybe 1% of the contract breach or other business cases that get filed in state/federal court make the general news ?? (probably a lot less).

So, no, I'm not surprised - and won't pretend to be - when individuals who are not masters of the corporation domain say "f* it" too with regard to their personal decisions.

The rest is just "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

DirecTV3049

[JonW]

On the other hand, JonW, the same "logic" never applied to content - especially songs (even entire albums) - copied off the radio for free for personal use. Or to content you checked out from the libary (albums and VHS tapes). You didn't "own" the songs or movies then either, but it was "legal" to make the copies for your own personal use under the "fair use" doctrine.

And if he was arguing that he has a right to copy something that was broadcast without some sort of copy protection in place for his own personal use, I'd be with him.

If he was arguing that he had a right to copy a DVD so he could watch it using his media player, I'd be with him.

But no. He's renting DVDs so he can gain some of the advantages he would only have had if he purchased it.

And btw, yes, many people consider willful breach of contract without just cause to be morally or at least ethically wrong.

[Paul Secic]

I really did forget about this. Just to let all you angels and goody goodies know, I haven’t pirated DVDs in years. So you can all sleep tight knowing your millionaire buddies in Hollyweird are getting their full cuts. Not that I have a change in heart or anything, but as I explained, with my HD Upconversion DVD player I get zero increase in picture quality with my burned copies. A good portion of my burned copies have been replaced by legally purchased discs or I caught the movies I burned on the movies channels and they sucked and I never purchased them. So get the MPAA goon squad after me for a bunch of pirated DVDs that aren’t in existence anymore. While you're at it call the sheriffs department. I did 60MPH in 45 today.

Movies are repeated over & over HBO & AMC and such.. You do realize this board is public, don't you?

[Toddwrtr]

I find that most PPV movies in HD are heavily compressed and cropped (if they were shot in 2:40:1). At $4.99 per movie, that is a bit steep, especially when you consider in the over compression and cropping.

I like my Netflix and Blu-Ray for now....

[Steve Mehs]

Movies are repeated over & over HBO & AMC and such.. You do realize this board is public, don't you?

You do realize DVDs yield better picture quality then HBO and AMC, don't you?

[Mindhaz]

I have Netflix and love the service... occassionally however I do run out of movies or something I want is on "long wait". For me, $4.99 is cheaper than driving the the video store (12 mile round trip) and driving back to the video store to take it back. At > $3 a gallon for gas plus the Hollywood charge... I use PPV occassionally.

I could really go for unlimited PPV at $20 a month from D* though. My guess is that will never happen. Probably violates some contract with HBO.

I'm still waiting for pay per everything... I'd like the $2 per channel per month please. Outside of broadcast and premium channels, I only watch about 5. D* could keep about 200 of their channels. I'm tired of bill creep on the garbage I don't watch.

[JonW]

Again not because had a change in heart, but for quality reasons.

Ahh well, you're still going to the devil then.

Just kidding! :icon_peac

btw, here's what I originally said that you never responded to...

So what you're saying is someone has to be an angel or a goody goody in order to be able to resist stealing someone else's property or respect a contract these days?

That's pretty sad...

[DirecTV3049]

And btw, yes, many people consider willful breach of contract without just cause to be morally or at least ethically wrong.

The population of the United States is approximately 300 million people. 1% of the total population works out to be about 3 million people. While that's "many people" it's hardly representative of the nation.

I stand by my comment that in society (as a whole) there is an asymmetrical response/reaction - a hypocrisy if you will - to the individual corporate directors and corporate officers who directly cause a corporation to breach its contracts (and to engage in other ethically/morally questionable actions) in a business setting and an individual who breaches contracts and the like in his personal dealings.

The corporate officers generally escape societal censure, while - as your posts demonstrate - the individual in a non-business setting does not.

Without going to the Internet, I'd bet less than 20 people could name just ONE Ford executive involved in the decision to go forward with the manufacture of the Pinto despite it's known design flaw (the infamous exploding gas tank) - much less than entire management team. I further bet that none of those Ford executives personally actually suffered an actual hardship - either financially or socially because of it.

I neither "condone" it nor "abhor" it. . . anymore than I "condone" or "abhor" oxygen in the atmosphere. I simply state that the asymmetry (or hypocrisy) exists. And that it is very, very large.

Therefore, I am neither surprised nor shocked when individuals - especially those who do not inhabit the corporate boardroom or the executive washroom - see such hypocrisy by those who do inhabit the corporate boardroom and executive washroom and, therefore, feel unencumbered by ethical/moral rules . . . particularly those ethical/moral rules decided upon by the same types of hypocritical people who inhabit corporate boardrooms and executive washrooms.

DirecTV3059

[JonW]

I can't name anyone currently on the FBI's most wanted list either. What the heck does any of that prove?

I'm not too fond of the "it's ok, because everyone else does it" defense. Is that what you're trying to say?

There are all sorts of justifications for breaching a contract, but that particular one is pretty much morally void.

[Ken S]

Cut the BS?

Please show me where copying of library materials as you have described is a permitted exception to the copyright law under the Fair Use doctrine?

Yes, you are allowed to tape radio and television programs for the purpose of "time shifting". That exception does not apply to rented or borrowed material.

The right to "backup" items is only for computer software and does not apply to music, tv shows, movies, etc.

-----
As for your theory on Society casting aspersions...

Corporate executives may not get "shunned" by their neighbors for what they do in business mostly because those people have no idea of that person's involvement.

Those people however do build a reputation within their industry and with their customers/vendors. They will meet with tougher dealings, blackballing, etc. from people in the industry who know how they have acted.

Individuals breaching contracts are hardly condemned or shunned. Not even close.

It's a matter of degree. The HDNet/DirecTV case is barely news in the business world...much the same as the thousands and thousands of cases filed each month by credit card companies against non-paying individuals. The only reason it was reported at all is because DirecTV is a public corporation.

[DirecTV3049]

Cut the BS?

Please show me where copying of library materials as you have described is a permitted exception to the copyright law under the Fair Use doctrine?

Show me one court decision that says it's not.

Yes, you are allowed to tape radio and television programs

So, I was right.

That exception does not apply to rented or borrowed material.

I didn't say it did.

I just said that "fair use" doesn't require you to *own* the source material that you want to copy. I don't, for example, "own" a radio or television broadcast program . . . yet, as you agree, I *can* legally copy a broadcasted radio or television program (including the music thereon) for my own personal listening or viewing.

And the "fair use" doctrine certainly applies to "borrowed" materials from a library . . . academia could harldy survive without it. We are most familiar with "fair use" in the realm of printed text . . . there is no rule suspending the "fair use" doctrine solely because the what I borrowed from the library is digital media instead of printed text.

So, just because the material you want to copy is "borrowed" doesn't per se exclude the application of the "fair use" doctrine (which is what, apparently, you'd argue). The same can be said for "renting" (i.e., "fair use" is not per se automatically excluded just because you rented the material you want to copy).

Now, the *application* of the fair use doctrine to digital media "borrowed" from a library is subject to a great deal of debate. The generally accepted practice has been to extrapolate from the principles discussed and analyzed in text cases and to apply those principles as best as possible to digital media. But the devil is in the details.

Now, I think most lawyers would agree - but maybe you wouldn't Ken - that if I copyied ONE article out of last week's "Time" magazine for my own "personal study" that my one copy of that article is perfectly legal for me to have under "fair use."

Now, extrapolate that to digital media - does "fair use" permit me to copy one song from a CD I obtained from the library for my own "personal study"? Some argue yes (no different than copying an entire article from Time) . . . others suggest I'm limited to just a "portion" of the song (say the first chorus). No one really knows for sure who is right . . . and, being lawyers, the default advice is "be conservative." But, "being conservative" doesn't flesh out the full extent of "full use" as applied to digital media Ken . . . it merely defines the smallest thing you can do that everyone agrees upon.

I agree that under either approach just mentioned, it's probably not going to be considered "fair use" by a court for me to copy the whole CD . . . at least not in one fell swoop (except under certain conditions where the CD is out of print and not available "used" for a reasonable market value).

But, there's also a different way of approaching the "fair use" question when it comes to digital media . . . and that's to ask - more generally - what's anticipated? what's the expectation? An approach that doesn't merely try to extrapolate from text principles.

It goes something like this:

Congress - via the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) - has implicitly "blessed" the notion that Americans can make ONE copy (at least, one copy at a time) of audio recordings. Nothing in the AHRA says you have to own the audio material that you want to copy. Congress is also aware that libraries exist . . . and that libraries loan out digital media. Heck, Congress has access to the largest one, right?

Connect dot A (the wide availabilty of recording machines) to dot B (libraries with digital media) factor in the financial feasability of copying digital media (cheap media) isn't what's "fair" what everyone expects - and knows - happens anyway??

Isn't it really"unfair" to say here's a library chockful of CDs and here's a machine that will make copies of them for you and, by the way, it's affordable . . . but you're a criminal if you mix the two together?? Especially since there is no effective way for entities like the RIAA to stop people from doing going to the library, borrowing the CD, ripping it to the hard drive, and going along merrily.

One COULD ask: what's the point in saying someone's a criminal when (1) you don't ever prosecute them (ever HEAR of the RIAA bringing suit against a libary patron??) and (2) you cannot -as a practical matter- bring an enforcement action?

Yep, I'm arguing that "fair use" evolves . . . in much the same way that our understanding of "due process" or "cruel and unusual punishment" evolves.

Given this, it's no wonder the recording and movie industries threw in the towel and STOPPED trying to fight the battle on "fair use" grounds. The DMCA doesn't alter "fair use" doctrine one iota or stop it from evolving. Instead it completely shifts the battle to encryption/decryption. Doesn't matter whether your copy WOULD be "fair use" . . . DMCA simplies puts the source material in a "vault" and make it unlawful to break in.

Corporate executives may not get "shunned" by their neighbors for what they do in business mostly because those people have no idea of that person's involvement.

And why is that Ken? Why don't those people have an idea of that person's involvement?

If such moral/ethical breaches were RARE, then they WOULD be newsworthy and their neighbors would know and act accordingly.

But they're not rare, there common and mundane . . . almost banal.

A lot of "lip service" is paid to morality/ethics in this country, but not a whole lot actually happens to back the talk up.

Just look at the politicians - of both parties - who espouse "family values," but have numerous ex-wifes by divorce, engage in affairs (both straight and homosexual), etc.

I'm saying the "talk" doesn't match the walk, Ken . . . and, imo, the walk is always more important than the talk.

Those people however do build a reputation within their industry and with their customers/vendors. They will meet with tougher dealings, blackballing, etc. from people in the industry who know how they have acted.

Oooohh, I'm sure they're so scared of "tougher dealings."

If society truly ACTED like we believed "immoral" or "unethical" businessmen and politicians were worthy of being rebuke for their "immorality" and lack of "ethics," shouldn't we "walk the walk" and stop doing business with - or voting for them - at all??

[DirecTV3049]

I'm not too fond of the "it's ok, because everyone else does it" defense. Is that what you're trying to say?

Nope, not at all.

Let's try it this way. Traditional Japanese culture has a "code." You break that "code" there are all sorts of consequences and repurcussions from your job, your business contacts, your personal life, your family, etc. Traditional Japan is a "group culture." Everyone (well, pretty much everyone) takes the "code" seriously" and vigorously enforces breaches of the "code." They don't TALK about their morality and ethics much - the "code" is understood - but they ACT on it with vigor.

(BTW, I recognize this is all broadly overstated, but this is an internet discussion forum so I'm allowed some leeway, right?)

In the US? Our "group identity" is weak to non-existent. We admire the personality traits of individuality and non-conformity. We TALK a lot about ethics/morality here, but what do we (society) really DO when someone actually crosses a moral/ethical boundary?

Well, number 1, being individuals, we don't always agree where the moral/ethical boundary is.

Then, number 2, we don't strongly and uniformly sanction morality/ethical breaches from all points (personal/business) - even when there is broad agreement that a moral/ethical breach occured. Where's Bill Clinton (intern in the Whitehouse) today? Where's Rudy Guiliani (mistress in the mansion) today?

It's NOT "everybody's doing it" . . . it's more like "it's clear that our society almost always lets it slide when somebody DOES do it."

If that's the case - and it certainly appears to me to be so based on the evidence -why get so worked up when the moral/ethical boundary is crossed? It's not like we're actually gonna DO something to/about that person that has a real, lasting effect.

Follow?

[JonW]

It's NOT "everybody's doing it" . . . it's more like "it's clear that our society almost always lets it slide when somebody DOES do it."

So you're going with the "it's ok because it's unlikely anyone will bother to catch me at it" defense?

That's arguably even more heinous...

[Ken S]

DirecTV,

You've written a nice fairy tale for yourself. Changing the discussion to feed your latest theories. First it's a discussion of copying movies rented from Netflix to you have the right to copy anything in a library...but wait...you then bring up academia which has nothing to do with this discussion, but is a stated basis for Fair Use.

When you can't counter an statement you find it necessary to throw out comments like "Oooh, I'm sure they're so scared."

Rather than continue and waste your time on educating me on the copyright law, Fair Use and society in general I'm going to bow out of the discussion.

[DirecTV3049]

DirecTV,

You've written a nice fairy tale for yourself. Changing the discussion to feed your latest theories. First it's a discussion of copying movies rented from Netflix to you have the right to copy anything in a library...but wait...you then bring up academia which has nothing to do with this discussion, but is a stated basis for Fair Use.

When you can't counter an statement you find it necessary to throw out comments like "Oooh, I'm sure they're so scared."

Rather than continue and waste your time on educating me on the copyright law, Fair Use and society in general I'm going to bow out of the discussion.

So you've got nothing. Bye bye.

[DirecTV3049]

So you're going with the "it's ok because it's unlikely anyone will bother to catch me at it" defense?

That's arguably even more heinous...

Rather than worry about whether it's "heinous" or "not heinous" why don't you ask yourself if it's true and accurate description of our society?

If it's true, it's a *description* . . . not a "defense" (because truth doesn't need a "defense").

[DirecTV3049]

So you're going with the "it's ok because it's unlikely anyone will bother to catch me at it" defense?

That's arguably even more heinous...

And, once again, you've either missed my point or willfully misstated it.

It's not "unlikely anyone will bother to catch me at it" . . . because in a land where 1% constitutes 3 million, somebody might bother to catch you.

Instead, it's "if caught society (in general) will not rebuke me." Sure, you might face sanctions under the law, but not face the "informal" sanctions that can be meted out by society like being ostracized.

Chuck Berry has a conviction under the Mann Act (involving a 14 year old prostitute) AND a conviction in connection with evading federal income taxes. He was also civilly sued by nearly 60 women who claimed that Berry furtively videotaped them in the restroom of his restaurants. These were ALL well publicized events.

I think we can conclude: (1) that Berry is morally/ethically "challenged"; (2) that he has been caught numerous times; and (3) he's served prison time and paid out over $1 million (to settle the civil case).

And yet despite all of this being well known and documented. . . numerous rock 'n roll "legends" showed up to "honor" him on his 60th birthday (documented in the video "Hail, Hail Rock 'n Roll"), that concert was sold out, and he continues to pack concert venues. And - I've personally seen this - when he IS in court on whatever type of case . . . people are FLOCKING for his autograph before he even gets out the courthouse doors.

Rather than being a detraction, the ethical/moral lapses and convictions seem - in society's view - to have "added" to his "legend." At a minimum, the convictions and lapses caused little or no long term damage to it. People still pack his shows at Blueberry Hill where he plays regularly.

Where is society-wide indignation at Chuck Berry??

That, my friend, is but a microcosm of where we are as a society. Lather, rinse, and repeat for thousands of "Chuck Berry's" - and less well known people - across this country.

And if THAT's where we as a society - if a CONVICTED pervert and tax evader doesn't earn a society-wide rebuke, calling out, and distancing, well . . . pardon me if I can't work up the spit to chastize someone whose ethical/moral "lapse" is he that he made a copy of "Shrek 3" from his Netflix account.

Put differently, if YOU - personally - aren't going to "pick-off" the easy targets who are doing extremely morally/ethically challenged things like Chuck Berry, Britney Spears, Rudy Guiliani, Bill Clinton, etc. ad nauseum . . . why are you taking shots at an anonymous poster on an internet forum who is doing something that is - in terms of moral/ethical lapses - a merely a "misdemeanor"???

[JonW]

I wasn't aware we were discussing Chuck Berry, Britney Spears, etc, etc.

What I am taking issue with is the presumption that people cannot take personal responsibility for their own acts without having to be an "angel" or a "goody goody".

But hey, if you really want to understand why *some* people still pack Chuck Berry's shows I suggest you ask someone who actually attends them.

[Paul Secic]

You do realize DVDs yield better picture quality then HBO and AMC, don't you?

Sure do, but it depends on SD vs HD.

[gully_foyle]

And, once again, you've either missed my point or willfully misstated it.

It's not "unlikely anyone will bother to catch me at it" . . . because in a land where 1% constitutes 3 million, somebody might bother to catch you.

Instead, it's "if caught society (in general) will not rebuke me." Sure, you might face sanctions under the law, but not face the "informal" sanctions that can be meted out by society like being ostracized.

Brave words Mr. NoName.

[EMoMoney]

I rent movies from our county library for FREE. yes, even the new releases. There's about 5-8 people lined up outside on Tuesday mornings when the new DVDs are released.

[Nightfall]

Its too bad this thread degenerated into a completely different discussion on fair use and copyright rights. I will try to get this thread back on track with my experiences.

I just got a nice 52" HDTV and I love HDTV from Directv. That being said, I haven't subscribed to any movie channels. I used to, but instead of paying for movie channels, I went for using Netflix instead. I still use Netflix to this day. Its much better for me to rent the movies I want to watch and not have to pay for HBO, Showtime, Starz, and so on. I find paying for channels like that to maybe find 3-6 movies a month for $12-$13 a month to be a waste whereas I can rent double the amount of movies I want to watch in that month for about the same price.

I don't have a HD DVD or a Blueray player yet. I just can't justify paying for a player that won't play all HD format. I will be waiting for a standard or a player that can play both formats to be affordable.

That isn't stopping me from considering Starz for their HD movie channels. Right now, that is all I am going to consider at this point.

[vestaviaScott]

with ppv HD and then the ability to burn them, i wont be at BB again except for renting a tv series....and its WELL worth it for the buck to get it in HD... i have become an admitted HD snob

Any tips you can provide on how to archive HD content (and keep it HD) ?