4 ms·

The problem with this is they can't enforce the amount of people watching. It could be just you or maybe you and 10 friends.

Luc 14y ago
There is a technical solution to that, for example one based on the patent mentioned here: http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patent-uses-kinect-and-mobile-cameras-to-count-people-in-your-living-room-2012-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patent-uses-kinect-... EDIT: Hey, don't shoot the messenger.
- duiker101 14y ago
  I can see this backfiring pretty bad...
- prezjordan 14y ago
  The future does not look promising.
- CaveTech 14y ago
  Exactly what I want in my life. A way for companies to track me and my friends inside my own home.
- astrodust 14y ago
  You could always have your friends hide behind a blanket to confuse the sensor.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Man, since when does a relevant link to a clever solution to a technical problem get downvoted on HN? Y'all need to get over it.
betterunix 14y ago
That doesn't sound like a problem to me...
cabalamat 14y ago
Tough. They don't need a mechanism to enforce that no-one ever watches one of their films without paying them.
tjtrapp 14y ago
Why does it matter how many people watch? I guess I don't understand this logic. I would pay $30 USD to watch a movie from my couch that is currently in the theaters. Maybe a couple friends are over (another couple) but that total is 4... not 40. I would bet major releases would see people throwing parties at their homes. But then again, is it a problem? Maybe raise the price a bit?
- corin_ 14y ago
  It matters when comparing to cinema tickets. Let's say a ticket is normally $10 for the sake of a nice round number, and they charge $30 to get the film at home. If you want to watch on your own it's expensive, on the other hand if you have 3 friends over to watch with you then they have lost $10. Obviously it's not quite that simple, as some of those 3 friends might not have gone to the cinema - but maybe they all would have.
DanBC 14y ago
This is one of the reasons that Disney initially disliked the video business. Disney have been involved in a number of weird IP protection stuff. They developed a cassette that could only be rewound with a special device. It was supposed to be a "watch once per payment" mechanism. They also developed a DVD that would oxidise slowly once it got contact with air. They'd burn a movie, seal it in a special case, and ship it to people. Once you opened the packet you'd get about 2 days to watch the movie.
hippich 14y ago
Solution to this - evaluate your expenses and adjust price constantly. This way if it turned out that it is usually 10+ friends watching particular movie, charge for it 10x more. (but not 10x more what you want to get from one person, but rather what this person want to pay you)
mtgx 14y ago
So? That's like saying they can't enforce how many people read a book once they sell it to someone. Of course they can enforce this with digital books, but they shouldn't be able to, and people should protest against it.
- CaveTech 14y ago
  Multiple people can't read a book simultaneously; would be consecutively or time sharing which isn't social. Theatres enforce a payment per customer per view and is thus obviously favoured by the movie industry. Books have no equivalent. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Luc 14y ago

There is a technical solution to that, for example one based on the patent mentioned here: http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patent-uses-kinect-and-mobile-cameras-to-count-people-in-your-living-room-2012-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-patent-uses-kinect-... EDIT: Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

duiker101 14y ago
I can see this backfiring pretty bad...
prezjordan 14y ago
The future does not look promising.
CaveTech 14y ago
Exactly what I want in my life. A way for companies to track me and my friends inside my own home.
astrodust 14y ago
You could always have your friends hide behind a blanket to confuse the sensor.
Cushman 14y ago
Man, since when does a relevant link to a clever solution to a technical problem get downvoted on HN? Y'all need to get over it.

betterunix 14y ago

That doesn't sound like a problem to me...

cabalamat 14y ago

Tough. They don't need a mechanism to enforce that no-one ever watches one of their films without paying them.

tjtrapp 14y ago

Why does it matter how many people watch? I guess I don't understand this logic. I would pay $30 USD to watch a movie from my couch that is currently in the theaters. Maybe a couple friends are over (another couple) but that total is 4... not 40. I would bet major releases would see people throwing parties at their homes. But then again, is it a problem? Maybe raise the price a bit?

corin_ 14y ago
It matters when comparing to cinema tickets. Let's say a ticket is normally $10 for the sake of a nice round number, and they charge $30 to get the film at home. If you want to watch on your own it's expensive, on the other hand if you have 3 friends over to watch with you then they have lost $10. Obviously it's not quite that simple, as some of those 3 friends might not have gone to the cinema - but maybe they all would have.

DanBC 14y ago

This is one of the reasons that Disney initially disliked the video business. Disney have been involved in a number of weird IP protection stuff. They developed a cassette that could only be rewound with a special device. It was supposed to be a "watch once per payment" mechanism. They also developed a DVD that would oxidise slowly once it got contact with air. They'd burn a movie, seal it in a special case, and ship it to people. Once you opened the packet you'd get about 2 days to watch the movie.

hippich 14y ago

Solution to this - evaluate your expenses and adjust price constantly. This way if it turned out that it is usually 10+ friends watching particular movie, charge for it 10x more. (but not 10x more what you want to get from one person, but rather what this person want to pay you)

mtgx 14y ago

So? That's like saying they can't enforce how many people read a book once they sell it to someone. Of course they can enforce this with digital books, but they shouldn't be able to, and people should protest against it.

CaveTech 14y ago
Multiple people can't read a book simultaneously; would be consecutively or time sharing which isn't social. Theatres enforce a payment per customer per view and is thus obviously favoured by the movie industry. Books have no equivalent. You're comparing apples and oranges.