DirecTV announces: Only 24hr use of PPV movies effective 4/15

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Incog-Neato, Mar 10, 2008.

  1. jjohns

    jjohns Godfather

    467
    0
    Sep 15, 2007
    It's the same mind-set that the music folks took. Instead of being reasonable and making the window 48 hours to serve the majority of their customers, they listen to some bonehead in their board meeting who says, "Ooh, forty-eight hours is too much time. Look how much they could steal in that amount of time. We better make it 24 hours." Screw the honest customers.
     
  2. Mac user

    Mac user Mentor

    37
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    I understand the copyprotection flags, but I have to agree, 24 hours is way too short of a period to view a movie. Especially for those of us who have kids.
     
  3. jjohns

    jjohns Godfather

    467
    0
    Sep 15, 2007
    Agreed. I would think that any reasonable person would not object to companies trying to protect their product and investments. Like you say, it's the length of the window that's unreasonable. The music industry shot themselves in the foot with these exact types of decisions. I don't get it. The only expanation I can think of is that greed starts jading their common sense.
     
  4. dyker

    dyker Legend

    179
    0
    Feb 27, 2008
    Seems to me they should just put a counter on it and let you watch 24 total hours (not limited to a single 24 hour day but 24 total hours of viewing) or something like that. within 24 hours??? We'll be stopping all PPV.

    This is another reason I'll consider re-implementing my Sage DVR and the Happauge HD Recorder (if it works) and a macrovision stripper... putting DirecTV back to the "vendor" and off the front end of my TV viewing.
     
  5. ned23

    ned23 AllStar

    64
    0
    Sep 18, 2007
    Hmm, if you figure the retailers markup, pressing, packaging, shipping, handling, returns, damage and loss, I don't think that anyone is losing money. If you figure that I, and I am sure other folks, will not order PPV under these terms then it will be definite that they will lose money!

    I can't tell you how many times my wife and I have started watching a movie and I get called away and can't finish the movie until a few days later.

    The only time I can see these heavy restrictions being put into practice is if they start broadcasting movies that are in the theatre. If they are already out on DVD this is absurd. IMO
     
  6. Mac user

    Mac user Mentor

    37
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    It's not absurd to think that they are trying to protect their investment. It's business. They have the "rights" to their content and if they want to copy protect their material, they certainly have the right to do that.

    They won't lose money because you, and others, will continue to watch their movies in other ways. Whether it's from Blockbuster, NetFlix, the theater, they are still selling their content to you. Just because you won't use PPV, doesn't mean they'll lose money.

    And again, I agree with you, and others, that 24 hours is too short of time to view material. No argument there.
     
  7. Vette1992

    Vette1992 Cool Member

    14
    0
    Nov 28, 2006
    I guess no more PPV's for me! I often watch PPV's late at night once the little ones fall asleep, and usually fall asleep myself while watching. Back to renting movies and Blu-Ray for me! Thanks DTV for the good excuse to go out and buy a Blu-Ray.

    Dwayne
     
  8. rcoleman111

    rcoleman111 Guest

    Warner Bros. owns New Line and has for many years. It's not a merger, they are simply absorbing the New Line operations into WB instead of allowing it to operate like a separate company.

    People have been recording movies from PPV and premium channels for as long as VCRs and DVD recorders have been around. It hasn't kept the studios from making billions upon billions of dollars from VHS and DVD sales. All they are going to do with these DRM schemes is ensure that most people won't bother with PPV or VOD.
     
  9. spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    12,566
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    I was an avid member of Columbia House for 3+ years. Getting a membership, fulfilling, cancelling and then starting another one.

    Over that 3 year period, I amassed a collection of about 400 DVD's. My average cost for these DVD's was $5.18 (as tracked in dvdprofiler).

    Are you telling me that those 400 DVD's were a loss to the studios??
     
  10. Mac user

    Mac user Mentor

    37
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    As stated earlier, the studios have a right to protect their content, whether or not they've already made billions and billions of dollars. And yes, to you, it seems as though there is no end to their cash flow, but studio execs might not think the same way you think.

    File sharing on the internet has come a long way since VCR and DVD recorders were introduced, making it much easier for people to share content. We're already networking our homes and networking with friends. Look at the music industry and Napster. If you don't think it's a major concern of the studios, you're kidding yourself. Pirating, sharing, DVD knock offs sold on the streets of L.A., and as far away as China, they are all concerns.

    Merger, two companies working separately, coming together. Sounds like a merger to me, if you want to be technical.
     
  11. rcoleman111

    rcoleman111 Guest

    That is likely to be the effect if these DRM schemes continue to expand. Most people like the convenience of an integrated DVR, but they aren't going to put up with Hollywood controlling how they use their TVs. If they go too far with this stuff, it will just lead to a shift to standalone devices that can bypass the DRM.
     
  12. Mac user

    Mac user Mentor

    37
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    Who knows what contracts the studios had with Columbia House to make it that affordable for you, but it sounds as though you got a good deal.
     
  13. spec2

    spec2 Cool Member

    28
    0
    Oct 1, 2007
    I'm surprised DTV wasn't able to negotiate a better deal. Even AppleTV (also offering HD movies) lets you keep the movie for 30 days, even though you have to watch the movie w/i 24hrs once you start it. Having to watch a movie w/i 24hrs of recording it makes zero sense, but then again who ever said Hollywood execs had any of that. This new rule by the media cos. shows nothing but contempt for customers. There is a middle ground, they just chose not to take it. Boo on them.

    BTW what this eventually happen when you record an HD movie on ANYWHERE. HDMI and DRM are going to reverse any convenience the DVR has brought so far. Pretty soon we'll be back to 1950's appointment TV, and no one has time for that anymore.
     
  14. raott

    raott Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    265
    Nov 23, 2005
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the 24 hour clock starts when you begin watching, not when you record.

    Regardless, a 24 hour window after begining to watch a movie isn't any better. I am rarely able to watch a movie in a single setting - and for that reason, I scratched Apple TV off my list after I was seriously considering getting it.
     
  15. JeffBowser

    JeffBowser blah blah blah

    2,551
    18
    Dec 21, 2006
    I'm really surprised at the number of people distressed over this due to the fact that they say they can't ever sit down and watch a movie in a single day. I've had kids, still have two in the house, a teen, and an 8 year old. We have no problem finishing a movie in a day, if that's what we decide to do. With all due respect, there might be a scheduling problem on the household end, rather than an issue with a 24 hour deadline from the time one begins the movie.
     
  16. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    288
    Jun 18, 2006
    Jeff, I can see you're more of a big picture guy. You're right, there are far worse things than being restricted to watching a movie the first day.

    That being said, I think it makes DIRECTV PPV less competitive against services like Netflix that give you essentially unlimited viewing time. As I've said before, you don't often prosper by offering the customer less service than you used to, especially if you don't lower the price or if your competition isn't doing that.
     
  17. JeffBowser

    JeffBowser blah blah blah

    2,551
    18
    Dec 21, 2006
    Oh, I don't disagree, I do think the movie industry is (has) gone to a very hot place in a handbasket, for sure. I don't like what has happened to music either, but oh well, it is what it is, we'll adjust, they'll adjust, and a new reality will emerge.

     
  18. gregjones

    gregjones Hall Of Fame

    1,333
    0
    Sep 20, 2007
    There is a difference now. Now, the PPV HD movie rivals what is available for purchase. Paying $5 vs $15 might be ok with an inferior product. Paying $5 vs $15 for equal quality presents a problem for them.

    The music industry had two problems that pushed them over the edge: quality and convenience. They didn't mind when all you could do was make a cassette tape with inferior sound quality. Having a digital version of the music that was pristine and easily transported was the problem.
     
  19. gregjones

    gregjones Hall Of Fame

    1,333
    0
    Sep 20, 2007
    I'm ok with music now. I can buy a single for under a dollar as an MP3 without DRM. I much prefer this to the $12 CD 2/3 full of songs I did not want.
     
  20. gregjones

    gregjones Hall Of Fame

    1,333
    0
    Sep 20, 2007
    I think it comes down to picking the kind of convenience you prefer. NetFlix will win for folks that like to view over multiple days. PPV will be better for people that like to watch things impulsively or dislike mailing items back.

    From what I understand, the new rules will not have a huge impact for me. I rarely use PPVs. When I do, I record them but don't buy them until I start watching. When I start watching, the 24-hour period shouldn't be an issue for me.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements