5 ms·

I’ve been thinking for a while what would happen and how much money Hollywood could make if they charged $1 for a 1080p film and $2 for 4k, no DRM, just a file

I’ve been thinking for a while what would happen and how much money Hollywood could make if they charged $1 for a 1080p film and $2 for 4k, no DRM, just a file download. I think I’d probably spend a hundred dollars or more straight away if all films were there I loved. I think a lot of people would pay a small amount for each film too. Blurays at $20 is too much and I’ve no interest in physical copies.

frik 9y ago
It's the MP3 model (digital music file with no DRM), sure it would work for movies too. I buy physical DVD & Blueray discs, as then I own the disc and can play it when I want. BUT I avoid 4K Bluerays with their online-dongle. I personally prefer buying over subscription based models (got burned several times).
- mal808 9y ago
  Some smaller record labels I follow sell their artists albums for around €10 to €15 with immediate download of high quality, DRM free mp3's, then a physical CD with stickers, etc, follow in the post. I like that model.
- aidenn0 9y ago
  You need a beefy machine to capture, but there are 4k capture cards that do work now. I use x264 in lossless mode at superfast and it can keep up on a ryzen 1700. You now own your movie again. You'll need an HDCP 2.2 stripper, but those aren't too hard to find (I got mine for $40 on amazon).
adekok 9y ago
> I’ve been thinking for a while what would happen and how much money Hollywood could make if they charged $1 for a 1080p film and $2 for 4k, no DRM, just a file download. Pretty much that model works well for Netflix. I pay $10 or so a month. I don't watch 10 movies a month.
- panic 9y ago
  You don't own the movies you watch on Netflix, though—that's the critical difference.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    Why? I can only see it mattering with repeat viewings spaced out over a long period, and if you limit downloads multiple purchases would be likely.
    - masklinn 9y ago
      Repeat viewing is a factor for cult or dear shows or movies, or when sequels come out (one may have partially or completely forgotten the original though the impressions are left). An other one is viewing over long periods of time e.g. if you're not binging them, series with north of a hundred episodes can take a long time to watch in full even if they're complete, but using a service like Netflix the series may be dropped while you're halfway through watching it.
    - ZoFreX 9y ago
      A use-case where it makes a big difference: bad internet. My internet is not fast, and not super-reliable, which is why I download TV and movies overnight so I can watch them without being at the mercy of the ADSL gods.
  - rorykoehler 9y ago
    Why would you want to own a movie? Does it change your viewing experience?
BjoernKW 9y ago
Unfortunately, Hollywood studios aren't run by entrepreneurs and businessmen but by lawyers. They care more about upholding copyright laws and byzantine licensing systems than about generating revenue and turning a profit.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  The effort to maintain copyright is strategic. Hollywood is less concerned about the latest technological fads (streaming, apps, etc.) than about the longer-term impact the Internet will have on their entire business model. They have no idea how to make money in a world where exact duplicates of movies can be made using tools everyone has in their pockets. Basically, like the rest of the copyright industries, the entire business model depends on copying requiring specialized industrial equipment. The Internet is an existential threat to that model because it is "flat" -- nothing in the technical standards of the Internet divides IP addresses into producers and consumers (for comparison, look at the standards for the cable system). Combined with the fact that a PC can run the same software as an "industrial grade" server, Hollywood et al. are facing a situation they cannot apply their business model to: one in which there are no centralized distributors they can be forced to pay for the right to distribute something. Giving up a bit of short-term profit for the sake of protecting the long-term prospects of the industry is not so surprising. What I am more concerned with is the fact that politicians have sided with these particular industries, even though they have happily watched other obsolete business models die in the face of new technologies. The copyright industries have managed to convince everyone that their business model is in some way sacred and have co-opted governments in their strategic efforts.
  - BjoernKW 9y ago
    The copyright industries' efforts are both strategic and clueless / misguided at the same time. The very attempt at hedging their obsolete business model instead of adapting to a new situation will be their undoing, as has been the case with many other obsolete business model before. I don‘t find the fact that they were able to convince politicians to aid them in this to be particularly surprising. After all, good PR is an essential part of their business model. Additionally, heir products also tend to have a certain emotional appeal.
rayiner 9y ago
Less? The idea that an entire industry with several large competitors in it is just too stupid to realize that giving away their products for next to nothing with no DRM would make them more money is the height of wishful thinking. Or maybe they should just adopt the web business model, where you don’t trade money for products like civilized humans but trade your sanity and privacy for “free” services.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- andy_ppp 9y ago
  Well all of DVD and Blu-ray sales makes about $15bn per year and the App Store makes about $30bn, heavily weighted towards $2 or less content. I think the premise that there are industries that don't maximise profit should be of no surprise to people around HN.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    People on HN believe stuff like that because making an app is practically free compared to making nearly anything else. It distorts their perspective of how much things should cost.
criddell 9y ago
I'd rather see something like Spotify or Google Music for movies. I subscribe to Google Music and I have no idea if the music has DRM applied. I assume it does, but since it's never gotten in the way for me, I really don't care. I want that experience with movies. I'm not interested in being a digital librarian. I just want access to the collections in a way that is inexpensive and close to universal. At one time I thought Netflix was the answer, but they've carved out a much more interesting place to be - making excellent serialized television. They could drop all the movies from their collection and I would stay subscribed.
rhino369 9y ago
Do you really think there are 15X as many people who would buy a move for a dollar than would pay 15 bucks?
- user5994461 9y ago
  Of course there are.
- andy_ppp 9y ago
  Yes. See the App Store which has less compelling content (IMO) and makes twice as much as all DVD, Blu-ray and streaming.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    It's a different product, why would assume it's a good estimate for movies.
- _justpassingby_ 9y ago
  Yes. I would assume- based on the exponential nature of wealth distribution- that you would get exponentially more people willing to spend as the amount lowers.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    But 15 dollars is in the reach of relatively modest income people already.
tambienben 9y ago
Imagine if they took advantage of & adopted software platforms like popcorntime.
lttlrck 9y ago
I couldn’t be bothered with the hassle and cost of storing hundreds of $1 downloads. I’d watch a lot more movies on iTunes if renting was $1 a pop.
dTal 9y ago
They would make a bunch of money for a short while, which would then trail off rather badly as copies of the mainstream stuff became ubiquitous, which would also cannibalise all the other licensing deals they might have. However they'd probably continue to turn a nice, steady, small income from long-tail stuff. Providing this stuff would become their core business, and they would turn from a mass-supply business to a low-margin archive. Hoenstly, the whole thing is like watching the scifi short story "BUSINESS AS USUAL, DURING ALTERATIONS" in slo-mo.

frik 9y ago

It's the MP3 model (digital music file with no DRM), sure it would work for movies too. I buy physical DVD & Blueray discs, as then I own the disc and can play it when I want. BUT I avoid 4K Bluerays with their online-dongle. I personally prefer buying over subscription based models (got burned several times).

mal808 9y ago
Some smaller record labels I follow sell their artists albums for around €10 to €15 with immediate download of high quality, DRM free mp3's, then a physical CD with stickers, etc, follow in the post. I like that model.
aidenn0 9y ago
You need a beefy machine to capture, but there are 4k capture cards that do work now. I use x264 in lossless mode at superfast and it can keep up on a ryzen 1700. You now own your movie again. You'll need an HDCP 2.2 stripper, but those aren't too hard to find (I got mine for $40 on amazon).

adekok 9y ago

> I’ve been thinking for a while what would happen and how much money Hollywood could make if they charged $1 for a 1080p film and $2 for 4k, no DRM, just a file download. Pretty much that model works well for Netflix. I pay $10 or so a month. I don't watch 10 movies a month.

panic 9y ago
You don't own the movies you watch on Netflix, though—that's the critical difference.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  Why? I can only see it mattering with repeat viewings spaced out over a long period, and if you limit downloads multiple purchases would be likely.
  - masklinn 9y ago
    Repeat viewing is a factor for cult or dear shows or movies, or when sequels come out (one may have partially or completely forgotten the original though the impressions are left). An other one is viewing over long periods of time e.g. if you're not binging them, series with north of a hundred episodes can take a long time to watch in full even if they're complete, but using a service like Netflix the series may be dropped while you're halfway through watching it.
  - ZoFreX 9y ago
    A use-case where it makes a big difference: bad internet. My internet is not fast, and not super-reliable, which is why I download TV and movies overnight so I can watch them without being at the mercy of the ADSL gods.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  Why would you want to own a movie? Does it change your viewing experience?

BjoernKW 9y ago

Unfortunately, Hollywood studios aren't run by entrepreneurs and businessmen but by lawyers. They care more about upholding copyright laws and byzantine licensing systems than about generating revenue and turning a profit.

betterunix2 9y ago
The effort to maintain copyright is strategic. Hollywood is less concerned about the latest technological fads (streaming, apps, etc.) than about the longer-term impact the Internet will have on their entire business model. They have no idea how to make money in a world where exact duplicates of movies can be made using tools everyone has in their pockets. Basically, like the rest of the copyright industries, the entire business model depends on copying requiring specialized industrial equipment. The Internet is an existential threat to that model because it is "flat" -- nothing in the technical standards of the Internet divides IP addresses into producers and consumers (for comparison, look at the standards for the cable system). Combined with the fact that a PC can run the same software as an "industrial grade" server, Hollywood et al. are facing a situation they cannot apply their business model to: one in which there are no centralized distributors they can be forced to pay for the right to distribute something. Giving up a bit of short-term profit for the sake of protecting the long-term prospects of the industry is not so surprising. What I am more concerned with is the fact that politicians have sided with these particular industries, even though they have happily watched other obsolete business models die in the face of new technologies. The copyright industries have managed to convince everyone that their business model is in some way sacred and have co-opted governments in their strategic efforts.
- BjoernKW 9y ago
  The copyright industries' efforts are both strategic and clueless / misguided at the same time. The very attempt at hedging their obsolete business model instead of adapting to a new situation will be their undoing, as has been the case with many other obsolete business model before. I don‘t find the fact that they were able to convince politicians to aid them in this to be particularly surprising. After all, good PR is an essential part of their business model. Additionally, heir products also tend to have a certain emotional appeal.

rayiner 9y ago

Less? The idea that an entire industry with several large competitors in it is just too stupid to realize that giving away their products for next to nothing with no DRM would make them more money is the height of wishful thinking. Or maybe they should just adopt the web business model, where you don’t trade money for products like civilized humans but trade your sanity and privacy for “free” services.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
andy_ppp 9y ago
Well all of DVD and Blu-ray sales makes about $15bn per year and the App Store makes about $30bn, heavily weighted towards $2 or less content. I think the premise that there are industries that don't maximise profit should be of no surprise to people around HN.
- rayiner 9y ago
  People on HN believe stuff like that because making an app is practically free compared to making nearly anything else. It distorts their perspective of how much things should cost.

criddell 9y ago

I'd rather see something like Spotify or Google Music for movies. I subscribe to Google Music and I have no idea if the music has DRM applied. I assume it does, but since it's never gotten in the way for me, I really don't care. I want that experience with movies. I'm not interested in being a digital librarian. I just want access to the collections in a way that is inexpensive and close to universal. At one time I thought Netflix was the answer, but they've carved out a much more interesting place to be - making excellent serialized television. They could drop all the movies from their collection and I would stay subscribed.

rhino369 9y ago

Do you really think there are 15X as many people who would buy a move for a dollar than would pay 15 bucks?

user5994461 9y ago
Of course there are.
andy_ppp 9y ago
Yes. See the App Store which has less compelling content (IMO) and makes twice as much as all DVD, Blu-ray and streaming.
- rhino369 9y ago
  It's a different product, why would assume it's a good estimate for movies.
_justpassingby_ 9y ago
Yes. I would assume- based on the exponential nature of wealth distribution- that you would get exponentially more people willing to spend as the amount lowers.
- rhino369 9y ago
  But 15 dollars is in the reach of relatively modest income people already.

tambienben 9y ago

Imagine if they took advantage of & adopted software platforms like popcorntime.

lttlrck 9y ago

I couldn’t be bothered with the hassle and cost of storing hundreds of $1 downloads. I’d watch a lot more movies on iTunes if renting was $1 a pop.

dTal 9y ago

They would make a bunch of money for a short while, which would then trail off rather badly as copies of the mainstream stuff became ubiquitous, which would also cannibalise all the other licensing deals they might have. However they'd probably continue to turn a nice, steady, small income from long-tail stuff. Providing this stuff would become their core business, and they would turn from a mass-supply business to a low-margin archive. Hoenstly, the whole thing is like watching the scifi short story "BUSINESS AS USUAL, DURING ALTERATIONS" in slo-mo.