7 ms·

Napster Founder's Movie Plan Will Fuel Torrent Sites, Theaters Say

63 points by evo_9 11y ago

mc32 11y ago
Whether or not this service displaces theaters in the mid term is anyone's guess. What's not that ambiguous is the fate of movie theaters as the main venue to receive new movies. To me the only way they can remain viable is artificially by keeping a monopoly on distribution, otherwise there isn't a compelling reason for leaving the comfort of one's abode to go see a movie in a shared space next to strangers who might behave very annoyingly. Plus there is getting there, the grime on seats, the crowds, etc. Once screens get big enough, the form factor will cease to be a deciding factor. Sure, they have some years before that happens but they'd better prepare. On the upside, the theaters could be reused for other community purposes, either as rec centers, hack spaces, etc.
- robeastham 11y ago
  Cinema screens at home might actually get bigger than those at your local cinema very soon. How's that even possible I hear you ask? Well anyone who has tried a virtual cinema in VR will know what I'm talking about. It's pretty clear to me that this is the way a lot of people will want to watch movies in the future once resolution in VR is increased. This will either by higher pixel density or a move to retina projection based technologies. Both of these things are likely to hit the market with the required resolution within the next 2-5 years. I go to the cinema a lot, but usually only if I can see the film I want on to on Screen 1 - i.e the biggest one. VR will negate the need for me to do that so often, though I'm still sure I'll go with friends once in a while.
  - mc32 11y ago
    That's a very good point indeed. One way or another the value of their screens will become negligible. They can force deals to keep them in business a few more years, maybe a decade, maybe more on the outside, but time and technology are definitely not on their side. They'd better have a plan B for making money.
  - TylerE 11y ago
    Personally, any tech that involves wearing a headset can just go die in a corner. DO NOT WANT.
    - cma 11y ago
      Walkman?
- zipwitch 11y ago
  Higher-end cinemas like Alamo Drafthouse are already adapting to this. Designated seating, tight controls on audience behaviour to create a more reliably pleasant experience, extra little perks like their great pre-movie content, plenty of showings of stuff other than current blockbusters, and much better food and beverages than the old overpriced popcorn and candy.
  - bcook 11y ago
    Is audience behavior a problem? In my limited experience, it has never been a problem. The showings of non-mainstream media interests me, as a MST3K/RiffTrax fan.
    - Sir_Substance 11y ago
      >Is audience behavior a problem? In my limited experience, it has never been a problem. I hate, deeply and profoundly, the sound of people eating. If it doesn't bother you then you might not have noticed this, but about 50% of popcorn eating cinema-goers cannot chew with their mouths closed.
      - bcook 11y ago
        No, it bothers me (a lot), but I have never noticed it. Usually I have to be in a bad mood to notice it, so that may be why I have never noticed in theaters. Regardless, does the theater in question seriously notify loud eaters to quiet down or risk being removed from the theater? That is way too strict. Or maybe the theater uses sound-cancelling tech?
        Sir_Substance 11y ago
        They space the seats farther apart, which helps a little, but the reality is that given a choice between home or cinema, I'll always pick home.
      - adventured 11y ago
        Misophonia. [1] I have it as well. Extremely loud popcorn eaters are nearly the bane of my existence. I've developed a system for where I prefer to sit in movie theaters, based on certain very common crowd behaviors I've noticed, after carefully studying them for the last 15 years. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/health/06annoy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/health/06annoy.html
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  Since VCRs it always been about a monopoly on distribution plug a difference in quality. The size of the screen hasn't been a big deal for a long time, it is the resolution. Now that the resolution is basically matched by blu-ray and 4k / higher frame rates haven't made it to theatres we are seeing an opening for internet distribution. This same situation has been played out multiple times but not with the internet as a distribution model.
- magic_man 11y ago
  Going to the movies is a social activity. Sometimes people just want to get out of the house.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Yes, I get that. Some people will still want what will be an old-fashioned experience --just as there are a few people who still go to drive-thru movies. Still, as the interactive aspect ramps up (where you can "watch together" virtually (VR, or alternative), this will be less of a concern. As for the part about "getting out of the house" there are lots of other things people can do for that, walk the dog, go to the caffe, "get some milk" at the grocer's, drop by the pub, etc.
    - nommm-nommm 11y ago
      This may shock you but people do enjoy things you may not enjoy. Your opinion is not universal truth. In fact someone can even say "there isn't a compelling reason for leaving the comfort of one's abode to go get a beer in a shared space next to strangers who might behave very annoyingly. Plus there is getting there, the grime on seats, the crowds, etc." to your suggestion.
  - onion2k 11y ago
    Going there is, but actually watching the film isn't.
pink_dinner 11y ago
Many people thing $10 is too expensive for a movie ticket, why would they pay $150?
- tssva 11y ago
  Each movie is $50. The set top box is a one time fee of $150. Tickets at the closest theater to me are $12.10 and that is average for the area. With popcorn, drinks and online ticket fees your total approaches $50 for 2 people. If you have a family with kids the cost is going to blow by $50. Some people like the theater experience and this may not appeal to them but there is definitely a large number of people it will appeal to.
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >definitely a large number of people it will appeal to How large? Because we can't pretend that piracy isn't a thing. The theatre is expensive, sure. But it also has an audio visual experience that dominates anything anyone can have in their home, which is part of the premium. Is it worth $50 for a one-time movie experience in your home? Are people so desperate to see a movie they can't wait for it to reach Netflix or Amazon for "free", or pay $20 to own it on Bluray? I'm skeptical.
    - pavel_lishin 11y ago
      > Are people so desperate to see a movie they can't wait for it to reach Netflix or Amazon for "free", or pay $20 to own it on Bluray? I'm skeptical. Plenty of movies I want to see will never see Amazon or Netflix (Where can I stream The Avengers?), and plenty of people have no interest in cluttering up their house or apartment with BlueRay copies of movies they only want to see once.
      - douche 11y ago
        The Avengers has been on steady rotation on TBS (or maybe it's FX, one of those channels...) for years now. I think I've watched it at least a dozen times, without even trying.
mcintyre1994 11y ago
It seems movie theatres make most of their money on concessions, so obviously this is a massive problem for them. Nobody's going to buy that product instead of the supermarket's snacks if they're watching at home.
- SoreGums 11y ago
  Funny thing here in NZ, the main theatre chain Event doesn't even care if we go downstairs to the supermarket and bring in those snacks.... I think it is mostly because they charge $20+ for the movie ticket in the first place, though I get cheep tickets, $11, because of the deal with the major telco Spark
cat-dev-null 11y ago
Nice try (commercial experience meets PopcornTime), but BitTorrent Live didn't go anywhere and Netflix is nowhere near comprehensive because licensing deals are few and far between. Doubtful this will go anywhere because it's too expensive, competing with nearly free (ease of theft and cheaper-but-fragmented services) and Netflix has far deeper pockets and still has a minuscule catalog. Perhaps some Sean Parker Jedi w00w00 mindtricks can tease out deals where others have failed. Double-ended marketplace and kind of late# a highly-competitive/incumbent-monopolized market... (sincerely) good luck with that. It's probably a good idea because it seems like a terrible idea, especially if it offers multiple defensible, durable advantages. # There's both 'last-mover' and 'first-mover' advantage(s) in most categories.
ArnoldP 11y ago
And they are completely correct. Even if people aren't able to bypass the HDMI encryption (which they will), a camera recording at 60fps at the screen will produce a near perfect copy, certainly 'good enough' for most people. I do still see movies in theatre on occasion if the movie is better experienced in a group. Movie theatres need to start showing live events and offering better concessions, and alcohol. essentially become sports bars but with exceptional viewing quality. And bars are currently eating their lunch, expanding in to other markets than sport that would be well suited to cinema venues. A number of bars in my area offer nights where they stream pro video games and they are regularly filled completely. Same thing with live streams of plays/operas which repertory theatres in my area have started to do, albeit with projectors that aren't nearly as good as your local cineplex.
- Nux 11y ago
  Everyman Cinemas in UK do this (cozy sofas, drinks, pizzas), it's a nice change from the 'traditional' experience.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Movie theaters (the cineplex kind that also show major first-run Hollywood movies, not just arthouse ones) in the US already show live events (particularly art events -- live theater and other performances -- but I think there has been some sport events, as well), and there are several (including at least one chain) that have full menues, including alcohol, for at-seat service. So what you are saying needs to happen already is happening.
CharlesW 11y ago
Do these theater chains not realize that another company has been doing this for several years? http://www.primacinema.com/ http://www.primacinema.com/
- eli 11y ago
  Isn't that like $25k to get started? Maybe they figure (correctly or not) that people spending that much aren't pirates. I wouldn't be surprised if the movies are watermarked as well.
  - bcook 11y ago
    One thing that has surprised me on HN is that even the wealthy pirate, but perhaps not for financial reasons.
    - slang800 11y ago
      Not for financial reasons at all - it's convenience, the ability to get releases earlier, and the lack of DRM-free video on legal sites.
      - bcook 11y ago
        I thought Google & Apple both supplied DRM-free movie downloads. I have the entire Star Trek original series (among other series & movies) from iTunes loaded on my Plex server with zero DRM problems. For me, piracy has never been as convenient as clicking a button on iTunes. Everyone likes to save money though... :)
        __david__ 11y ago
        As far as I understand, nobody has drm free movie downloads. Apple's are most definitely drm protected and I'm near certain that Google's are, too.
        11y ago
smitherfield 11y ago
They're not wrong. Nobody is going to pay $50 to rent a movie, so all that it's going to do is create a new avenue for instant, high-quality leaks.
- intopieces 11y ago
  I thought that too, but then I remembered that for a family of four, a trip to the movies can easily exceed that much, especially for a 3D movie. AMC charges ~$15 for kids and ~$18 for adults. That's $66 before you even get to the snack bar.
  - smitherfield 11y ago
    People aren't perfectly rational beings when it comes to "sticker shock." They won't compare the $50 to the cost of tickets and concessions for the whole family, they'll compare it to the cost of a single ticket. And, somewhat more rationally, they'll compare it to the cost of renting the movie after it's left theaters (maybe $5).
- msh 11y ago
  I would, at least for select movies. After getting kids the time we have for going to the cinema have decreased a lot and the technical capabilities of home systems have improved. So if we could watch for example the new starwars on launch day I would have absolutely no problem paying 50 USD.
svarrall 11y ago
I don't keep track, but when was the last time a major film wasn't pirated on release or even before release? Is additional piracy really a major concern with this?

63 points by evo_9 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

Whether or not this service displaces theaters in the mid term is anyone's guess. What's not that ambiguous is the fate of movie theaters as the main venue to receive new movies. To me the only way they can remain viable is artificially by keeping a monopoly on distribution, otherwise there isn't a compelling reason for leaving the comfort of one's abode to go see a movie in a shared space next to strangers who might behave very annoyingly. Plus there is getting there, the grime on seats, the crowds, etc. Once screens get big enough, the form factor will cease to be a deciding factor. Sure, they have some years before that happens but they'd better prepare. On the upside, the theaters could be reused for other community purposes, either as rec centers, hack spaces, etc.

robeastham 11y ago
Cinema screens at home might actually get bigger than those at your local cinema very soon. How's that even possible I hear you ask? Well anyone who has tried a virtual cinema in VR will know what I'm talking about. It's pretty clear to me that this is the way a lot of people will want to watch movies in the future once resolution in VR is increased. This will either by higher pixel density or a move to retina projection based technologies. Both of these things are likely to hit the market with the required resolution within the next 2-5 years. I go to the cinema a lot, but usually only if I can see the film I want on to on Screen 1 - i.e the biggest one. VR will negate the need for me to do that so often, though I'm still sure I'll go with friends once in a while.
- mc32 11y ago
  That's a very good point indeed. One way or another the value of their screens will become negligible. They can force deals to keep them in business a few more years, maybe a decade, maybe more on the outside, but time and technology are definitely not on their side. They'd better have a plan B for making money.
- TylerE 11y ago
  Personally, any tech that involves wearing a headset can just go die in a corner. DO NOT WANT.
  - cma 11y ago
    Walkman?
zipwitch 11y ago
Higher-end cinemas like Alamo Drafthouse are already adapting to this. Designated seating, tight controls on audience behaviour to create a more reliably pleasant experience, extra little perks like their great pre-movie content, plenty of showings of stuff other than current blockbusters, and much better food and beverages than the old overpriced popcorn and candy.
- bcook 11y ago
  Is audience behavior a problem? In my limited experience, it has never been a problem. The showings of non-mainstream media interests me, as a MST3K/RiffTrax fan.
  - Sir_Substance 11y ago
    >Is audience behavior a problem? In my limited experience, it has never been a problem. I hate, deeply and profoundly, the sound of people eating. If it doesn't bother you then you might not have noticed this, but about 50% of popcorn eating cinema-goers cannot chew with their mouths closed.
    - bcook 11y ago
      No, it bothers me (a lot), but I have never noticed it. Usually I have to be in a bad mood to notice it, so that may be why I have never noticed in theaters. Regardless, does the theater in question seriously notify loud eaters to quiet down or risk being removed from the theater? That is way too strict. Or maybe the theater uses sound-cancelling tech?
      - Sir_Substance 11y ago
        They space the seats farther apart, which helps a little, but the reality is that given a choice between home or cinema, I'll always pick home.
    - adventured 11y ago
      Misophonia. [1] I have it as well. Extremely loud popcorn eaters are nearly the bane of my existence. I've developed a system for where I prefer to sit in movie theaters, based on certain very common crowd behaviors I've noticed, after carefully studying them for the last 15 years. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/health/06annoy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/health/06annoy.html
CyberDildonics 11y ago
Since VCRs it always been about a monopoly on distribution plug a difference in quality. The size of the screen hasn't been a big deal for a long time, it is the resolution. Now that the resolution is basically matched by blu-ray and 4k / higher frame rates haven't made it to theatres we are seeing an opening for internet distribution. This same situation has been played out multiple times but not with the internet as a distribution model.
magic_man 11y ago
Going to the movies is a social activity. Sometimes people just want to get out of the house.
- mc32 11y ago
  Yes, I get that. Some people will still want what will be an old-fashioned experience --just as there are a few people who still go to drive-thru movies. Still, as the interactive aspect ramps up (where you can "watch together" virtually (VR, or alternative), this will be less of a concern. As for the part about "getting out of the house" there are lots of other things people can do for that, walk the dog, go to the caffe, "get some milk" at the grocer's, drop by the pub, etc.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    This may shock you but people do enjoy things you may not enjoy. Your opinion is not universal truth. In fact someone can even say "there isn't a compelling reason for leaving the comfort of one's abode to go get a beer in a shared space next to strangers who might behave very annoyingly. Plus there is getting there, the grime on seats, the crowds, etc." to your suggestion.
- onion2k 11y ago
  Going there is, but actually watching the film isn't.

pink_dinner 11y ago

Many people thing $10 is too expensive for a movie ticket, why would they pay $150?

tssva 11y ago
Each movie is $50. The set top box is a one time fee of $150. Tickets at the closest theater to me are $12.10 and that is average for the area. With popcorn, drinks and online ticket fees your total approaches $50 for 2 people. If you have a family with kids the cost is going to blow by $50. Some people like the theater experience and this may not appeal to them but there is definitely a large number of people it will appeal to.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >definitely a large number of people it will appeal to How large? Because we can't pretend that piracy isn't a thing. The theatre is expensive, sure. But it also has an audio visual experience that dominates anything anyone can have in their home, which is part of the premium. Is it worth $50 for a one-time movie experience in your home? Are people so desperate to see a movie they can't wait for it to reach Netflix or Amazon for "free", or pay $20 to own it on Bluray? I'm skeptical.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    > Are people so desperate to see a movie they can't wait for it to reach Netflix or Amazon for "free", or pay $20 to own it on Bluray? I'm skeptical. Plenty of movies I want to see will never see Amazon or Netflix (Where can I stream The Avengers?), and plenty of people have no interest in cluttering up their house or apartment with BlueRay copies of movies they only want to see once.
    - douche 11y ago
      The Avengers has been on steady rotation on TBS (or maybe it's FX, one of those channels...) for years now. I think I've watched it at least a dozen times, without even trying.

mcintyre1994 11y ago

It seems movie theatres make most of their money on concessions, so obviously this is a massive problem for them. Nobody's going to buy that product instead of the supermarket's snacks if they're watching at home.

SoreGums 11y ago
Funny thing here in NZ, the main theatre chain Event doesn't even care if we go downstairs to the supermarket and bring in those snacks.... I think it is mostly because they charge $20+ for the movie ticket in the first place, though I get cheep tickets, $11, because of the deal with the major telco Spark

cat-dev-null 11y ago

Nice try (commercial experience meets PopcornTime), but BitTorrent Live didn't go anywhere and Netflix is nowhere near comprehensive because licensing deals are few and far between. Doubtful this will go anywhere because it's too expensive, competing with nearly free (ease of theft and cheaper-but-fragmented services) and Netflix has far deeper pockets and still has a minuscule catalog. Perhaps some Sean Parker Jedi w00w00 mindtricks can tease out deals where others have failed. Double-ended marketplace and kind of late# a highly-competitive/incumbent-monopolized market... (sincerely) good luck with that. It's probably a good idea because it seems like a terrible idea, especially if it offers multiple defensible, durable advantages. # There's both 'last-mover' and 'first-mover' advantage(s) in most categories.

ArnoldP 11y ago

And they are completely correct. Even if people aren't able to bypass the HDMI encryption (which they will), a camera recording at 60fps at the screen will produce a near perfect copy, certainly 'good enough' for most people. I do still see movies in theatre on occasion if the movie is better experienced in a group. Movie theatres need to start showing live events and offering better concessions, and alcohol. essentially become sports bars but with exceptional viewing quality. And bars are currently eating their lunch, expanding in to other markets than sport that would be well suited to cinema venues. A number of bars in my area offer nights where they stream pro video games and they are regularly filled completely. Same thing with live streams of plays/operas which repertory theatres in my area have started to do, albeit with projectors that aren't nearly as good as your local cineplex.

Nux 11y ago
Everyman Cinemas in UK do this (cozy sofas, drinks, pizzas), it's a nice change from the 'traditional' experience.
dragonwriter 11y ago
Movie theaters (the cineplex kind that also show major first-run Hollywood movies, not just arthouse ones) in the US already show live events (particularly art events -- live theater and other performances -- but I think there has been some sport events, as well), and there are several (including at least one chain) that have full menues, including alcohol, for at-seat service. So what you are saying needs to happen already is happening.

CharlesW 11y ago

Do these theater chains not realize that another company has been doing this for several years? http://www.primacinema.com/ http://www.primacinema.com/

eli 11y ago
Isn't that like $25k to get started? Maybe they figure (correctly or not) that people spending that much aren't pirates. I wouldn't be surprised if the movies are watermarked as well.
- bcook 11y ago
  One thing that has surprised me on HN is that even the wealthy pirate, but perhaps not for financial reasons.
  - slang800 11y ago
    Not for financial reasons at all - it's convenience, the ability to get releases earlier, and the lack of DRM-free video on legal sites.
    - bcook 11y ago
      I thought Google & Apple both supplied DRM-free movie downloads. I have the entire Star Trek original series (among other series & movies) from iTunes loaded on my Plex server with zero DRM problems. For me, piracy has never been as convenient as clicking a button on iTunes. Everyone likes to save money though... :)
      - __david__ 11y ago
        As far as I understand, nobody has drm free movie downloads. Apple's are most definitely drm protected and I'm near certain that Google's are, too.
        11y ago

smitherfield 11y ago

They're not wrong. Nobody is going to pay $50 to rent a movie, so all that it's going to do is create a new avenue for instant, high-quality leaks.

intopieces 11y ago
I thought that too, but then I remembered that for a family of four, a trip to the movies can easily exceed that much, especially for a 3D movie. AMC charges ~$15 for kids and ~$18 for adults. That's $66 before you even get to the snack bar.
- smitherfield 11y ago
  People aren't perfectly rational beings when it comes to "sticker shock." They won't compare the $50 to the cost of tickets and concessions for the whole family, they'll compare it to the cost of a single ticket. And, somewhat more rationally, they'll compare it to the cost of renting the movie after it's left theaters (maybe $5).
msh 11y ago
I would, at least for select movies. After getting kids the time we have for going to the cinema have decreased a lot and the technical capabilities of home systems have improved. So if we could watch for example the new starwars on launch day I would have absolutely no problem paying 50 USD.

svarrall 11y ago

I don't keep track, but when was the last time a major film wasn't pirated on release or even before release? Is additional piracy really a major concern with this?