Dish to begin DRM on PPV May 6th

[twolf58]

frankly I'm surprised Charlie rolled over so easy on this one, given how hard he fights other things that are bad for his customers.

.....

The only voice I have is my dollars, and I will speak loudly with those. I order a lot of PPV, but not anymore. I will now start patronizing my local video store, which has a side benefit of helping the local economy. I may even go with netflix. But I have ordered my last PPV.

Um ... make no mistake about it...Charlie isn't fighting for the consumer he is fighting for his wallet.

If all of us entertainment consumers would unite and vote with our dollars then we would get what we want in short order.

But wait...we are!

Which is why the studios and providers like Charlie get to dictate when, where, and for how long we get to watch what THEY want us to and for how much THEY want us to pay.

 

[Slamminc11]

can we file a class action lawsuit on this , do we have any grounds?

You make me laugh!

 

[wetz73]

They can be sued under the "Obstruction of Preferred Form of Piracy Act of 2003". Nowhere in the term "Pay Per View" is there any mention or inferrence of ownership. At this point, the movie industry has decided to slap this 24 hour window on PPV. If revenue goes down because of it, they will first lower the price. If that doesn't get things back to normal, they will extend the window. It's not going away. They don't want us purchasing PPV, sticking it on an HDD, and hauling it to people's houses to show there as well. It has been illegal even though we have been able to do it for years and now there are measures in place to curb it. Regardless of your personal view, it is illegal in every sense of copyright law. Again, there is no implication of ownership as when you purchase a DVD. It's up to you to decide if you want to spend the money for the PPV, drive to the video store and rent a DVD, subscribe to Netflix or the like and get DVD's through the mail, wait for it to come on HBO, Starz, etc., or illegally download from torrent sites. This does not necessarily represent my personal view, but I can agree with the logic.

 

[bgsmallwood]

They can be sued under the "Obstruction of Preferred Form of Piracy Act of 2003". Nowhere in the term "Pay Per View" is there any mention or inferrence of ownership. At this point, the movie industry has decided to slap this 24 hour window on PPV. If revenue goes down because of it, they will first lower the price. If that doesn't get things back to normal, they will extend the window. It's not going away. They don't want us purchasing PPV, sticking it on an HDD, and hauling it to people's houses to show there as well. It has been illegal even though we have been able to do it for years and now there are measures in place to curb it. Regardless of your personal view, it is illegal in every sense of copyright law. Again, there is no implication of ownership as when you purchase a DVD. It's up to you to decide if you want to spend the money for the PPV, drive to the video store and rent a DVD, subscribe to Netflix or the like and get DVD's through the mail, wait for it to come on HBO, Starz, etc., or illegally download from torrent sites. This does not necessarily represent my personal view, but I can agree with the logic.

I thought that was NOT possible. The EHD is encrypted and won't work with other receivers, NO?

 

[wetz73]

I could be wrong but I think I remember a few folks on here saying their EHD's work on new receivers after their old 622/722 needed replacing.

 

[Tyralak]

I could be wrong but I think I remember a few folks on here saying their EHD's work on new receivers after their old 622/722 needed replacing.

If the receiver is on YOUR account. Don't drink the Kool-Aid. Like everything else, this has nothing to do with piracy. Most initiatives like this don't. They claim it does, so they can have a moral cover for what they're really trying to do: Remove fair use, and cause people to have to watch things when, how, and where the content providers say. Let's make this clear, once again. You're paying the cost for a PPV for early access to a movie. A month or two later, it's on Starz or Showtime and nobody argues you have a right to record that, as you do any other TV program. This is just another example of greed, and it will backfire on the studios. The dimwitted troglodytes who run that part of the industry just don't understand that the consumer has more choices than ever when it comes to their entertainment. You piss off enough consumers, and your product goes in the toilet. They go somewhere else, as I will. I'll play more video games, watch more shows, or movies that come to premium channels, hell, maybe even go outside and get some excersise.

 

[wetz73]

That makes sense if it is on the same account. I do know you can haul your receiver around with you and do this so E* makes you have to be plugged into your phone line when they ping your receiver. I stand corrected!

 

[haertig]

Nowhere in the term "Pay Per View" is there any mention or inferrence of ownership.

I haven't noticed anyone saying they wanted to own a PPV movie in this thread. The discussion is revolving around: They want $$ to "rent" these PPVs. Recently, $$ went up to $$$ and further restrictions on viewing have been added. It's only worth $ to me now. If they want to charge $$$ then I am not going to pay that. That says nothing about wanting to "own" a PPV movie. And I don't see this as a "fair use" issue either. They want to rent you something. They get to set the terms. If you don't like the new terms, don't rent. And I think that is exactly what people are saying they will be doing. Not renting PPVs anymore. What the movie producers and providers fail to consider is that people have many options other than renting PPVs. Not only in getting their movies elsewhere, but also in NOT watching movies. There is a point where people will just say "This has gotten too expensive for what it's worth. Bye-bye!" The movie studios and Dish seem to think that their product is so good that people will buy it at any price. I think they are wrong about that.

 

[bgsmallwood]

That makes sense if it is on the same account. I do know you can haul your receiver around with you and do this so E* makes you have to be plugged into your phone line when they ping your receiver. I stand corrected!

Also, the receiver has to be locked in to the satellite signal in order for the EHD to work.

On another thread here, a subscriber moved his receiver and EHD to a new location but didn't have a dish yet.
He couldn't watch any of the recordings on the EHD. He was able to watch recordings on the Internal HD.

 

[kwindrem]

... I have always wondered why they don't emulate the Netflix model with their dish online service, and they could do the same thing with PPV. They could limit the number of movies you have recorded and you could keep them as long as you like for a monthly fee perhaps. Ofcourse, it would have more appeal if the movies were actually very new releases. All PPV movies are available in DVD stores first anyway.

I like Netflix model much better as well: N movies "checked out" and a queue. Keep a movie as long as you want and watch it as many times as you want. The keep it and watch it part is really what differentiates DVDs from PPV, streaming and on-demand services. Until the electronic delivery services emulate the physical media model I don't see DVDs going away.

There are convenience factors that make PPV attractive. Among those is multiple views (different people in the same household watch the same movie at different times). Restricting multiple views to a 24-hour period makes this extremely difficult. What might make more sense is a longer viewing period -- say 3-4 days. Is this increase really going to reduce revenue?

I don't really have a problem with the "license window" concept as long as it's reasonable. If I buy a PPV movie then don't watch it for 3 weeks I probably wasn't interested in it any way. On the other hand, I don't see a reason for the license window. If you don't begin watching the movie I'm not sure why it should expire.

I gave up on PPV a long time ago. Price, picture quality, availability of first run movies and 4:3 aspect on many (most) made DVD rental much more attractive. I don't even have PPV channels in my custom guide. Netflix is my preferred movie provider now.

 

[kwindrem]

I understand why the studios want DRM, it allows them to maximize their revenue from Joe Consumer... while it does not really limit pirating (you will still be able to get those $1-5 DVDs from Chinatown) it does make the consumer look elsewhere. ...

I agree. The loss of revenue from PPVs that stick around on a DVR is insignificant to bootleg DVDs. DRM on PPV isn't going to increase revenue. If anything (as others have pointed out) revenue from PPV is going to decrease.

 

[AdamGott]

They can be sued under the "Obstruction of Preferred Form of Piracy Act of 2003". Nowhere in the term "Pay Per View" is there any mention or inferrence of ownership. At this point, the movie industry has decided to slap this 24 hour window on PPV. If revenue goes down because of it, they will first lower the price. If that doesn't get things back to normal, they will extend the window.

No, it is more likely that if revenue doesn't go up that they will blame it on rampant piracy... that is what they seem to do these days when they keep trying to push the same business model out the door no matter how well it works (or does not work). In this case they are pushing a WORSE business model out the door, as is the case with all DRM.

 

[sprintcarcrazy]

Our household has 5 people, 3 of them teens, gone are the days for the most part that we can all sit down and watch a movie together. We did however, get several HD PPV's a month and save them. When we had a free moment, we would watch them, when one of the kids had some free time or was off work, they would watch one, etc. or we would save them for poolside in the summer. I will no longer rent PPV's as the restrictions do not fit our schedule. A 24 hour window is too tight, same reason we never rent or download on the X-Box.

If piracy is what they are trying to stop, they shot therself in the foot as far as revenue from these things.

I will record from the Premiums and watch them when we can. If they do the same
on those, then I will drop all of the premiums and just start getting a DVD once in a while.

I do understand the some of the logic of this, but it not logical for us to use it.

 

[waltinvt]

This is not about piracy. Piracy has been a factor right along and will always be a reality of the business. This is simply about the entertainment industry trying to shake more money out of consumers. Everyone wants a bigger piece of our entertainment dollar. Read 100 day SWG strike and now the screen actor's guild.

Actors, Companies Break Off Labor Talks - TVWeek - News

I kind of discounted piracy as a cost factor when what I should have said is it's been a relative constant, in that there have always been and always will be those that will steal programming and media, so it's cost factored in - sort of like shop lifting - and the % of the populace that engage in it stays relatively constant.

Ironically though these idiots, by their obvious attempts to make tv viewers pay through the nose, may actually end up increasing the % that cross that line.

 

[Tyralak]

Hey, Scott, did you ever get the answers to the list of questions you sent to Dish? We got a somewhat complete FAQ at work today, but one question wasn't answered quite clearly enough for me. They mentioned that HBO/Cinemax are also implementing "DRM", but didn't mention exactly HOW. They didn't address if they were going with time limits, downconverting or simply the single-copy flag. I checked HBO's web site, and their section that deal with their copy "protection" only mentions the single-copy flag. It doesn't say anything about time limits or downconverting. You know anything about this? The single copy rule is fine with me, but if they start doing time limits, and downconverting, I'm getting rid of HBO.

 

[fungusdavej]

Will this also apply to UFC PPV fights? I have been watching and DVRing the fights for quite a while now and will be bummed if I will no longer be able to go back and watch a fight after 24 hours... This may have already been covered in here but I don't want to read through 10 pages of posts... SORRY!

 

[Tyralak]

Will this also apply to UFC PPV fights? I have been watching and DVRing the fights for quite a while now and will be bummed if I will no longer be able to go back and watch a fight after 24 hours... This may have already been covered in here but I don't want to read through 10 pages of posts... SORRY!

From the information I got today at work, no it will not apply to fights. It will only apply to certain movies from certain studios. Not even all PPV movies, just a few studios.

 

[waltinvt]

From the information I got today at work, no it will not apply to fights. It will only apply to certain movies from certain studios. Not even all PPV movies, just a few studios.

It appears they're going to test the waters a little first, which gives consumers a great chance to make a statement - boycott the offending studios.

I suggest as soon as the first movie makes it's DRM debut (PPV or premium), it's title & producer need to be listed in a sticky where we can post our pledges to boycott. Make it real obvious, so everyone in the greedy food chain can see what they're loosing.

 

[Tyralak]

It appears they're going to test the waters a little first, which gives consumers a great chance to make a statement - boycott the offending studios.

I suggest as soon as the first movie makes it's DRM debut (PPV or premium), it's title & producer need to be listed in a sticky where we can post our pledges to boycott. Make it real obvious, so everyone in the greedy food chain can see what they're loosing.

Good idea. I Am Legend is one.

 

[cloudy]

Looks Like Dish has lost ANY of my future PPV. Hello NETFLIX.