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



## Incog-Neato (Apr 21, 2006)

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6064445#post6064445


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I figured this was coming. It has arrived, thanks for keeping us up to date!


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

i am not thrilled by this... my PPV viewing will most likely decrease due to this... I still have Shrek 3 on my DVR from 2 months ago and I haven't gotten a chance to watch it yet...


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Too bad. I'd say my purchases of PPV movies will drop a lot after April 15. It also removes one of the "pluses" for having a DVR, IMO. We sometimes order a movie and might not be able to finish it until a few nights later. We also often go back and watch a movie again to catch what we didn't the first time due to distractions (kids, telephone, etc.). This new policy would thwart that type of viewing. I think this policy will help Blockbuster...at least it will increase the fequency of rentals on my account. So, someone will get my movie money but it's likely not going to be DirectTv due to this new policy forced on them by Hollywood. Maybe enough people will stop buying PPVs and DirecTV will reduce the PPV channels to open up more bandwidth.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Shouldn't effect those with an HR20 or HR21 as much since you don't actually pay for it until you view it. 

BUT it would then delete itself after first viewing it. Fine for me since I rarely want to watch a movie again and if I do it will be available on DVD or on one of the movie channels in HD not too long after.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Sounds like it is just affecting the concept of: Pay Once, View multiple times.
It shoudl still allow you to record, and then pay at the time of viewing.

Basically the movie studios have caught up with DVR technology with this regards, and no longer want people to spend $5 vs the $15-$30 if they want it long term.

What do you think the chances are that you will see copy-protection enabled on those PPV's as well.


It will be intresting to see how it is implemented on the TiVo products...
And if those that avoid downloading particular software versions, will be able to access PPV... or would new PPV's not be accessible on the TiVo platform.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Well, I don't use PPV very often (maybe once or twice per year), but was considering possibly using it more. I won't consider that anymore. There's lots of times where we'll start to watch a movie and won't finish (tired, kids, etc.). We'll usually finish watching it a few days later (or the next weekend). We watched half of Beowulf last weekend (8 days ago) and still haven't finished it. Since we won't be able to do that with PPV, it won't be worth it to us.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sounds like it is just affecting the concept of: Pay Once, View multiple times.
> It shoudl still allow you to record, and then pay at the time of viewing.


If that's the case, then I won't be quite as discouraged...


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

what happens if you copy it with a VHS?


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Caveat: I very rarely watch any PPVs anyway. However I can see the end beneficiary of this being Netflix or their competition. I have some Netflix movies here that I'v had for three weeks already.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

bjlc said:



> what happens if you copy it with a VHS?


A VH what? :lol:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bjlc said:


> what happens if you copy it with a VHS?


Once it is out of the system... obviously DirecTV will have no control over it.

Hence why I stated above... I would not be surprised if they don't enable the copy-protection on the output for the PPV's (since it can be set program by program)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> Caveat: I very rarely watch any PPVs anyway. However I can see the end beneficiary of this being Netflix or their competition. I have some Netflix movies here that I'v had for three weeks already.


Yes and no.

How much do you pay for your subscription for NetFlix?
And if you have been sitting on once set of movies for 3 weeks...

You are the type of user that NetFlix LOVES!!!!


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

This looks very similar to the hoax that came out in February if my memory serves right. There was never any official word from Directv. This one doesn't have any quote from a specific Directv official, nor does he say what publication this came from. Earl, what do your contacts from Directv have to say about it?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jdh8668 said:


> This looks very similar to the hoax that came out in February if my memory serves right. There was never any official word from Directv. This one doesn't have any quote from a specific Directv official, nor does he say what publication this came from. Earl, what do your contacts from Directv have to say about it?


Given that the particular user that posted it.

Is a known CSR... that is cutting and pasting (Without authorization I will add) from the DirecTV systems (or memo's they are getting).

I would have to say it is a pretty good bet.

As when we had the issue back in February, they noted that it is something in the works... as that is what the movie provider/owners want.


----------



## cadet502 (Jun 17, 2005)

We've just started using PPVs a few weeks ago. Problem is we're never sure we can finish watching when we start. We had considered dropping Netflix back to 1 or 2 at a time from our current 3, sounds like we'll just maintain the status quo.


----------



## BNUMM (Dec 24, 2006)

You could record it to a DVD in 480i. The copy protection is probably already there. Most DVD recorders will only allow you to copy in 480i. For me 1080i is good enough.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

Yeah, this is good news for Netflix and Blu-ray player makers....


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

At present if you rent a movie with an XBox they have a 30 day limitation on the system and 24 hours after you start watching.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

kentuck1163 said:


> Yeah, this is good news for Netflix and Blu-ray player makers....


Netflix... maybe... Blu-Ray... not so much.

Can't see how it will significantly change the Blu-Ray market, since there wasn't many HD-PPV offerings available.

Let alone those people that will spend the $25-$30 on the BluRay disk (if they already have the player)... vs spending $5 on the PPV... even if it just for the "night" rental.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BNUMM said:


> You could record it to a DVD in 480i. The copy protection is probably already there. Most DVD recorders will only allow you to copy in 480i. For me 1080i is good enough.


Not if the copy protection is turned on on the DVR+ (it is not turned on right now, but you can see the results, if you reboot your system... the first few screens it is enabled)


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> Shouldn't effect those with an HR20 or HR21 as much since you don't actually pay for it until you view it.
> 
> BUT it would then delete itself after first viewing it. Fine for me since I rarely want to watch a movie again and if I do it will be available on DVD or on one of the movie channels in HD not too long after.


It absolutely will have an affect on those with an HR2X who have kids. A 24hour window is flat out not practical for people with young kids.

I will not buy a PPV with a 24viewing limit unless I am absolutely sure that I will be able to watch the complete movie in that 24 hour window - which rarely occurs.

Blockbuster online will continue to have my business and not D*.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

The post over at TCF had the following:



> Please note that this new policy will only apply to PPV movies. Other PPV programming will not be affected.


Does this mean pay-per-VOD willl not have the restriction? I can't think of what else "other PPV programming" refers to - can't be premiums, because that's not per view - that's per package. Can't be MLB-EI - same thing...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

raott said:


> It absolutely will have an affect on those with an HR2X who have kids. A 24hour window is flat out not practical for people with young kids.
> 
> I will not buy a PPV with a 24viewing limit unless I am absolutely sure that I will be able to watch the complete movie in that 24 hour window - which rarely occurs.
> 
> Blockbuster online will continue to have my business and not D*.


Otay... so at least you know.

I know it is a change to the way things have been... but do you really think the Movie studios were going to continue to allow basically "ownership" of movies for $4-$5?

They are just catching up with the technology, and adjusting to the fact that a LOT more users have DVRs.

This isn't a DirecTV decision... this is the content holders rights...
And you will most likel see similar announcements in the next month from all the major carriers that have PPV.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Another short-sighted policy dreamt up by copyright holders.

The net effect will be LESS purchase rather than more revenue. People will only purchase now if they have time to watch the whole movie and will be less likely to purchase if they have to repurchase it to either watch it all or watch a second time.

The only plus for them is people who want to watch again the next day who will buy it. How many of them are there? Very few. Or how many keep movies for a long, long time rather than buy the DVD? Very few.

Little gain and lots of potential loss.

I can see a window of some time period, but 24 hours is way too short. Why not a week?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> The post over at TCF had the following:
> 
> Does this mean pay-per-VOD willl not have the restriction? I can't think of what else "other PPV programming" refers to - can't be premiums, because that's not per view - that's per package. Can't be MLB-EI - same thing...


PPV DoD follows the same rules as PPV.

Other PPV would be like UFC matches, WWE, and other special events.


----------



## jazzyjez (Jan 2, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not if the copy protection is turned on on the DVR+ (it is not turned on right now, but you can see the results, if you reboot your system... the first few screens it is enabled)


Does that even apply to the old analog s-video output too? I can understand copy protection being turned on for an HDMI connection (one of its design goals was to have adequate protection) but I didn't think that concept even existed back when s-video was thought up.

By the way, it's a moot point for me... (and I guess many others here) ... I don't bother copying movies any more since it's only at 480i resolution AND it's only in stereo sound. I'm now spoilt with 1080 and 5.1 surround - there's no substitute!

Hey Earl - any chance you could plead with DirecTV to make it at least 48 or 72 hours. Like others have said, something often comes up after you've started watching and you can't get back to it until the next day.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> Another short-sighted policy dreamt up by copyright holders.
> 
> The net effect will be LESS purchase rather than more revenue. People will only purchase now if they have time to watch the whole movie and will be less likely to purchase if they have to repurchase it to either watch it all or watch a second time.
> 
> ...


Bigger Picture:

The RENTAL market, the actuall B&M rental market, which is EXTREMELY lucrative to the content providers... has been hurting and hurting bad.

My guess... this has little to do with the purchase of the DVD's...
They are basically putting their arms around the DVR aspects of PPV, which basically turned into a online "purchase" point for movies over the last 8 years...

And bringing it back to the original idea for PPV's... and alternative to rentals.

So while it is possible they may extend the period to longer time frames... I would expect that the content providers wanted more money for more days.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jazzyjez said:


> Does that even apply to the old analog s-video output too? I can understand copy protection being turned on for an HDMI connection (one of its design goals was to have adequate protection) but I didn't think that concept even existed back when s-video was thought up.
> 
> By the way, it's a moot point for me... (and I guess many others here) ... I don't bother copying movies any more since it's only at 480i resolution AND it's only in stereo sound. I'm now spoilt with 1080 and 5.1 surround - there's no substitute!
> 
> Hey Earl - any chance you could plead with DirecTV to make it at least 48 or 72 hours. Like others have said, something often comes up after you've started watching and you can't get back to it until the next day.


Sure does... the old-Analog outputs, are more then capable of pushing out the Macrovision.

As for my pleading... from my understanding, this isn't a DirecTV decision.
This is a decision of the content rights owners, that give DirecTV the permission to offer them as PPV's (and thus collect their cut of the fee).

Just like the B&M rental business... if you can't return it the next day, you hae to pay for another day's rental fee.


----------



## arxaw (Jul 13, 2003)

Restrictions turn me off to the whole idea of PPV.

A shot in the foot, regardless of who's behind it.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Another short-sighted policy dreamt up by copyright holders.
> 
> The net effect will be LESS purchase rather than more revenue. People will only purchase now if they have time to watch the whole movie and will be less likely to purchase if they have to repurchase it to either watch it all or watch a second time.
> 
> ...


This opens up a huge can of worms I agree, since I usually buy the PPV, record it, let it sit for a while and when I have time, since the movie is likely not on PPV anylonger, I will watch it. That takes that away from me, if I read it right.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Bigger Picture:
> 
> The RENTAL market, the actuall B&M rental market, which is EXTREMELY lucrative to the content providers... has been hurting and hurting bad.
> 
> ...


So long as they extend the period to when I finally do watch the entire movie (which can be metered). If it is as it reads I'd have to change my pattern for PPV. I don't want to change it due to my busy schedule.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

smiddy said:


> So long as they extend the period to when I finally do watch the entire movie (which can be metered). If it is as it reads I'd have to change my pattern for PPV. I don't want to change it due to my busy schedule.


Well... if you still want PPV's post 4/15... you are going to have to change something...

Your schedule... or your usage of PPV's.

Just like money most likely drove this decision.... money would be the only thing to drive it back.


----------



## GRich (Feb 8, 2006)

How will this work with those of us who have multiple HR2X and order PPV on line? If we record the PPV on all the DVRs, will we be able to only watch it on one DVR in a 24 hour period and not watch it another time on the other DVRs? Previously when ordering the PPV on line we could record it on all the DVRs and watch them individually.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Just like money most likely drove this decision.... money would be the only thing to drive it back.


i smell a PPV boycott :lol:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

GRich said:


> How will this work with those of us who have multiple HR2X and order PPV on line? If we record the PPV on all the DVRs, will we be able to only watch it on one DVR in a 24 hour period and not watch it another time on the other DVRs? Previously when ordering the PPV on line we could record it on all the DVRs and watch them individually.


I would only hazard to guess.

You have 24 hours from air time, since you are purchasing at that time.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

I'll be that guy. :grin: 

I guess they are finally enforcing the middle P in PPV, ie the PER in Pay PER View.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Netflix... maybe... Blu-Ray... not so much.
> 
> Can't see how it will significantly change the Blu-Ray market, since there wasn't many HD-PPV offerings available.
> 
> Let alone those people that will spend the $25-$30 on the BluRay disk (if they already have the player)... vs spending $5 on the PPV... even if it just for the "night" rental.


Netflix rents Blu-Ray movies too...

I was just thinking that if you want higher-than-DVD resolution, and the 24-hr limit bothers you, you can rent the puppy from Netflix at HD resolution on a Blu-Ray disc.

I can sure see NetFlix salivating at using this as a marketing point...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

kentuck1163 said:


> Netflix rents Blu-Ray movies too...


So.... it helps NetFlix... not so much BluRay in general..
Do the "bigger" picture... that is just a rental fee and is what they are trying to protect (IMHO) with this move.


----------



## ub1934 (Dec 30, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I would only hazard to guess.
> 
> You have 24 hours from air time, since you are purchasing at that time.


So why does Stargate Atlantis Say i must watch before 12/31/08 , have it set on keep till i delete*  *


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I know it is a change to the way things have been... but do you really think the Movie studios were going to continue to allow basically "ownership" of movies for $4-$5?


A 48 or 72 hour window would not consitute ownership. I have no issue with a shorter windows than "forever". I do have a problem with a 24 hour window.

This is the same issue (and I've read about many many others with the same feeling) why Apple will not get my business for Apple Tv.

Blockbuster will get my $ - there is no requirement to stick the DVD back in the mailbox within 24 hours.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Bigger Picture:
> 
> The RENTAL market, the actuall B&M rental market, which is EXTREMELY lucrative to the content providers... has been hurting and hurting bad.
> 
> ...


Again. Knee-jerk short term thinking. Do they really think they will increase revenue in any way shape or form doing this? They won't. But they will decrease it because the deal stinks from a consumer point of view.

I can imagine it now. Some great thinker says "Gee, folks can watch a movie over and over and over again with just a small fee? We need to make sure we get fair value for our movie. They should only be able to watch it for a short amount of time. That way we get what is fair to us."

Uh, no. You won't increase revenue while ticking off potential customers. I guess they didn't learn from the music industry beating itself into the ground by making sure they get their "fair share" and not determining what the impact is on the consumer.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ub1934 said:


> So why does Stargate Atlantis Say i must watch before 12/31/08 , have it set on keep till i delete*  *


Because you downloaded the CE... and there is a bug in the CE version.
Review the issue threads there, for more details...


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

raott said:


> A 48 or 72 hour window would not consitute ownership. I have no issue with a shorter windows than "forever". I do have a problem with a 24 hour window.
> 
> This is the same issue (and I've read about many many others with the same feeling) why Apple will not get my business for Apple Tv.
> 
> Blockbuster will get my $ - there is no requirement to stick the DVD back in the mailbox within 24 hours.


I agree. A 48-72 hour window would have been much more reasonable than 24-hours. I doubt many would have a problem with this. 24-hours is so short. With such a short window, many will choose NOT to use their DVR to record a PPV - as they might have something come up and not be able to watch something they paid for.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

tonyd79 said:


> Again. Knee-jerk short term thinking. Do they really think they will increase revenue in any way shape or form doing this? They won't. But they will decrease it because the deal stinks from a consumer point of view.
> 
> I can imagine it now. Some great thinker says "Gee, folks can watch a movie over and over and over again with just a small fee? We need to make sure we get fair value for our movie. They should only be able to watch it for a short amount of time. That way we get what is fair to us."
> 
> Uh, no. You won't increase revenue while ticking off potential customers. I guess they didn't learn from the music industry beating itself into the ground by making sure they get their "fair share" and not determining what the impact is on the consumer.


I very much disagree that this is a "knee-jerk" reaction... 
Given that the work to make sure the software is capable of it, has been going on for some time.

And when has anything related to DRM and restrictions on what you can do with the content, been good for customers.

We all do what ever we can to avoid the revenue streams that the content providers depend on (commercials, 1-800 offers, solicitation phone calls, purchasing DVDs vs renting them, using NetFlix to get the rentals for a few dollars)... ect....

The studio's want more money...
The staff want's more money...
The actors want more money...
The carriers want more money...
It is costing more to make, edit, distribute, ect...

And that money has to come from somewhere.

Yes, it totally sucks... but it is what it is.... so unless the laws change......
That forbids them from doing this.... this is what is going to happen.

They own the content... they set the price... even if they lose some customers. If they see it as a positive to their bottom line...

That is the problem with the media/content industry... they want their cake and eat it too... they are slow to react... they let the cat out of the bag for way too long of time periods, and thus when they try to stuff the kitten back in... it is a very large and strong cat... and it is going to stink.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

I don't see why they believe you are going to store movies on the DVR "forever". DVR space is not infinite so you can't store an entire collection on your DVR(s). Not terribly surprised by this. It is a very similar implementation as the XBOX. Seems like the content providers will be pushing this issue to everyone. I agree with most folks here though.....24 hours is not enough. Too many times, my wife and I start watching a movie and she falls asleep halfway through. Would have to rent a second time just to let her finish watching.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

MikeW said:


> I don't see why they believe you are going to store movies on the DVR "forever". DVR space is not infinite so you can't store an entire collection on your DVR(s). Not terribly surprised by this. It is a very similar implementation as the XBOX. Seems like the content providers will be pushing this issue to everyone. I agree with most folks here though.....24 hours is not enough. Too many times, my wife and I start watching a movie and she falls asleep halfway through. Would have to rent a second time just to let her finish watching.


And thus you have hit the head.... 24 hours...
As you have a higher increase of people that will have to pay for a 2nd rental fee... to finish the movie...

$$$$


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

All it will take for most subscribers is to have one instance of paying for a movie which it turns out they cannot watch (or watch to completion without paying a second time) and that will be the last time they use PPV. 

I think there will be market reaction, for sure.


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

On some (not all) dvd recorders there are copyright protection devices in place that prohibit the consumer from burning a movie to dvd from some premium movie channels (HBO & Cinemax). Although if you want to spend the money, there are "devices or filters" out there that circumvent that. If you really want the movie and don't want to pay full price either 1. Wait five years for it to show up in the $5.99 bargain bin, or 2. rent it from Blockbuster and burn a copy of it using one of several burning programs available on the net (not endorsing it, just saying they are out there). The bottom line for me is this: You'd think with Hollywood spending hundreds of millions of dollars to produce films, why are there only a handful that are actually worth seeing each year? To me, this new 24 ppv just helps studios recoup their money on their bad movies.


----------



## Wisegoat (Aug 17, 2006)

I am in the group of people with a job (and a side business), a kid, a mortgage, expensive gasoline and very little time to sleep, so I almost never watch a movie all the way through. More like in 20 minute increments as life permits. So, as others have already said, I will no longer purchase PPV. I already stopped Blockbuster years ago due to never returning them on time. I have all the movie channels, so I will just wait an extra couple of months and record them at that time. 

The thing that scares me about this concept is that it isn't a very big stretch to go from PPV to the movie channels and primetime network offerings, etc. What is to stop them from insisting on the same 24 hour expiration date on these shows. If that happens, you can kiss the entire DVR industry goodbye. That is the reason we got DVR's in the first place, so we can watch TV on our schedules. I have not watched any of the new Lost or Heroes yet, due to my own time restrictions. If this expiration date crap were in place on tv shows, I would never get to see them. I know that people will say to go get them on DVD, but that defeats the purpose of recording to watch later and I have to wait another 2 years. I will stop watching network programming if this happens. From the viewing habits of my family and friends, I know they will be right behind me. 

The recording studios are finally learning that DRM does not work and only forces people to become criminals or to stop using that product. Expiration dates would force us to do the same.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Bring on the macrovision removal boxes 

Technology from the past that we thought was gone and no longer of use with nicer content providers, but back to the stone age now!

This will pretty much make me not want to buy ANY PPV movies, I am sure it will do the same to many people. It is not nice having a time period hanging over your head to do something, especially when you get a DVR to eliminate this.

I think many copy protection agencies need to take economics over again and learn about Marginal Returns and Elasticity of Demand...


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

It not being Directv's decision is fine, but how they implement it may or may not be a problem. Are they going to notify ALL customers of the change?
And what actually happens to the PPV? Will it auto-delete, or still sit there so you can pay to watch it again? I can see customers flying through the purchase confirmation, not realizing they have to purchase again, and freaking when they get their bills and seeing multiple charges for the same movie.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And thus you have hit the head.... 24 hours...
> As you have a higher increase of people that will have to pay for a 2nd rental fee... to finish the movie...
> 
> $$$$


I am guilty of always falling asleep during movies so I fit into this catagory quite nicely. That's why PPV isn't my thing. If I have to pay for a PPV movie twice ($10) I might as well get off my butt, head to Target and buy it. 

I work very closely with digital content delivery, DRM and the RIAA and I understand "why". Doesn't mean I like it though.


----------



## josetann (Oct 2, 2006)

They really need to get more in line with how physical rentals work. When I rent a movie, it's usually for five days or so, for about the same price as a PPV. If I want a movie for just a day, then Redbox offers it for $1. I would purchase PPVs with a 24hr viewing limit, if it only cost $1.

If they're really try to enforce the PER in PayPerView, then at least set it to expire after 24hrs OR it has been completely watched. No, I don't mean that as long as you don't finish the credits you can start back from the beginning, I mean if you stop it at minute 30, then the most you can back up is to say minute 25. Get to minute 60, you can back up no more than to minute 55. That would allow you to finish a movie assuming you don't fall asleep during it, and you can still rewind just a bit, thus not completely losing the DVR aspect.


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

There is hardware out there that can be connected via hdmi out of your dvr into the recorder and back out to your tv via hdmi. Therefore you can make a HD copy of it and watch whenever and as many times you like and yes it is hdcp compliant. So you can beat the movie studios.


----------



## quickfire (Nov 14, 2003)

If DirecTv were to drop the price to say $1.99 for a 24 hour rental I would have no problem with the new change.......BUT I be dammmmed if I'm going to pay $4.99 for a 24 hour rental!!!

My local Blockbuster will start getting more visits from me.........!


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Scott B. said:


> So you can beat the movie studios.


And break the law. Good idea!


----------



## eandras (Feb 16, 2007)

jazzyjez said:


> but I didn't think that concept even existed back when s-video was thought up.
> 
> 
> > Not to take you out of context but the copy protection has been available for all video output. A/V, S Video, Component and HDMI.
> ...


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> And break the law. Good idea!


I believe I did mention that it was HDCP compliant.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Scott B. said:


> I believe I did mention that it was HDCP compliant.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but HDCP just means it's viewable on a certain device - it has nothing to do with copying it to your hard drive for future use against the will of the studio.


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but HDCP just means it's viewable on a certain device - it has nothing to do with copying it to your hard drive for future use against the will of the studio.


(HDCP) is a form of digital copy protection developed by Intel Corporation to protect digital audio and video content as it travels

This is from Wikipedia. Btw do you work for the studios or what?


----------



## dwrats_56 (Apr 21, 2007)

While I don't like the 24 hour rule, all I can say is our PPV watching will go down. If the rule was 48 to 72 hours, that would be better because that is what BlockBuster, Movie Gallery and the local grocery offer. This will also add to our Netflix viewing. It is too easy to rent a movie watch it, return it and rent it again a couple of weeks/months later. 

To me, it also enhances the DoD. I have watch several shows and have been impressed with the picture quality for SD content. With D11 going into action soon, DoD can only get better.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Scott B. said:


> (HDCP) is a form of digital copy protection developed by Intel Corporation to protect digital audio and video content as it travels
> 
> This is from Wikipedia. Btw do you work for the studios or what?


Okay, one of us is misunderstanding what exactly HDCP is and what it's for. So how does this make pirating the movies legal?

And no, I don't work for the studios. I have a conscience, and, call me crazy, I think companies ought to get paid for their product. If they choose to distribute it in a certain way (i.e., limiting rentals to 24 hours) that's their prerogative and there shouldn't be hackers trying to figure out how to circumvent it. Additionally I don't think dbstalk.com condones piracy or "educating" people how to do it in a pseudo-legal way. Piracy drives up the costs over the long-term, too.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

GoDVD! Sima CT-200 has not let me down yet. With S-video, picture is fine at 480i. And I am not a distributor!


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

I personally don't think it is pirating if you have to pay for the movie in the first place to view it, and I am not sharing it with anyone so there is no loss to anyone to raise the prices. There is definitely no hackers involved in the process. To publicly claim that your product is HDCP compliant is in a way saying that use of your product dose not violate copy protection. By implementing HDCP they have secured a license. Therefore their product has been throughly checked for copy protection compliance.IMO


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

whatever makes you feel better...:nono2:


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

I don't care what is the rationale behind this change but one thing they can take from my household is our PPV orders will go way down, probably to the point of non existent.

While I hardly watch the same movie twice, my wife does so all the time, and she also does not like to wait too long for the release, also does not want to be bothered to rent one from a mile away or by mail, so HDPPV was a perfect fit. Not to mention with little children all the other reasons apply.

And they can kiss this revenue stream goodbye as far as this customer is concerned.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> .. but do you really think the Movie studios were going to continue to allow basically "ownership" of movies for $4-$5?


Yes. Why not? The distribution of movies over satellite/broadband is MUCH cheaper for them than to manufacture, market, ship and sell DVD's/Blu-rays...especially without the "bonus" features and full 1080p/lossless audio, etc. etc. I'd say it's reduced to 1/4 the price. Say, that works out to about $5/movie!

This move will absolutely reduce my PPV orders to $0/month. I was up to $10-$15/month with the recent PPV HD channels, but not anymore...not if they expire, especially within 24 hours! I would have no problem if they reduced the price a bit (say, to $2), and increased the length to 14-30 days...but not at $5/movie for only 24 hours of viewing.

Stupid move, studios....stupid move...


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

syphix said:


> Yes. Why not? The distribution of movies over satellite/broadband is MUCH cheaper for them than to manufacture, market, ship and sell DVD's/Blu-rays...especially without the "bonus" features and full 1080p/lossless audio, etc. etc. I'd say it's reduced to 1/4 the price. Say, that works out to about $5/movie!
> 
> This move will absolutely will reduce my PPV orders to $0/month. I was up to $10-$15/month with the recent PPV HD channels, but not anymore...not if they expire, especially within 24 hours!  I would have no problem if they reduced the price a bit (say, to $2), and increased the length to 14-30 days...but not at $5/movie for only 24 hours of viewing.
> 
> Stupid move, studios....stupid move...


I totally agree with everything you have said!


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Otay... so at least you know.
> 
> I know it is a change to the way things have been... but do you really think the Movie studios were going to continue to allow basically "ownership" of movies for $4-$5?
> 
> ...


I honestly don't see why not as the $5. DVD movies are the only ones I buy at WalMart.

It must have been those writers!!!,wait until the actors strike!!

I smell a PPV boycott,plus if DirecTV does not notify it's subscriber's properly it smells like something else.:eek2:


----------



## MercurialIN (Jul 17, 2006)

I have to say that I too, am disappointed to hear this news. I don't blame Directv sounds like they are doing what's required of them but it will severely curtail if not end my PPV purchases. I too am one of those posters who rarely if ever watches a PPV movie within 24 hours or in my case, 24 days.

I generally order a PPV movie when I see one I'm interested in and then view it whenever I happen to get around to it, I collect a bunch of movies then watch on a particular day whatever I'm in the mood to view. And on occasion I do view movies or parts of a movie again to see something I think I may have missed during the first viewing. I have some PPV movies from last summer that I've not viewed yet. I am hoping I'm correct in understanding they won't be affected by this new policy.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well... if you still want PPV's post 4/15... you are going to have to change something...
> 
> Your schedule... or your usage of PPV's.
> 
> Just like money most likely drove this decision.... money would be the only thing to drive it back.


You are correct...I will likely watch less. Since I won't buy something I can't use and my schedule will dictate.


----------



## eking64 (Oct 26, 2007)

Copyright law is out of control, when you bought your license for that song you had to have. It had nothing to do with the way it was delivered, I say because I bought Meatloaf on album back in the 70s I have a license for those songs no matter the delivery of the content. If I lose the content I have already paid for the license so I should be able to get the content again without cost. I don't know what to compare it to, but if you read the law you have bought a license to the content. It doesn't say anything about the medium. Copyright law hasn't been kept up to date with technology, when we starting writing/passing laws limiting technology the consumer is going to suffer. I however understand the Content holders position on this issue however,


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

quickfire said:


> If DirecTv were to drop the price to say $1.99 for a 24 hour rental I would have no problem with the new change.......BUT I be dammmmed if I'm going to pay $4.99 for a 24 hour rental!!!
> 
> My local Blockbuster will start getting more visits from me.........!


This makes a lot of sense but I would think they will keep the price where it is...we shall see once PPV subscriptions go down. At least in my household...I don't know if other folks will care enough. Maybe.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

eking64 said:


> Copyright law is out of control, when you bought your license for that song you had to have. It had nothing to do with the way it was delivered, I say because I bought Meatloaf on album back in the 70s I have a license for those songs no matter the delivery of the content. If I lose the content I have already paid for the license so I should be able to get the content again without cost. I don't know what to compare it to, but if you read the law you have bought a license to the content. It doesn't say anything about the medium. Copyright law hasn't been kept up to date with technology, when we starting writing/passing laws limiting technology the consumer is going to suffer. I however understand the Content holders position on this issue however,


Right, but it's a PPV movie, not an owned movie. It's a rental and all the content creator is doing is limiting the rental time. It's probably going to lose them a lot of customers and, if so, they'll change back or extend the time limit.

This will probably also decrease sales of eSATA drives by DVR owners:lol:


----------



## itguy05 (Oct 24, 2007)

jdh8668 said:


> On some (not all) dvd recorders there are copyright protection devices in place that prohibit the consumer from burning a movie to dvd from some premium movie channels (HBO & Cinemax).


I'm glad my el-cheapo Chinees LiteOn from 2005 pretty much ignores this crap. I can pretty much record what I want when I want.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

smiddy said:


> ...we shall see once PPV subscriptions go down......


Great- now DTV has another reason to raise prices on packages again due to this potential lost revenue. We're spinning in circles now!


----------



## OverThereTooMuch (Aug 19, 2006)

quickfire said:


> If DirecTv were to drop the price to say $1.99 for a 24 hour rental I would have no problem with the new change.......BUT I be dammmmed if I'm going to pay $4.99 for a 24 hour rental!!!
> 
> My local Blockbuster will start getting more visits from me.........!


I completely agree with you. A reduction in the usefulness of the service demands a similar reduction in cost. Doesn't sound like that's gonna happen though. 

If they were a buck or two, I'd bet most people could probably live with the delay (even though it's not ideal).


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

codespy said:


> Great- now DTV has another reason to raise prices on packages again due to this potential lost revenue. We're spinning in circles now!


Actually it will probably cause an increase in the Premium Movie channels cause they play the movies...again....again....and again.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

I think we've done 3 PPVs in the entire 12 years we've been with DirecTV. Just has never been worth it when I can watch it for "free" just a couple months later on HBO or Starz and now with all the movie channels in HD it makes PPV even less worth it. I never did understand the appeal of PPV but that's just me.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

raott said:


> A 48 or 72 hour window would not consitute ownership. I have no issue with a shorter windows than "forever". I do have a problem with a 24 hour window.
> 
> This is the same issue (and I've read about many many others with the same feeling) why Apple will not get my business for Apple Tv.
> 
> Blockbuster will get my $ - there is no requirement to stick the DVD back in the mailbox within 24 hours.


Well enjoy using Blockbuster then, or the other options.

No one said you have to use PPV.

And while using your mail order... if you don't drop it in the mail... you don't get another... so you could.... pay what $15 for 1 movie... if you don't mail it back in the money.

As for it being Apple TV or Microsoft, or Comcast, or Dish, or whom ever... this is the owners of the content that is setting the rules.

As for "ownership"... I am using that as a lose term... if I had a PPV recording on my system for a year... so I can watch it when ever... how is that different from owning the DVD? (in practical usage terms... I know I don't a rental item)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Scott B. said:


> There is hardware out there that can be connected via hdmi out of your dvr into the recorder and back out to your tv via hdmi. Therefore you can make a HD copy of it and watch whenever and as many times you like and yes it is hdcp compliant. So you can beat the movie studios.


Is that hardware worth the cost of just simply buying the DVD?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

quickfire said:


> If DirecTv were to drop the price to say $1.99 for a 24 hour rental I would have no problem with the new change.......BUT I be dammmmed if I'm going to pay $4.99 for a 24 hour rental!!!
> 
> My local Blockbuster will start getting more visits from me.........!


Bulk of the price of the PPV's is set by the content owners...
They set what they want on the rental fee... DirecTV then add's their segment on top.


----------



## mightythor88 (Sep 22, 2007)

I had just started watching more PPV HD too, now that is dead to me. For $4.99 I want to have access to it for at least 72hrs.

I get Blu-ray/DVD from netflix with the 3 at a time (unlimited) for $17 a month. On your average 4 week month I get 12 movies and they arrive on Tuesday afternoons and as long as I get them in the mail on Friday I am clear for the next Monday shipment.

12 movies a month for $17 ($1.50 a rental basically) that I get to keep for 4 days/3nights. PPVHD at $5 per movie was already a ripoff to me and now with a 24hr window, DTV just lost a source of revenue from 1 subscriber.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

codespy said:


> Great- now DTV has another reason to raise prices on packages again due to this potential lost revenue. We're spinning in circles now!


Or maybe not.... they could reduce the cost to operate the PPV segment, by having less choice.

Or have more choices via DoD or what ever it maybe..

Since I have never seen a statement on how much was actually received via PPV revenues... it is hard to speculate what the impact may be.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

arxaw said:


> Restrictions turn me off to the whole idea of PPV.
> 
> A shot in the foot, regardless of who's behind it.


I concur. We don't watch many PPVs as it is. PPV + restrictions == we'll watch even fewer.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Personally I've always found the pricing model for PPV's out of

Maybe a dozen PPV's in a dozen years.

(Excluding sporting events)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

mightythor88 said:


> 12 movies a month for $17 ($1.50 a rental basically) that I get to keep for 4 days/3nights. PPVHD at $5 per movie was already a ripoff to me and now with a 24hr window, DTV just lost a source of revenue from 1 subscriber.


As I said multiple times... way earlier in this thread...

$$$ is the only thing that is going to impact this.

So if the content providers feel a pinch.. they will change their structures...

heck around here... most B&M rental stores are reducing their size, or closing.

The blockbuster I worked at as a kid, which had been around for over 20 years... closed doors about a year ago.

Three others have closed. two others are less then a third of the size they used to be.

So as the lack of revenue grows... then either PPV will dry up... or something will change.

But then again... not much will change for non-dvr users... you know the other 13 million subscribers (who probably watch more PPV then the DVR users do)... they will still have to watch it live.


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Is that hardware worth the cost of just simply buying the DVD?


It would take only twenty to make it pay off at $19.99 a DVD.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

If the cost of PPV (and the 24-hour limit) is beyond their control, then perhaps DTV needs to redirect some of this bandwidth to other uses and just forgo PPV entirely. That IS in their control. PPV is dead with a 24-hour limit.


----------



## TMar (Sep 2, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> How much do you pay for your subscription for NetFlix?
> And if you have been sitting on once set of movies for 3 weeks...
> ...


Sadly I'm the type they love, that's why I don't use them. I had the same two games rented from Game Fly for over two years:nono2: And played one all of 15 minutes.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

kentuck1163 said:


> If the cost of PPV (and the 24-hour limit) is beyond their control, then perhaps DTV needs to redirect some of this bandwidth to other uses and just forgo PPV entirely. That IS in their control. PPV is dead with a 24-hour limit.


So... the 12-13ish million people that don't have DVRs... that never had the ability to watch PPV... at a later time... let alone again and again..

All of them going to stop using it....

I would hazard to guess that MOST of the PPV purchases are by non-dvr user... why? Because us with DVRs have so many other things recorded, including premium channel movies... that PPV's are used a lot less often.

This change has ZERO Impact on them.
After all they are pretty much the main reason why each main PPV is on every 30 minutes for 2+ hours


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2008)

BNUMM said:


> You could record it to a DVD in 480i. The copy protection is probably already there. Most DVD recorders will only allow you to copy in 480i. For me 1080i is good enough.


It depends on the DVD recorder. There are some that will ignore any copy protection and even record from copy-protected DVDs.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I would hazard to guess that MOST of the PPV purchases are by non-dvr user... why? Because us with DVRs have so many other things recorded, including premium channel movies... that PPV's are used a lot less often.
> 
> This change has ZERO Impact on them.
> After all they are pretty much the main reason why each main PPV is on every 30 minutes for 2+ hours


You're probably right about that, Earl. Most DVR users have so much stuff to watch at their convenience that they don't even bother with PPV. I haven't even used PPV when I've been given free coupons from DirecTV. It's more trouble than it's worth to even redeem the coupons, when I can just wait a while and those same movies will show up on premium channels. Or if there is something I really want to see right away, I can just order it from Netflix with my one-at-a-time subscription.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2008)

Another advantage of Netflix: most new releases are coming out in Blu-ray and can be viewed in 1080P, which you can't do with DirecTV.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So... the 12-13ish million people that don't have DVRs... that never had the ability to watch PPV... at a later time... let alone again and again..
> 
> All of them going to stop using it....
> 
> ...


Well, all I have to go on is myself. I had an H20 for two years. Number of PPV movies I rented: 0. Since I've had my DVR (2 months), number of PPV movies I've purchased: 2. Neither of those two movies were watched in one sitting or within a 24-hour period of purchase.

Maybe, I'm an anomaly. But I think I'm more the rule than the exception.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

smiddy said:


> This makes a lot of sense but I would think they will keep the price where it is...we shall see once PPV subscriptions go down. At least in my household...I don't know if other folks will care enough. Maybe.


If people don't biuy PPV, then DirectTv won't need as many repeats of PPV movies so will have more bandwidth for more shopping channels!


----------



## VandyCWG (Dec 19, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Just like the B&M rental business... if you can't return it the next day, you hae to pay for another day's rental fee.


Wow....Earl, that one phrase summed it up perfectly for me! Awesome Quote!


----------



## ahintz (Jan 14, 2007)

Looks like PPV is moving to a very similar model to the download rental services (like iTunes). If this helps anyone, I would say it is Apple, Microsoft, etc. and their rental services compete with PPV.

While this won't impact me personally very much (I almost always watch a movie in one sitting) I do wish the content owners would compromise a little and allow for viewing two nights in a row with a 36-48-hour window, allowing someone to start watching the movie at 8pm on Monday, and finish watching it at 9pm on Tuesday. I honestly think if they made that extension, there would be little room for complaint - especially since these windows start when you begin watching it, not when you download/record it.


----------



## Skooz (Jul 20, 2007)

Well, I guess I have purchased my last PPV movie.

I'll just remove the 100s from my Favorites list.


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

I don't blame D*, but I like many others here will stop using PPV.

As a happy parent of 2 young children, I have enough stress in my life, I don't need to add a stop watch to my movie watching habits!

Yes Blockbuster Online loves it when I hold a movie for 2 weeks, but so what.
The price is worth the ease of use, and lack of stress.
I had just started watching HD PPV too.

Blockbuster Online + Blu-Ray+ no deadline stress = happy customer.

Simply put, I am not willing to give up the control of my viewing time to ANYONE.

:nono:


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

does blockbuster online have a larger library than netflix, in bluray movies?


----------



## SledDog (May 6, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I would hazard to guess that MOST of the PPV purchases are by non-dvr user... why? Because us with DVRs have so many other things recorded, including premium channel movies... that PPV's are used a lot less often.
> 
> This change has ZERO Impact on them.
> After all they are pretty much the main reason why each main PPV is on every 30 minutes for 2+ hours


This statement covers my household. We have a DVR, but the purchases are made on an H20. My daughter makes most, actually all, of the PPV purchases. We have so much non-PPV programming on the DVR that we never seem to be able to view all of it...


----------



## mpoyner (Aug 17, 2006)

lawmangrant said:


> _
> 
> Originally Posted by Earl Bonovich:
> Just like the B&M rental business... if you can't return it the next day, you have to pay for another day's rental fee._
> ...


Maybe you and Earl should try a different rental store, if you're getting charged for not returning the movie the next day?

I don't know of a single national chain that is widely used today that charges $4-5 for one day's rental and then charge you a late fee if it's not returned the very next day. That is not to say that you personally do not have one near you that does, but perhaps you should pick any one other than the one you're currently using?

Redbox charges per day, but they're only $1. And THAT is what the studios should be expecting us to pay for one day's use.

Welcome to the new entertainment economy, Hollywood. Where end users don't have to overpay for less. We just go somewhere else.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

turey22 said:


> does blockbuster online have a larger library than netflix, in bluray movies?


Not likely. NetFlix has the largest library of any online rental service, including Blockbuster. In fact, they recently announced that they would carry Blu-Ray titles exclusively and will no longer stock HD-DVDs. Blockbuster will still carry HD-DVD titles online as long as they're available AFAIK.

I had DirecTV for 10+ years until switching to FIOS over a year ago. In that entire time I purchased maybe two PPV movies for the kids. Until the switch to mpeg4, the picture quality was not as good as renting a DVD and getting a Dolby Digital soundtrack in the mix was hit or miss at best. Both of these factors are completely unacceptable to me, which is why I don't rent PPVs or download UnBox movies or even the free unmlimited videos I can get from NetFlix.

Anyone with a DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray reader in their PC can learn to rip DVDs for "timeshifting" purposes, although it is illegal to do so if you don't own the disc. OTOH, the DMCA is an evil law and should be abolished. Anyone up for a tea party? I want to see if a truckload of DVDs can float in Boston Harbor.

I belong to NetFlix (for the 2nd time after a year's hiatus with Blockbuster online) and get pretty much any movie I want. Now that I have both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD playback capability I can see my favorite movies in glorious Hi-Def. I don't feel the compelling need to see a movie as soon as it's released and the online services have limited copies of such titles so I'm usually on a waiting list to get them anyway. I also rarely have the time to watch a movie while it's in my possession, hence the "timeshifting" reference (note that this should not be done at home and should only be performed by a trained professional ). FYI - nothing is retained on a permanent basis and the movies are set to self destruct upon completion of viewing. That is my mission statement. P.S. You don't know me and I was never here.:nono:


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well enjoy using Blockbuster then, or the other options.
> 
> No one said you have to use PPV.


I intend to continue to use Blockbuster - I (and many others) were simply expressing my dissatisfaction with this new policy.



Earl Bonovich said:


> And while using your mail order... if you don't drop it in the mail... you don't get another... so you could.... pay what $15 for 1 movie... if you don't mail it back in the money.


I suppose that is possible but highly unlikely, we are averaging watching three or so movies per week. In other words, about 12 a month for the $16 or so dollars I'm paying. A little over a buck a piece with no headaches of being forced to watch it in a 24 hour window or pay again.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> As I said multiple times... way earlier in this thread...
> 
> $$$ is the only thing that is going to impact this.
> 
> ...


Well, more likely, the studios will blame piracy for any drop in revenue as they do not seem to understand (or at least acknowlege publicly) that ther eis any otehr reason prifits could go down.



Earl said:


> The blockbuster I worked at as a kid, which had been around for over 20 years... closed doors about a year ago.
> 
> Three others have closed. two others are less then a third of the size they used to be.


I have noticed the same thing around here. We got hit hard by the Hollywood Video/Game Grazy downsizing and while we wstill have a few Schlockbusters, they are not expanding and when they move they are usually to a smaller footprint.



Earl said:


> But then again... not much will change for non-dvr users... you know the other 13 million subscribers (who probably watch more PPV then the DVR users do)... they will still have to watch it live.


I had not thought about this, but you are 100% right on this. We only watch PPV ocaisionally because we almost always have something else to watch.

I do think they would do just as well with a 48 or 72 hour window and that would ease a psychological barrier in many people's minds that 24 hours brings up.

Also, more HD PPV would probably help also and I know I would be more inclined to order if it was in HD.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Lee L said:


> I do think they would do just as well with a 48 or 72 hour window and that would ease a psychological barrier in many people's minds that 24 hours brings up.


It has nothing to do with a "psychological barrier" - it is a practical barrier - one of two parents working and a three year old in the house. Rarely are we able to watch an entire movie straight through.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I completely understand the strategy here... but I have to admit that 24 hours does seem a bit short. I wonder as well if 48 or 72 would accomplish the same thing with a little more flexibility.


----------



## bhigh8 (Oct 4, 2006)

i assume this applies to the $49.99 sporting events also.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

24 hour window is a joke. 72 hour window is more reasonable and PPV's aren't cheap either @ $5 a pop for the HD ones. I never ordered them much anyway as I prefer to use Netflix which I get far more value for my dollar.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Now that I've had more time to think about this... I'm really disappointed in the 24 hour window...

It's too bad that the powers that be over PPV aren't doing more to attract the netflix/blockbuster crowd... instead, it appears as if they're pushing more people back to them... PPV is much more convenient... and they could potentially put video rental places out of business... i've already seen a couple of hollywood videos close down around here... and i bet blockbuster would soon follow...

I understand their point in doing this... but I agree with Stuart... I'm not sure why a 48 or 72 hour window wouldn't essentially accomplish the same thing...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bhigh8 said:


> i assume this applies to the $49.99 sporting events also.


Wrong assumption.

This only effects movies.... It does not apply to the the sporting events..


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And thus you have hit the head.... 24 hours...
> As you have a higher increase of people that will have to pay for a 2nd rental fee... to finish the movie...
> 
> $$$$


Which is why people called it a knee jerk reaction that could in the end decrease their revenue. I personally would be damned (and I think I'm not the only one) if I were to pay for a movie twice simply because I couldn't watch it in time. I've jumped in my car more than once to return an unwatched movie minutes before the due time. The result for me will be not to PPV as often. So for me, they will get less money. Now you need to try to figure out whether the loss of all my and others PPV can be made up by people getting the same movie more than once.

I think that they are incorrectly comparing PPV with DVD rentals at a typical store. Late fees probably do make up a pretty good chunk of their revenue. However they occur not so much because people want to watch the movie as people are too lazy or forget to bring it back. These are late fee revenue PPV will never see. The percentage of late fees generated because people actually want to see the movie is pretty small.

This implementation certainly makes NetFlix a hell of a lot better option for many people.


----------



## Elephanthead (Feb 3, 2007)

This is just another example of the studios worried about losing pennies as their whole business model is crumbling under the power of technology, they refuse to change, and refuse to think anyone could want to use their product in anyway that they don't prescribe. Stop buying movies until they start begging us forgive them and let us have our way. We make the decision to buy or not, they are powerless.


----------



## chiplatham (Sep 13, 2007)

i'll jump in and say i only have one ppv on my hard drive...and it was recorded last night. i probably won't watch it for several more days.

one of the main reasons why is that the movie i wanted, only came on at 3 am. i have plans tonight...so under the new terms...i would not have bought it.

this is how i typically watch movies. i would guess my ppv will drop from a couple a month to maybe a couple a year. although i understand why the movie makers are doing this, i still say it will hit their wallet.

most people i know who have dvr's don't have external hard drives and don't have the space to record and keep ppv's forever, so in my mind...this move is about 5 years premature.


----------



## Aztec Pilot (Oct 11, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> The post over at TCF had the following:
> 
> Does this mean pay-per-VOD willl not have the restriction? I can't think of what else "other PPV programming" refers to - can't be premiums, because that's not per view - that's per package. Can't be MLB-EI - same thing...


Pay per VOD already has the restriction.


----------



## djzack67 (Sep 18, 2007)

Guess its back to red box for movies. Damn, i was just starting to like HD PPV.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Guess no one learned anything from the music industry.
Funny to see them shoot themselves in the foot once again.


----------



## cover (Feb 11, 2007)

turey22 said:


> does blockbuster online have a larger library than netflix, in bluray movies?


I put Netflix on hold and tried Blockbuster for a month. I went back to Netflix.

With Blockbuster, it was nice to be able to go to the store to swap movies at the last minuted. But, I didn't like being FORCED to go to the store because of Blockbuster's slow and spotty service through the mail.

One difference is that Netflix has a distribution center in my city. Whereas Blockbuster had to go to and from St. Louis, adding at least 2 days to the turnaround time through the mail.

I also like the Netflix web site better and found that they were more dependable and had fewer and shorter waits, especially for Blu-ray.

As far as Blu-ray selection, they are probably both about equal. Other factors make Netflix preferable for me.

And, to the point of the thread, I rarely used PPV anyhow. I was actually considering using it more with more HD PPV, but now I won't bother.


----------



## Bluto17 (Jan 31, 2007)

Count me in as one who will be ordering way fewer PPVs from now on. For me and my family, it no longer makes much sense to do so.


----------



## bigben7 (Jul 11, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Otay... so at least you know.
> 
> I know it is a change to the way things have been... but do you really think the Movie studios were going to continue to allow basically "ownership" of movies for $4-$5?
> 
> ...


What's next.... Movies I record from Starz or HBO will be deleted from my DVR? I don't see how recording PPV movie is any different from recording from any other channel.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I imagine the result of this will be a collective yawn from the majority of subscribers. We have ordered only 3 PPV's in the last 5 years. For one, Hollywood is producing garbage, and secondly, in a world of 300 some channels, there is always something on I like better than the latest formulaic rehash out of Hollywood. I've tried over the last 12 months, and discarded, all of the premium channels - the bigger problem here is not 24 hours, premium charges or any of that, IMHO. I get more views out of IFC than anything. Hollywood - wake up !


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

eking64 said:


> Copyright law is out of control, when you bought your license for that song you had to have. It had nothing to do with the way it was delivered, I say because I bought Meatloaf on album back in the 70s I have a license for those songs no matter the delivery of the content. If I lose the content I have already paid for the license so I should be able to get the content again without cost. I don't know what to compare it to, but if you read the law you have bought a license to the content. It doesn't say anything about the medium. Copyright law hasn't been kept up to date with technology, when we starting writing/passing laws limiting technology the consumer is going to suffer. I however understand the Content holders position on this issue however,


So when you have a paperback book, you have an unbreakable license to the content in whatever form it is eventually presented? When you loose the book, you should be entitled to a digital version for free? I understand your point, but it is not practical.


----------



## rsteinfe (May 7, 2005)

This thread got me to take a look at the Netflix site, and I discovered that:

1) For $4.99, I can get 2 movies per month.

2) Their selection is much larger than D*, so I should be able to find 2 movies each month that I want to watch. Now, I often look at the D* selection and am unable to find anything worth investing the time to watch. 

My DVD player upconverts to 1080i, so I get very nice quality from standard DVD's, so I'm on my way to sign up for Netflix. Been nice knowing you, D* PPV!


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

The big-time media moguls haven’t figured out yet that the only ones that make a bundle in this arena are the encryption companies. Don’t look now but most all of these posts are speeding in the direction of renting less movies. So this is a good business decision how?

And the load of crap that the encryption industries continue to feed these media companies could saturate a land fill. I would like to see a price tag regarding the encryption companies and how much they have bilked from the media industries to date - And the encryption that hasn’t been broken to date would include...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bigben7 said:


> What's next.... Movies I record from Starz or HBO will be deleted from my DVR? I don't see how recording PPV movie is any different from recording from any other channel.


PPV Movies are basically in the same "bucket" of revenue as Rentals to the content providers... that is where they make a large portion of their revenue on the movies.

Once they release them to the movie channels, from what I understand... it is a flat rate, regardless the number of times that the movie channel plays them.

But then at that point, they cross over to more of a broadcast type, rather then a rental... so it is pretty different in the scope of the underlying models.

HBO is going to get their money regardless if you watch it once, twice, 20 times... you already had the channel... when you recorded it.

So while it is certainly, "technically possible" with any recording..
I doubt you are going to see this particular rule be applied to content recorded on "broadcast" channels, any time soon.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

bigben7 said:


> What's next.... Movies I record from Starz or HBO will be deleted from my DVR? I don't see how recording PPV movie is any different from recording from any other channel.


It is different in a very significant way: timing. PPV movies are made available during the same period that the DVDs are first released for rental. HBO, Starz and others get the movies after this initial period. Movies have phases of revenue: release, international release, rental/purchase, premium channels. Blockbuster and PPV are part of the rental/purchase cycle when the movie is not available on HBO, etc. but can be rented or purchased outright.

A lot of folks have been using PPV to purchase the content by storing it indefinitely. Content owners get paid per PPV purchase for the content. Fewer views means less revenue for content owners. HBO, Starz and others generally pay flat rates for the rights to show a movie on their networks. Repeated views do not hurt the revenue for that phase. This means that there is a significant difference in how the content holders feel about these separate issues.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> PPV Movies are basically in the same "bucket" of revenue as Rentals to the content providers... that is where they make a large portion of their revenue on the movies.
> 
> Once they release them to the movie channels, from what I understand... it is a flat rate, regardless the number of times that the movie channel plays them.
> 
> ...


Apparently we were both thinking along the same lines.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

gregjones said:


> Apparently we were both thinking along the same lines.




Spent a lot of time on this topic about 11 years ago...
With the DVD / Divxdebate, structure was discussed...

So the PPV's are moving basically to the Circuit City: Divx structure, a lot of these bullet points are just rehashing old info...


----------



## bc3tech (Jan 3, 2007)

i saw it mentioned on the tivo board, and may have been mentioned in the 3 pages of this thread i didn't read. but honestly if the cost goes down to $1 for SD movie, $2 for HD movie (or less), i don't think i'd mind that much. but at $4/5, then a required viewing in 24hr, i'll be doing the 1-at-a-time netflix option for $5/MONTH and saving money and gaining convenience. especially w/ my first child on the way.

plus if y'all really wanna hit the pirating angle, it's WAY easier to pirate a physical DVD than from a DVR. just saying.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Lets not go down the pirating angles....


----------



## bigben7 (Jul 11, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> PPV Movies are basically in the same "bucket" of revenue as Rentals to the content providers... that is where they make a large portion of their revenue on the movies.
> 
> Once they release them to the movie channels, from what I understand... it is a flat rate, regardless the number of times that the movie channel plays them.
> 
> ...


I understand what you're saying but you say HBO is getting their money regardless if you watch it 2 or 20 times. How is that different than PPV? They're getting their $5 regardless of how many or when I watch the movie.

How are they losing money based on how many times I watch? In fact I think PPV will make less money now because of this policy. I certainly won't buy any more.


----------



## CopyCat (Jan 21, 2008)

By the time a movie makes PPV it's in our local library as a DVD for free. Who needs PPV movies ?  and I get to keep it for a week and watch it as many times as I want.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So as the lack of revenue grows... then either PPV will dry up... or something will change.
> 
> But then again... not much will change for non-dvr users... you know the other 13 million subscribers (who probably watch more PPV then the DVR users do)... they will still have to watch it live.


Here's where I'm having some trouble getting my head around some of the arguments being stated here - and around the reasoning for this in the first place, at least from the standpoint of the DirecTV population.

2 Hours, 24 hours, 48 hours or 72 hours - it really looks like the segment of the population who WOULD be affected by this is the DVR owning crowd. Those with standard receivers would be watching live, so no "expiration date" would really affect them at all.

So let's look at the DVR crowd. From reading this thread, a fair number of them order very few PPVs anyway - because they have enough programming recorded on their DVRs to occupy their viewing hours and/or some get their movies from other sources like NetFlix, etc. for various reasons, including better HD experience (availability, sound, etc.).

So if they decide to forego PPV ordering all together, there really wouldn't seem to be much of an impact to the revenue stream anyway, would there? Some, but it would seem, not much.

Which then begs the question with me, what is there really to gain by the studios implementing this policy? What aspect of this am I missing? Is there really that big of an impact to their bottom line that they need to be doing this?

Count me among the DVR users who can count the number of PPV movie purchases over the last 10 years on one hand - and three of those were a few years ago when I was home recovering from surgery!

ETA: boy, is this thread moving fast - in the time it took me to compose my post (with a couple of interuptions along the way - I'm at work ), there has been a whole page and over a dozen posts!


----------



## bc3tech (Jan 3, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> ...So if they decide to forego PPV ordering all together, there really wouldn't seem to be much of an impact to the revenue stream anyway, would there? Some, but it would seem, not much.
> 
> Which then begs the question with me, what is there really to gain by the studios implementing this policy? What aspect of this am I missing? Is there really that big of an impact to their bottom line that they need to be doing this?...


pennies across millions = millions of pennies :grin:


----------



## philrage (Nov 1, 2007)

I wonder how this will be implemented in the promised DirecTV tuner for Windows Media Center. Will they reach into your PC and delete from your recorded show? Or will they not allow PPV on these?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

philrage said:


> I wonder how this will be implemented in the promised DirecTV tuner for Windows Media Center. Will they reach into your PC and delete from your recorded show? Or will they not allow PPV on these?


The purpose is obvious - to try and gouge you at home like they gouge you at the movies. If you were out with a date, liked the movie and wanted to see it again, you'd have to go out and pay again to get into the theater.

So they figure, "Hey, let's see if we can figure out a way to charge them twice to see it twice at home too. The problem is, there are very few actually saving them to make multiple copies, compared to those who are doing nothing but what normal consumers do - watch it the next day or so.

So they "think" they prevent those trying to copy or watch a million times but they tick off their regular customers. For every person they prevent, they lose two normal ones. Somehow they must think it's worth it though, to make its normal viewers mad and possibly lose them as PPV customers, in order to gouge a few or stop these multiple viewing dudes.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

If you watch a PPV movie more than once I can see this having an effect on you. Otherwise, why the big issue? Rent it the same day you're ready to watch it if the start time doesn't fit with your sechdule. With the advent of DoD and the launch of D11 it's going to become even more moot. And if you used to let it sit on your DVR for months before you watched it then you could pick it off of one of the movie channels anyhow so why waste your money doing that? I don't see it as being as huge an issue as people are making it out to be. For me I rent about 1-2 a month and watch them when I rent them. Before we sit down for dinner on a Saturday night we check the schedule, see what we want to watch and put it in the queue so it's ready to go later that night.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

bc3tech said:


> pennies across millions = millions of pennies :grin:


But if the idea is that instead of someone keeping and re-watching a PPV movie several times, they will order it again to re-watch it, I'm afraid that won't be the case. And as we're seeing here, it's making the DVR crowd very much LESS likely to even order a PPV movie in the first place! So pennies across millions seems to equal losses of dollars across millions.


----------



## RUBBLE (Mar 6, 2006)

I guess I'm going to have to accept the 24 hr expiration reality, But what about adding another option. For example : $5 for 24 hrs, $10 to Record/Keep. I hate to lose the convenience of buying movies that my children can access easily without loading dvds.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

philrage said:


> I wonder how this will be implemented in the promised DirecTV tuner for Windows Media Center. Will they reach into your PC and delete from your recorded show? Or will they not allow PPV on these?


All based on the software developed... most likely Media Center would have a similar mechanism... with an expiration date... in the DRM license it receives, it could easily have an expiration.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> If you watch a PPV movie more than once I can see this having an effect on you. Otherwise, why the big issue?


Because (as has been stated numerous times throughout the thread) - many people have a tough time finding time to sit down and watch an entire movie in one sitting.

Personally, I simply won't use PPV anymore, I'm not going to plunk down $4.99 to get halfway through a movie, have a phone call from work that I have to address halfway though the movie, only to have to pay $4.99 the next day to finish it.

I'll take my business elsewhere.


----------



## bc3tech (Jan 3, 2007)

philrage said:


> I wonder how this will be implemented in the promised DirecTV tuner for Windows Media Center. Will they reach into your PC and delete from your recorded show? Or will they not allow PPV on these?


after you d/l it to your PC, just copy it to an external drive  if you don't have a NAS, you can get a 1TB WD NAS for $250 from Buy.com right now 


JLucPicard said:


> But if the idea is that instead of someone keeping and re-watching a PPV movie several times, they will order it again to re-watch it, I'm afraid that won't be the case. And as we're seeing here, it's making the DVR crowd very much LESS likely to even order a PPV movie in the first place! So pennies across millions seems to equal losses of dollars across millions.


well you have to figure only the people savvy enough to be on these boards are who we're hearing from. inevitably the lemmings will just do what they've done and deal w/ it. or they'll continue to use the DVR PPV as they do, and never come to realize their shows have been deleted. DTV is banking that more people will continue to PPV than will quit. so the ROI is looked at over the coming years, not the immediate months. but you do have a point. and you do live in the twin cities, so... rock on :grin:


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

raott said:


> Because (as has been stated numerous times throughout the thread) - many people have a tough time finding time to sit down and watch an entire movie in one sitting.
> 
> Personally, I simply won't use PPV anymore, I'm not going to plunk down $4.99 to get halfway through a movie, have a phone call from work that I have to address halfway though the movie, only to have to pay $4.99 the next day to finish it.
> 
> I'll take my business elsewhere.


Ok, sorry, relax.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bc3tech said:


> after you d/l it to your PC, just copy it to an external drive  if you don't have a NAS, you can get a 1TB WD NAS for $250 from Buy.com right now


You can almost guarantee that there will be some sort of DRM tied to the recordings, that will have playback "allowance" information in it.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> You can almost guarantee that there will be some sort of DRM tied to the recordings, that will have playback "allowance" information in it.


Yeah, ya gotta love those root kits.
They worked out so well for Sony.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> Count me among the DVR users who can count the number of PPV movie purchases over the last 10 years on one hand


I honestly can't recall that I have EVER ordered a PPV from DirecTV. Don't see this change as impacting me in any way whatsoever.

Carl


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I was thinking of using PPV as a substitute for next-gen DVD rentals, and I still might, but I am one of the few who generally can watch a movie in one lump.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I was thinking of using PPV as a substitute for next-gen DVD rentals, and I still might, but I am one of the few who generally can watch a movie in one lump.


That's exactly what I've been doing... instead of schlepping my butt to Blockbuster and trading elbows with the neighbors on who gets the last widescreen version of that hot movie only to watch it in sub-par format on my DVD player I just wait for it in HD.

I still may pony up for a Blu Ray but I'm still thinking the with the launch of D11 the selection of PPV and DoD can only grow from here.

That, and the fact that I have a hundred DVDs that collect dust... I'm questioning the value in purchasing versus renting.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

raott said:


> Because (as has been stated numerous times throughout the thread) - many people have a tough time finding time to sit down and watch an entire movie in one sitting.
> 
> Personally, I simply won't use PPV anymore, I'm not going to plunk down $4.99 to get halfway through a movie, have a phone call from work that I have to address halfway though the movie, only to have to pay $4.99 the next day to finish it.
> 
> I'll take my business elsewhere.


That's not all. When you view it the second time it forces you to buy a tub of popcorn for $15 along with a $12 coke.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Was thinking about this somewhat last night ... and thought maybe MRV was related ...

For me, not much impact since I record the PPV HD, and then never purchase it until the day I'm going to watch it. Then usually just watch it once. 48 or 72 hours would probably be better in case the viewing gets interrupted.

I do mostly keep the recordings, but there was always the thought that MRV was going to allow the keeping to be forever. I always thought that I'd have one huge HR2x to move all recordings to that we want to keep forever.

Had no idea if MRV was going to allow it, but if HR2x MRV worked like other implementations, then figured that any recording, including PPV HD, could have been kept forever, like owning it, all just a click away to view at any time.

I wonder if MRV had an impact on why the change ...


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> I think we've done 3 PPVs in the entire 12 years we've been with DirecTV. Just has never been worth it when I can watch it for "free" just a couple months later on HBO or Starz and now with all the movie channels in HD it makes PPV even less worth it. I never did understand the appeal of PPV but that's just me.


PPV for movies makes no sense IMHO. However For sports..... And other types of events. I think I've averaged less than one PPV a year for a long time however that's another subject.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> PPV for movies makes no sense IMHO. However For sports..... And other types of events. I think I've averaged less than one PPV a year for a long time however that's another subject.


I agree. I never order PPV's. I will just wait for it on Starz or through Netflix. Netflix in my area is super quick. During the summer we can get about 20 movies a month if we wanted. Thats way cheaper then ordering PPV's.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Just how long do most of us keep a PPV on our hard drive? I delete them soon as I have watched the program, need the space more than a movie I am done with. I do think 24hr is to short 48 or 72 would be better.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Sixto said:


> Was thinking about this somewhat last night ... and thought maybe MRV was related ...
> 
> For me, not much impact since I record the PPV HD, and then never purchase it until the day I'm going to watch it. Then usually just watch it once. 48 or 72 hours would probably be better in case the viewing gets interrupted.
> 
> ...


Can't see any angle on how MRV played an impact, since this is the Movie/Content Providers that are requiring this.

You have for the last few years been able to purchase online, and watch/record on all your DVR's receivers.

It is just the studios catching up with the technology, and trying to squeeze more revenue out of it. They have their "experts" telling them, they think it will generate more revenue...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I agree with those who say those "experts" are wrong. Very few business models ever flourish by providing the customer less service, especially without lowering prices. 

I don't think it's completely fair to point the finger at DIRECTV. They seem to be just the messenger here. I can't believe they'd shoot themselves in the foot like this without several prominent studios putting the screws to them.

And the odd thing is these studios all have music divisions that are losing tons of money right now because of misunderstanding the way that people want to listen to music.


----------



## GBFAN (Nov 13, 2006)

This will not work for me. My job requires me to be on call. I can get paged at any time. I already have enough trouble convincing my wife that we shouldn't watch a PPV because I might get called.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't think it's completely fair to point the finger at DIRECTV.


Agreed. I was within a few days of pulling the trigger on Apple TV until I found out about the same 24 hour constraint and knew that, for my family, it wouldn't work.

IMO, there can be a balance in protecting content - so the providers get their share- without draconian measures that turns-off paying customers.


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

I'll reserve judgment until we know whether this 24 hour clock starts ticking from the moment you record a PPV, or from the moment you buy it and start watching it.

If it's the former, then I will rarely be using PPV anymore. If it's the later, then I can make adjustments to be able to watch the PPV within 24 hours of buying it.


----------



## judson_west (Jun 15, 2006)

PPV now and standard programming later. The mechanism is now in place to allow content providers to apply these expiration rules to standard programming. 

Vote with your wallet. If you don't like what's happening, don't bother to complain -- just take your money elsewhere.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

judson_west said:


> PPV now and standard programming later. The mechanism is now in place to allow content providers to apply these expiration rules to standard programming.
> 
> Vote with your wallet. If you don't like what's happening, don't bother to complain -- just take your money elsewhere.


Hard to walk away when you accept a 2-year commitment when you initiate DirecTV service. So, you are committed for 2-years - while they can change the rules during that time. I know, this is not DirecTVs fault on the PPV thing, but its hard for me to believe that they -- given their large customer base -- would not have some significant leverage with the studios to make this "window" larger than 24-hours.

I can definitely understand the need to enforce some sort of window (after all, this IS a rental of a move - not a purchase) but 24-hours is much too restrictive.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

****** IF ******** it moves to standard programming..

You might as well throw out DVRs.... and thus what 20 million DVR users out there accross all the providers (if not more)...

That is something on a completely different scale and with many other factors that play into it.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

and honestly, if that were to happen you would probably see an explosion in homebuilt HD-DVRs, and attempts to hack or crack the HDMI standard. It would probably result in the sort of technological arms race that has made the record industry so rich.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

judson_west said:


> PPV now and standard programming later. The mechanism is now in place to allow content providers to apply these expiration rules to standard programming.
> 
> Vote with your wallet. If you don't like what's happening, don't bother to complain -- just take your money elsewhere.


And most all will vote with their wallet and take their money elsewhere - just like the music industry. The music industry did not have the benefit of watching an industry completely fail using this type of logic or thinking. But then again, logic has nothing to do with greed, does it?


----------



## markman07 (Dec 22, 2005)

I am guessing this is really going to impact those Adult movie PPV customers.


----------



## judson_west (Jun 15, 2006)

I'm not saying that the 24-hour rule would apply to standard programming. Rather that some rule MIGHT be in place. Say 15-30 days after you first view it. 

With disk drives getting larger and cheaper and easier to install in your DVR, many people will have complete seasons of shows on their boxes. Given what's happening with PPV, this will not be tolerated for long.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

On the other hand, those DVR'd programs have advertising in them, some of it in the program (so you can't skip it) and might be a good long term revenue source if the model can be built to support it.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

markman07 said:


> I am guessing this is really going to impact those Adult movie PPV customers.


Not for me.
I only make it through about 8 minutes of one those anyway.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

jjohns said:


> Yeah, ya gotta love those root kits.
> They worked out so well for Sony.


That is not a rootkit that Earl described. That is DRM. It is a completely different topic altogether.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Another short-sighted policy dreamt up by copyright holders.


It sure is. I can't for the life of me see how this is going to help them to increase revenues. For some PPV customers who mostly watch PPVs live, it will be a "don't care", but in this day if DVRs, I see a large group of people stopping purchasing PPVs if they can't keep them indefinitely to watch multiple times over an extended period of time. I really doubt that they will make up for those lost purchases with the repeat purchases which will now be required to view a PPV several times in the days or months after it was purchased.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

gregjones said:


> That is not a rootkit that Earl described. That is DRM. It is a completely different topic altogether.


Yeah, like they're both not encryption right?
Just different ways to accomplish the same thing.


----------



## photostudent (Nov 8, 2007)

If the story is correct, I assume the 24 hour limit is only being imposed on PPV outlets like D*, etc. Netflix, Blockbuster, and other rental outlets should have a 24 hr limit as well on HD content. Per the comments so far I would assume this will cut Sat/cable revenues significantly to the benefit of the rental outlets. I would say D* would have a good lawsuit against the studios?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

markman07 said:


> I am guessing this is really going to impact those Adult movie PPV customers.


Honestly... anyone spending that amount on Adult PPV's....
Needs to look at alternative options...


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

:lol: I wanted to say something to that post, but thought to myself, "self, you don't need another mod slap" 



Earl Bonovich said:


> Honestly... anyone spending that amount on Adult PPV's....
> Needs to look at alternative options...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

photostudent said:


> If the story is correct, I assume the 24 hour limit is only being imposed on PPV outlets like D*, etc. Netflix, Blockbuster, and other rental outlets should have a 24 hr limit as well on HD content. Per the comments so far I would assume this will cut Sat/cable revenues significantly to the benefit of the rental outlets. I would say D* would have a good lawsuit against the studios?


Netflix - Online versions should possible fall into the same arena.

But the physical rental media model, different set of rules.

This is only affecting the DVR population on these systems... which are still the minority of users... and I would hazard to guess are already in the lower percentage of PPV users in the first.

Who knows... maybe DirecTV did their calculation, identified how many DVR users... and adjusted that into the rate negotiation with the vendors... with maybe no different in revenue to them...

There are a lof different angles this could be going behind the end result.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

jjohns said:


> Not for me.
> I only make it through about 8 minutes of one those anyway.


Yeah but that means you would need to keep the PPV on your DVR for at least two weeks before you were done watching one of those 3 hour block purchases. :goofygrin


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

The notice that the CSR posted at TCF... it is not sure if it would cover those 3hr adult block versions of PPVs.

As they are not individual movies.


----------



## Old Tv Watcher (Dec 23, 2007)

CopyCat said:


> By the time a movie makes PPV it's in our local library as a DVD for free. Who needs PPV movies ?  and I get to keep it for a week and watch it as many times as I want.


But it's not in HD!!


----------



## bluemoose (Dec 7, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not if the copy protection is turned on on the DVR+ (it is not turned on right now, but you can see the results, if you reboot your system... the first few screens it is enabled)


I currently take the HR21's HDMI output and connect it to my PC's HDMI-in 
card. The recording(NASA on HDNet, for example) is recorded on hard drive
in 1080i. Next, I take a blank BD-R and burn the show on the disc in my BD
drive. The resulting BD-R plays fine in my PS3 and Panasonic Blu-ray plalyer.
(but I've never been able to make them play in Sony stand-alone Blu-ray
players for some strange reason) The finished BD-R plays in the orignial
1080i HD quality.

Right now, this is the *only* way that I'm able to save these shows in 1080i.
This is actually* a LOT more expensive *than buying the Blu-ray movie, 
considering the cost the HDMI-in card, BD-R media, and Blu-ray burner in 
my computer so I obviously only do this for those shows/movies/HD PPV 
that are *NOT* released on Blu-ray yet. (another example is a lot of the 
HD shows on Food Network HD)

*Question: if DTV turns on copy-protection, will I no longer be able to 
record from the HDMI output, using my current method? (and have to
go back to the dark ages when I archive HD shows in 480i SD DVD?) * 

I really don't get it... all the copying/archiving/burning that I do are strictly
for my own personal viewing... oh well.... 

Thanks!


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sounds like it is just affecting the concept of: Pay Once, View multiple times.
> It shoudl still allow you to record, and then pay at the time of viewing.
> 
> Basically the movie studios have caught up with DVR technology with this regards, and no longer want people to spend $5 vs the $15-$30 if they want it long term.
> ...


They actually did have copy protection on PPV for about 6 months around 2000 or so. I know this because I used to record all PPV on VHS and watch later (pre-TiVo). I had to use a video stabilizer in order to record these movies.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bluemoose said:


> *Question: if DTV turns on copy-protection, will I no longer be able to
> record from the HDMI output, using my current method? (and have to
> go back to the dark ages when I archive HD shows in 480i SD DVD?) *


Yes.

Basically right now, none of the copy-protection flags are enabled on the programming.

The system can do it, as there have been test channels for it... and you will see the copy-protection notes, on equipment that respects it... during bootup.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I think the whole PPV thing needs to be rethought!!!

By the time a movie that I want to watch in HD and DD 5.1 Surround Sound is on PPV I would have either bought the DVD or rented it from Netflix. The last time I purchased an HD DVD was The Bourne Ultimatum which believe it or not was delivered in DD 2.0 not 5.1.

I COMPLAINED and finally after talking to Customer Retention I received a refund. So if the quality isn't there in sound or video or I can't keep it for more than a day than they will definitely see a drop in PPV SALES and then they will RETHINK their marketing scheme.

They need to come up with a price for 1 day, 2 days, 1 week etc. if they are going to play this game!!!


----------



## afulkerson (Jan 14, 2007)

carl6 said:


> I honestly can't recall that I have EVER ordered a PPV from DirecTV. Don't see this change as impacting me in any way whatsoever.
> 
> Carl


I am with you on this. I don't think I have ordered PPV in the last 10 years. So this will not have any effect on my viewing unless they restrict keeping any programing to 24hrs. And If that happened I would throw out all of my DVR's because they would be no use to me.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

jjohns said:


> Yeah, like they're both not encryption right?
> Just different ways to accomplish the same thing.


A car and a boat are both ways to get somewhere. They're not the same thing.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

One of the reasons I used to justify my purchase of a DVR was for PPV. I had a NetFlix account - but found that I was hanging on to movies much too long and had little time to go select new ones - so I was wasting money. I had DirecTV and a non-DVR receiver - but never used PPV as I found it hard to be constrained to a set time to have to sit down and watch something (those with kids know what I mean). So, by getting a DVR I could purchase movies I wanted to see and watch them at my leisure. So, I got a DVR and dropped my Netflix account and recognized a savings.

Now, PPV will be, again, almost useless to me.

None of us would have an issue with the window being 72 or, even, 48 hours. Most of us would probably just shrug our shoulders and understand that as being a reasonable restriction similar to renting the movie at Blockbuster.


----------



## lovswr (Jan 13, 2004)

syphix said:


> Yes. Why not? The distribution of movies over satellite/broadband is MUCH cheaper for them than to manufacture, market, ship and sell DVD's/Blu-rays...especially without the "bonus" features and full 1080p/lossless audio, etc. etc. I'd say it's reduced to 1/4 the price. Say, that works out to about $5/movie!
> 
> --SNIP--...


Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. To the studios, when when you buy, there is shipping, local store front, etc. In their eyes, they want to reduce the distrobution to as close to $0.00 dollars as possible, but charge us the same price as if we went to the store. They want to cut all the middlemen, but keep us consumers paying that amount anyway. Pure profit. Then, later on, they will (try) to raise the end price as well. This is the "American Way".

The real problem is there is no competition to movie/TV content within the confines of its own space. We either pay what the studios want, or we don't watch. Technology is making that somewhat enforcabe now.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

richierich said:


> I COMPLAINED and finally after talking to Customer Retention I received a refund. So if the quality isn't there in sound or video or I can't keep it for more than a day than they will definitely see a drop in PPV SALES and then they will RETHINK their marketing scheme.
> 
> They need to come up with a price for 1 day, 2 days, 1 week etc. if they are going to play this game!!!


If the information that I have seen is correct...

There is no re-thinking it...
It is the contracts set by the distributors/content providers....

They are the one dictating the terms, and the bulk of the price for the PPV cost.

I don't see where you are going to have multiple "rental" rates, to allow you to keep it longer.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I would think that they could tell the Content Providers down the road when Directv & the Providers see that most people don't like the 24 hour limit that if you have a staged or progressive limit with a progressive price that will make everyone happy.

Things change all the time, it's called the Dynamics of the Marketplace.


----------



## Skooz (Jul 20, 2007)

rsteinfe said:


> This thread got me to take a look at the Netflix site, and I discovered that:
> 
> 1) For $4.99, I can get 2 movies per month.
> 
> ...


Your post convinced me. My DVD player also upconverts nicely to 1080i.

I have never given Netflix much thought, until now. But, I have just signed up for the $4.99 plan.

Good bye forever, D* PPV.


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

PPV movies have always been higher than renting a DVD (or in the old days a VHS tape). When I can rent a current release at the local video store for $2.59, why would I want to pay PPV $4.99 (or even $3.99)? I've had access to satellite television since before C-band got scrambled in 1986. I can count on one hand the times I've rented a PPV movie - C-band only - I've never used PPV with DBS.

I've always thought PPV via satellite should be cheaper, much cheaper than renting the same thing at the video store.  (Convenience of staying at home and not leaving the house is highly over rated.).

Killing PPV recordings by time means I'm just even that more unlikely to ever rent PPV via DBS.

(To digress for a moment - back on C-band when Videocipher II scrambling became popular, I was showing my wife this "neat" technology that let you "rent" a move with your remote control. The movie played 20 minutes and then went to a black screen. The call center was deluged with calls and I got a credit for the movie and never rented PPV via Videocipher II again).

That's my $.02 worth.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

l8er said:


> PPV movies have always been higher than renting a DVD (or in the old days a VHS tape). When I can rent a current release at the local video store for $2.59, why would I want to pay PPV $4.99 (or even $3.99)? I've had access to satellite television since before C-band got scrambled in 1986. I can count on one hand the times I've rented a PPV movie - C-band only - I've never used PPV with DBS.
> 
> I've always thought PPV via satellite should be cheaper, much cheaper than renting the same thing at the video store. (Convenience of staying at home and not leaving the house is highly over rated.).
> 
> ...


Around here it costs 3.99 for a rental at Blockbuster and it's not in HD. So it's actually the same exact price for me for SD PPV and a DVD rental. For the extra buck I get it in HD.


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

I have read alot of post claiming that DVDs are a poor substitute to HD PPV because they are not HD. Well I would have to say that with the video scalers becoming better in quality, dropping in price, and are now built in on many products, watching a SD DVD is not really that different than the quality received by Dtv HD PPV. The best thing is you can take as much time as you like watching it also.IMO


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Scott B. said:


> ...watching a SD DVD is not really that different than the quality received by Dtv HD PPV... IMO


I haven't seen upconverting DVD players. Is it really that much different?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> I haven't seen upconverting DVD players. Is it really that much different?


Good ones... yes, there is a noticable difference.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

BUt a good one will run you as much as a Blu Ray player so why bother unless you want to keep watching your older DVDs in better quality... right?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> BUt a good one will run you as much as a Blu Ray player so why bother unless you want to keep watching your older DVDs in better quality... right?


Not necessarily....

Good... in the sense, of one of the newer models... and that are not found at Walgreens in the $25 pile.

I have one from a few years ago, that did a good job for around $200.


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

Sorry - ultra long thread so dunno if this has been posted/asked yet? 

I'm assuming based on the press release that this is confirmed: "24 hours after purchase"?

The Apple Store rental model is 24 hours after the content "is first accessed". 

Would this be a better compromise in this case?


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

I have not checked but I would imagine that you can find a HD DVD player for a pretty good price now, and many of them up-convert very well.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Scott B. said:


> I have not checked but I would imagine that you can find a HD DVD player for a pretty good price now, and many of them up-convert very well.


Seems a waste... why not spend the extra hundred bucks on something not so... obsolete


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Canis Lupus said:


> Sorry - ultra long thread so dunno if this has been posted/asked yet?
> 
> I'm assuming based on the press release that this is confirmed: "24 hours after purchase"?
> 
> ...


To most in here it seems not... I personally don't care if they only let you rent it for 2 hours since I've only ever watched movies from start to finish


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Seems a waste... why not spend the extra hundred bucks on something not so... obsolete


You can buy these players for a lot less than Blueray and they play SD dvd with up conversion rivaling any thing at the price you say to spend on something not so obsolete.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Sounds like a matter of personal preference. I bet we'll see Blu players below $200 by the end of this year as the hot Christmas gift. I'd personally rather wait and spend that extra money on something that will play something that's truly in HD AND give me the upconverting for older DVDs. Let me put it to you this way - I don't want to buy a BMW with a Yugo engine.


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

Your previous post may have been a bit confusing, as you said "HD DVD" that upconverts, but nonetheless, I agree with this.

Upconverting SD players, IMO, are standing in the way of any mass migration to HD Discs and players. In fact, this may have mildly contributed to the death of HD-DVD.



Scott B. said:


> You can buy these players for a lot less than Blueray and they play SD dvd with up conversion rivaling any thing at the price you say to spend on something not so obsolete.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

I don'tknow...I've pretty much read this whole thread since it started and there are very valid points on both sides o fhte fence. 

But after telling my wife what the deal is neither of us have to much of a problem w/ it. The only slight inconveniance would be w/ the "kids" movies. They do like to watch them over and over. But as I pointed out to her....won't matter when the hard drive goes bad.


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

Canis Lupus said:


> Your previous post may have been a bit confusing, as you said "HD DVD" that upconverts, but nonetheless, I agree with this.
> 
> Upconverting SD players, IMO, are standing in the way of any mass migration to HD Discs and players. In fact, this may have mildly contributed to the death of HD-DVD.


The now semi useless HD DVD players up converted SD DVDs and did it very well. I was just saying a good bang for the buck.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

cover said:


> I put Netflix on hold and tried Blockbuster for a month. I went back to Netflix.
> 
> With Blockbuster, it was nice to be able to go to the store to swap movies at the last minuted. But, I didn't like being FORCED to go to the store because of Blockbuster's slow and spotty service through the mail.
> 
> ...


I had the opposite experience. I was a blockbuster online member for several years (was an original beta member) and canceled it in December to switch to Netfilx (after BB took away unlimited exchanges for my plan and announced a price increase). I'm going back to BB at the end of this month. Now, it probably helps that there's a distribution center here in Dallas, cause if I put my movie in the mailbox on Saturday, I'd have a new release in my box on Tuesday. Plus I miss getting the 2 bonus exchanges every week.



tcusta00 said:


> BUt a good one will run you as much as a Blu Ray player so why bother unless you want to keep watching your older DVDs in better quality... right?


As others mentioned, an HD-DVD player will do a great job and they can be had for as little as $75 now if you look around. My A2 did just as good of a job upconverting as my Pio Elite DVD player that I paid $1200 for 3 years ago.



tcusta00 said:


> Sounds like a matter of personal preference. I bet we'll see Blu players below $200 by the end of this year as the hot Christmas gift. I'd personally rather wait and spend that extra money on something that will play something that's truly in HD AND give me the upconverting for older DVDs. Let me put it to you this way - I don't want to buy a BMW with a Yugo engine.


That's definately an option, but keep in mind that:

1. Most Blu Ray players haven't done as good of a job at upconverting as HD-DVD players did/d0.
2. Any Blu-Ray player that's under $200 by xmas will be a 1.0 model without an ethernet connection, so you'll still be buying something that's obsolete.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> 2. Any Blu-Ray player that's under $200 by xmas will be a 1.0 model without an ethernet connection, so you'll still be buying something that's obsolete.


I'll take that bet.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> I'll take that bet.


2.0 Blu-Ray players with BDLive and Bonus View aren't even out yet. When they start arriving on shelves in the next few months, they'll be priced at $400 and up. those players won't be under $200 by Christmas.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> 2.0 Blu-Ray players with BDLive and Bonus View aren't even out yet. When they start arriving on shelves in the next few months, they'll be priced at $400 and up. those players won't be under $200 by Christmas.


I said I'd take the bet that any BR player will be 1.0 if under $200. What happened to 1.1?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> I said I'd take the bet that any BR player will be 1.0 if under $200. What happened to 1.1?


As I was typing my reply, I thought about going back and changing that 1.0 to 1.1, but knew you'd bust me.

Sometimes I just type too fast. 

PS. Are there 1.1 players with ethernet? (could I win on a technicality?)


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> As I was typing my reply, I thought about going back and changing that 1.0 to 1.1, but knew you'd bust me.
> 
> Sometimes I just type too fast.
> 
> PS. Are there 1.1 players with ethernet? (could I win on a technicality?)


 I think it would have been a draw then on semantics. Nope, no ethernet in 1.1 AFAIK.


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Otay... so at least you know.
> 
> I know it is a change to the way things have been... but do you really think the Movie studios were going to continue to allow basically "ownership" of movies for $4-$5?


Why not? Record companies and copyright organizations allow owners of certain XM Satellite radios to store the songs in the receivers' memory *as long as you continue your subscription to XM and are not allowed to transfer the songs to another device.*

Sounds just like the DirecTV DVR scenario except you still have to BUY and OWN your XM receiver (no leases).


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> i smell a PPV boycott :lol:


I'm with you!! From now on I will no longer purchase that one PPV movie each year!!


----------



## photostudent (Nov 8, 2007)

l8er said:


> PPV movies have always been higher than renting a DVD (or in the old days a VHS tape). When I can rent a current release at the local video store for $2.59, why would I want to pay PPV $4.99 (or even $3.99)? I've had access to satellite television since before C-band got scrambled in 1986. I can count on one hand the times I've rented a PPV movie - C-band only - I've never used PPV with DBS.
> 
> I've always thought PPV via satellite should be cheaper, much cheaper than renting the same thing at the video store. (Convenience of staying at home and not leaving the house is highly over rated.).
> 
> ...


Best of my memory there was a time when movies came out at the same time at Blockbuster and on Directv. Directv charged 2.99 and BB charged 3.99. Then they reached some sort of "cooperative agreement" and Directv matched BB prices but delayed releases a month or so. Have not rented a PPV since so do not know if the release lag is still the case.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

photostudent said:


> Best of my memory there was a time when movies came out at the same time at Blockbuster and on Directv. Directv charged 2.99 and BB charged 3.99. Then they reached some sort of "cooperative agreement" and Directv matched BB prices but delayed releases a month or so. Have not rented a PPV since so do not know if the release lag is still the case.


yes i remember the 2.99 days, i quit the video store rental back then, use to record everything to VHS, that was before DVD, now i can't stand to watch those anymore. haven't really watched a PPV since then.

As another post said it is pay PER view. but i can really see a case for 48 hours over 24.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

ThomasM said:


> I'm with you!! From now on I will no longer purchase that one PPV movie each year!!


same here! we'll show them!! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2008)

mpoyner said:


> Maybe you and Earl should try a different rental store, if you're getting charged for not returning the movie the next day?
> 
> I don't know of a single national chain that is widely used today that charges $4-5 for one day's rental and then charge you a late fee if it's not returned the very next day. That is not to say that you personally do not have one near you that does, but perhaps you should pick any one other than the one you're currently using?


Yes, that pricing model went out the window when Netflix came along.


----------



## TheDurk (Mar 8, 2007)

Before I went HD, I never used PPV because D* almost never provided 5.1 sound in SD. To me, 5.1 is more important than HD resolution and I had a killer 5.1 Denon/Paradigm system years before I had an HDTV. Lately I have bought PPV's in HD but that will now cease. The ladyfriend falls asleep halfway through more than half the time. Upconverting Blockie SD's will do fine until a good 2.0 Blu-Ray is available at a good price. 24-hour PPV's are NOT an option. 48-maybe. So I go back to no PPV's. D* has to be partially at fault, because they must have made an offer to reduce content provider compensation across the board (not just DVR downloads) in exchange for the 24-hour lifespan. Or the providers gave some quid to get that quo. But the result is both D* and the providers will lose while Blockie, Netflix and Blu-Ray player producers gain. Is Sony at work here??


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> ****** IF ******** it moves to standard programming..
> 
> You might as well throw out DVRs.... and thus what 20 million DVR users out there accross all the providers (if not more)...
> 
> That is something on a completely different scale and with many other factors that play into it.


Correct, they would risk a huge backlash if 20 million DVR users suddenly found that their DVRs no longer worked as advertised. It could even lead to new federal regulations, which is exactly what is needed to rein in these greedy media moguls.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> 2.0 Blu-Ray players with BDLive and Bonus View aren't even out yet. When they start arriving on shelves in the next few months, they'll be priced at $400 and up. those players won't be under $200 by Christmas.


Probably not, but there's a good chance you'll see a $299 PS3 by then, and that will be upgradeable to 2.0.


----------



## Force3dFX (Sep 23, 2007)

this is lame, it should be 24 to 36 hours if there is a limit so at least you could start it one night and finish the same time the next or over an entire weekend. NETFLIX just increased in value again...


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

ThomasM said:


> I'm with you!! From now on I will no longer purchase that one PPV movie each year!!


One PPV movie a year? You have me beat, I've never ordered one. 

Back to the topic, I'm like many of you on this one. I figured that it was coming sooner or later, and I'm sad that it is finally here.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

bigben7 said:


> What's next.... Movies I record from Starz or HBO will be deleted from my DVR? I don't see how recording PPV movie is any different from recording from any other channel.


I hope not.



bigben7 said:


> I understand what you're saying but you say HBO is getting their money regardless if you watch it 2 or 20 times. How is that different than PPV? They're getting their $5 regardless of how many or when I watch the movie.
> 
> How are they losing money based on how many times I watch? In fact I think PPV will make less money now because of this policy. I certainly won't buy any more.


So instead of ordering PPV's we'll just record and watch movies off of the movie channels then, in HD. No big deal. 

I don't think I'll stop ordering PPV's just because of this, but I will think twice now before ordering one to make sure I have the time to watch it. I think it should be longer then 24 hours though.

Earl, in the first page of this thread you said that the 24 hour time period starts when you watch and pay for it, not when you record it. Is this still correct?

Thanks


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Probably not, but there's a good chance you'll see a $299 PS3 by then, and that will be upgradeable to 2.0.


Maybe, but it's still wouldn't be under $200. And there'll probably be better stand alones at the $300 price point.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

gregjones said:


> A car and a boat are both ways to get somewhere. They're not the same thing.


No wonder I keep tearing up all these motors on the pavement. 
Thanks for the heads up.
(Or maybe engines is the correct word. I'm sure I'll be corrected if not.)


----------



## bc3tech (Jan 3, 2007)

kentuck1163 said:


> Well, all I have to go on is myself. I had an H20 for two years. Number of PPV movies I rented: 0. Since I've had my DVR (2 months), number of PPV movies I've purchased: 2. Neither of those two movies were watched in one sitting or within a 24-hour period of purchase.
> 
> Maybe, I'm an anomaly. But I think I'm more the rule than the exception.


gotta say i'm much the same. i often set up a PPV to record one day, then wife and i sit down at our leisure on the weekend and watch it. then we save it if we liked it, delete it if we didn't.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

bc3tech said:


> gotta say i'm much the same. i often set up a PPV to record one day, then wife and i sit down at our leisure on the weekend and watch it. then we save it if we liked it, delete it if we didn't.


Informed the family last night of the new D* 24-hour rule regarding PPV movies. Not a bunch of happy campers. All agreed we would purchase a blu-ray dvd player and rent them.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Can't wait to buy my new Panasonic DMP-BD50 BluRay DVD Player to add to my Toshiba A30-HDKU HD DVD Player and I should be GOOD TO GO with my Netflix account so who needs HD PPV anyway.

Until we get massive amounts of hard drive space and the Content Providers get smart and let us download their material for as long as we like, I think DVDs will be around!!!


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes.
> 
> Basically right now, none of the copy-protection flags are enabled on the programming.
> 
> The system can do it, as there have been test channels for it... and you will see the copy-protection notes, on equipment that respects it... during bootup.


Be very sure that if they are going to the 24 hour model the copy protection flags are not far behind. One of the reasons I say that is if they are going to 24 hour rental they won't leave that loophole open.


----------



## LlamaLarry (Apr 21, 2007)

Wait, will this hit all PPV? I have "a friend" that has been known to PPV some of the programming available in multi hour blocks... If he has to watch it in 24 hours or else lose it there may be chafing involved.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

LlamaLarry said:


> Wait, will this hit all PPV? I have "a friend" that has been known to PPV some of the programming available in multi hour blocks... If he has to watch it in 24 hours or else lose it there may be chafing involved.


Not known at this point.



Earl Bonovich said:


> The notice that the CSR posted at TCF... it is not sure if it would cover those 3hr adult block versions of PPVs.
> 
> As they are not individual movies.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> Be very sure that if they are going to the 24 hour model the copy protection flags are not far behind. One of the reasons I say that is if they are going to 24 hour rental they won't leave that loophole open.


Almost a guarantee that they will probably be enabled the copy protection on the PPV movies


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Almost a guarantee that they will probably be enabled the copy protection on the PPV movies


What a waste of time and money.
All for a false sense of security.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Glad I don't do PPV's anymore what a crock this is.


----------



## Mac user (Feb 28, 2008)

Sorry to say, but the movie studios don't want to wind up like the music industry, who have lost a ton of revenue due to music sharing. Not too many people buy CD's anymore(I know they're overpriced), and a lot of people build their personal music libraries with music they haven't purchased, but have received from friends, sharing online, etc. 

The studios are protecting their content. If you can continue to burn movies that cost $5.00, when they're priced at Best Buy for $15.00 to $25.00, isn't that a loss to the studio? It makes business sense for the studios to limit the ability to duplicate movies cheaply, even though people don't like it. I would prefer to be able to burn DVD's at 1/3rd the cost, but that ability, most likely, will not continue. 

Some studios are merging, New Line with Warner Bros., and they're tightening their belts. I edit movie trailers and work with all the major studios, and they are concerned about losing control of their content, as the music industry did. It's all about the buck, unfortunately.


----------



## mkstretch (Aug 11, 2007)

Thank god for dvd recorders, I will just record it to my dvd recorders hard drive. This is rediculous it should be much longer than 24hrs.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Mac user said:


> Sorry to say, but the movie studios don't want to wind up like the music industry, who have lost a ton of revenue due to music sharing. Not too many people buy CD's anymore(I know they're overpriced), and a lot of people build their personal music libraries with music they haven't purchased, but have received from friends, sharing online, etc.
> 
> The studios are protecting their content. If you can continue to burn movies that cost $5.00, when they're priced at Best Buy for $15.00 to $25.00, isn't that a loss to the studio? It makes business sense for the studios to limit the ability to duplicate movies cheaply, even though people don't like it. I would prefer to be able to burn DVD's at 1/3rd the cost, but that ability, most likely, will not continue.
> 
> Some studios are merging, New Line with Warner Bros., and they're tightening their belts. I edit movie trailers and work with all the major studios, and they are concerned about losing control of their content, as the music industry did. It's all about the buck, unfortunately.


And when this all fails like the music industry failed, how long before we start getting notices of police warrants to search our hard drives for "unauthorized" content? That sure worked out well for the music folks - arresting their own customers.


----------



## Mac user (Feb 28, 2008)

jjohns said:


> And when this all fails like the music industry failed, how long before we start getting notices of police warrants to search our hard drives for "unauthorized" content? That sure worked out well for the music folks - arresting their own customers.


Maybe by laying down guidelines sooner, rather than later, the studios will deal with their issues in a more humane way. Maybe.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

mkstretch said:


> Thank god for dvd recorders, I will just record it to my dvd recorders hard drive. This is rediculous it should be much longer than 24hrs.


Most likely not...
HIGH probability that the copyprotection flags will be enabled on PPV content movies.


----------



## jjohns (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.


----------



## Mac user (Feb 28, 2008)

jjohns said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Mac user said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## dyker (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.


----------



## ned23 (Sep 18, 2007)

Mac user said:


> The studios are protecting their content. If you can continue to burn movies that cost $5.00, when they're priced at Best Buy for $15.00 to $25.00, isn't that a loss to the studio? It makes business sense for the studios to limit the ability to duplicate movies cheaply, even though people don't like it. I would prefer to be able to burn DVD's at 1/3rd the cost, but that ability, most likely, will not continue.


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


----------



## Mac user (Feb 28, 2008)

ned23 said:


> 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


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.


----------



## Vette1992 (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


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2008)

Mac user said:


> Sorry to say, but the movie studios don't want to wind up like the music industry, who have lost a ton of revenue due to music sharing. Not too many people buy CD's anymore(I know they're overpriced), and a lot of people build their personal music libraries with music they haven't purchased, but have received from friends, sharing online, etc.
> 
> The studios are protecting their content. If you can continue to burn movies that cost $5.00, when they're priced at Best Buy for $15.00 to $25.00, isn't that a loss to the studio? It makes business sense for the studios to limit the ability to duplicate movies cheaply, even though people don't like it. I would prefer to be able to burn DVD's at 1/3rd the cost, but that ability, most likely, will not continue.
> 
> Some studios are merging, New Line with Warner Bros., and they're tightening their belts. I edit movie trailers and work with all the major studios, and they are concerned about losing control of their content, as the music industry did. It's all about the buck, unfortunately.


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.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Mac user said:


> The studios are protecting their content. If you can continue to burn movies that cost $5.00, when they're priced at Best Buy for $15.00 to $25.00, isn't that a loss to the studio?


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??


----------



## Mac user (Feb 28, 2008)

rcoleman111 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2008)

dyker said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Mac user (Feb 28, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> 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??


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.


----------



## spec2 (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.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

spec2 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## JeffBowser (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.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 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.


----------



## JeffBowser (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.



Stuart Sweet said:


> 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.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> 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.


Maybe I'm a glass-half-full kind of person, but this is a specific issue. Turning on limits across the board for premium channels would definitely be a problem. This is an attempt to close a loophole. I don't believe the studios ever had the intention to allow the consumer to buy a movie permanently for a $5 price during the rental period.

I understand people not liking that change but I do not understand the sense of righteous indignation. Granted, they allowed it to happen before and should not be surprised that it did. It's like complaining that something is no longer on sale for 66% off. Be glad it was good while it lasted. There are other means of seeing the same content if you prefer the price and conditions.


----------



## spec2 (Oct 1, 2007)

raott said:


> 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.


That isn't how I read the announcement:

_Effective April 15, the guidelines for DVR Pay-Per-View movie recordings will change. Customers will still be able to enjoy the convenience and variety of PPV movie selection; however, they will only be available for viewing for 24 hours *after the time of purchase*._

DTV is saying "time of purchase," not "from the time the movie is first played." So that would give AppleTV better terms. Not great ones, but better than DTV PPV.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

JeffBowser said:


> 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.


Thanks for the lecture Dr. Phil. I work, my wife works. The window to watch a movie on a weeknight is about 4 hours max at night.

Its about the convenience of not having to worry about watching it in one sitting if something comes up.

I'm not distressed, D* simply won't get my money.


----------



## DrJohnC (Sep 8, 2007)

Is this just the beginning?
Is this the dawn of the age of "non-storable" media?
Watch once ... and pay. Watch again ... and pay. 
Just like a theatre: Pay to see Shrek 17. Go the next day and pay again.
HD-DVD is dead. Blu-Ray is expensive. (I own both). Initial releases on Blu-Ray averages $30.00. Not good for the average "joe".
What's the studio's next move? Limited viewing of content through other distribution channels (Internet, DirecTV, DISH, Cable, etc.). This may be the next thrust of home movie viewing which began with Betamax. Look at hardware such as Vudu, etc. Even if you "own" the content, it stays on the HDD (crashes, anyone?).
I, for one, can wait. I still have over 3,500 Laserdiscs with content which just isn't available anymore ("Song of the South", e.g.) which I can watch anytime, day or night. Not so with the "new distribution channels". We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

raott said:


> Thanks for the lecture Dr. Phil. I work, my wife works. The window to watch a movie on a weeknight is about 4 hours max at night.
> 
> Its about the convenience of not having to worry about watching it in one sitting if something comes up.
> 
> I'm not distressed, D* simply won't get my money.


I also don't get the "own for $5" reasoning. The dvr is already restricted at the outputs making the copies inferior. If the high def version is stuck inside the dvr - is that really "owning it"? It just means you can watch it a few times or until your hard drive gets full - and that sure doesn't take long with the HD.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

spec2 said:


> That isn't how I read the announcement:
> 
> _Effective April 15, the guidelines for DVR Pay-Per-View movie recordings will change. Customers will still be able to enjoy the convenience and variety of PPV movie selection; however, they will only be available for viewing for 24 hours *after the time of purchase*._
> 
> DTV is saying "time of purchase," not "from the time the movie is first played." So that would give AppleTV better terms. Not great ones, but better than DTV PPV.


With a DVR, it is not purchased until you click to purchase it, which may be some time after recording it. For most people, it is not purchased until it is watched.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

raott: I seem to have offended you - my comments were in general, not a personal attack on you, your personal attack on me is uncalled for.

Gregjones: the problem with music is, if I lose my digital copy I have to buy another. At least with a CD, if I lose my digital copy, I can rip it again. For this reason, I will still buy a CD, unless the song is just a one-off from an artist I don't normally like.



raott said:


> Thanks for the lecture Dr. Phil. I work, my wife works. The window to watch a movie on a weeknight is about 4 hours max at night.
> 
> Its about the convenience of not having to worry about watching it in one sitting if something comes up.
> 
> I'm not distressed, D* simply won't get my money.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

gregjones said:


> 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.


Aye, Amazon MP3 Download service is what I use it is wonderful. MP3's with no DRM for $1 per song. It beats the pants off Itunes!


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Araxen said:


> Aye, Amazon MP3 Download service is what I use it is wonderful. MP3's with no DRM for $1 per song. It beats the pants off Itunes!


it's too bad iTunes will most likely continue to get away with the inflated DRM-free prices too since they have such a lock on the mp3 hardware market and people automatically go there not knowing they have a choice.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

This is a plain and simple wrong-headed decision.
But the only way these fine upstanding corporations will acknowledge that is when they see it is costing them $$. By the time it hits their bottom line though, they have already ticked off their customers and drove a lot of them away. (See music industry)

Unfortunately for these media companies, most consumers are not stupid. They know what the industry is trying to do and they don't like it. If the content providers continue down this same path, they will ultimately meet the same fate as the music folks.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I believe that as REVENUES fall because people fail to buy PPV they will see the error of their ways and change the way that they price & distribute content.

The Music Business is in trouble. Country Music isn't what it was several years ago. Companies have to constantly watch what is going on in the marketplace and adapt or go out of business.

AOL suffered that way. Alot of other companies have done so too.

Give the consumers what they want if you want to stay in business.

Have a tiered pricing system based on the number of days you want to keep the download such as Netflix does with the number of DVDs you can keep.

Blockbuster lost my business to Netflix and apparently alot of BB customers did like I did. I was charged for a Late DVD many times when I had returned it on time but that didn't have time to check it in right then and WAM I got charged.

So I said BYE BYE and went to Netflix and I have been happy ever since. I keep the DVD as long as it takes for me to watch and then send it back and get another one in the mail. Very simple & easy to do!!!


----------



## fikuserectus (Aug 19, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Another short-sighted policy dreamt up by copyright holders.
> The net effect will be LESS purchase rather than more revenue. People will only purchase now if they have time to watch the whole movie and will be less likely to purchase if they have to repurchase it to either watch it all or watch a second time.


I will be less likely to purchase any PPV for this exact reason. The movie studio's wonder why people download movies illegally!!


----------



## josejrp (May 5, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> it's too bad iTunes will most likely continue to get away with the inflated DRM-free prices too since they have such a lock on the mp3 hardware market and people automatically go there not knowing they have a choice.


Not to get too off-topic, but iTunes reduced their iTunes Plus pricing to 99 cents and is also DRM free. Per song, Amazon is probably cheaper, but I've found the album prices vary. iTunes also has things like videos and liner notes that are sometimes included with the album purchases that Amazon does not have.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

josejrp said:


> Not to get too off-topic, but iTunes reduced their iTunes Plus pricing to 99 cents and is also DRM free. Per song, Amazon is probably cheaper, but I've found the album prices vary. iTunes also has things like videos and liner notes that are sometimes included with the album purchases that Amazon does not have.


shows how much i use it! :lol:


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

Looks like no more PPV for me, no big loss though I do have snail mail netlix


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

josejrp said:


> Not to get too off-topic, but iTunes reduced their iTunes Plus pricing to 99 cents and is also DRM free. Per song, Amazon is probably cheaper, but I've found the album prices vary. iTunes also has things like videos and liner notes that are sometimes included with the album purchases that Amazon does not have.


Last I checked, you could get 99 cent DRM music or some limited songs DRM-free at a higher price.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

My Netflix is Lightening FAST!!! No More PPV for me for sure!!!

Also, I just LOVE MY ITUNES!!!


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2008)

gregjones said:


> Maybe I'm a glass-half-full kind of person, but this is a specific issue. Turning on limits across the board for premium channels would definitely be a problem. This is an attempt to close a loophole. I don't believe the studios ever had the intention to allow the consumer to buy a movie permanently for a $5 price during the rental period.
> 
> I understand people not liking that change but I do not understand the sense of righteous indignation. Granted, they allowed it to happen before and should not be surprised that it did. It's like complaining that something is no longer on sale for 66% off. Be glad it was good while it lasted. There are other means of seeing the same content if you prefer the price and conditions.


Using your TV and DVR the way they were intended to be used isn't what most people consider a "loophole". That's the Hollywood point of view that goes back to the days when they tried to sue the VCR out of existence.


----------



## EARTH2JUPITER (Sep 23, 2007)

Hi! All,

Just wanted to add my 2 cents, No more movie channels for me, with reruns of reruns, and just maybe the channel you are paying for is not showing that "new movie" you want to see, it's playing onanother movie channel.

I upgraded to Netflix $13.99 month, 2 dvd's out at a time, new releases or old TV shows without commericals. I mail the one I've viewed and in 2 days have another. Much cheaper than paying for 4 movie channels or using $3.99 PPV for 24 hours.


----------



## Skooz (Jul 20, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> Using your TV and DVR the way they were intended to be used isn't what most people consider a "loophole". That's the Hollywood point of view that goes back to the days when they tried to sue the VCR out of existence.


Word.

+1


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2008)

EARTH2JUPITER said:


> Just wanted to add my 2 cents, No more movie channels for me, with reruns of reruns, and just maybe the channel you are paying for is not showing that "new movie" you want to see, it's playing onanother movie channel.
> 
> I upgraded to Netflix $13.99 month, 2 dvd's out at a time, new releases or old TV shows without commericals. I mail the one I've viewed and in 2 days have another. Much cheaper than paying for 4 movie channels or using $3.99 PPV for 24 hours.


That's what a lot of people will be doing if these 24-hour time limits on PPVs are implemented. It's also a reason you aren't likely to see any of these limits extended to premium channels. People like me who pay for premium channels are paying a lot more money than they would pay for services like Netflix (I actually have a one-at-a-time Netflix subscription, but I could always expand it and drop the premiums). And channels like HBO have a high enough churn rate as it is. Start putting expiration dates or other restrictions on the content from those channels and I would drop them in a heartbeat. Instead of spending $35-40 per month on premiums, I could spend less than $20 per month and always have 3 movies sitting in front of my TV ready to watch. I would also have the satisfaction of knowing that Hollywood is making a fraction of the money they would get from other means of distribution.


----------



## VicF (Sep 5, 2006)

Looks like I will be keeping my Blockbuster by mail subscription. 24 hours is RIDICULOUS; a week or two I could see.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Burn it to DVD while watching it. That will help.


----------



## VegasVampire (Mar 17, 2008)

rcoleman111 said:


> Using your TV and DVR the way they were intended to be used isn't what most people consider a "loophole". That's the Hollywood point of view that goes back to the days when they tried to sue the VCR out of existence.


Anybody who watches, or bothers to watch, the Oscars, should guess how out of touch the film industry is. 

JG


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

purtman said:


> Burn it to DVD while watching it. That will help.


Someone hasn't been reading the thread.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

12 pages worth ... I didn't get to go all the way back ...


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

You can't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

purtman said:


> 12 pages worth ... I didn't get to go all the way back ...


neither did I but if they are going to limit you to 24 hours, don't you think they would include copy protection?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

dodge boy said:


> neither did I but if they are going to limit you to 24 hours, don't you think they would include copy protection?


Ding, ding.  We have a winner.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

If you want it longer than 24 hours you could always use the on demand - it takes longer than 24 hr to download.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2008)

VegasVampire said:


> Anybody who watches, or bothers to watch, the Oscars, should guess how out of touch the film industry is.
> JG


Jack Valenti once described the VCR as being "to the motion picture industry as the Boston Strangler is to a woman at home alone". Unfortunately that's typical of the mentality in the industry even today. They make billions of dollars from home video, but all they can focus on is that a few people might rip them off. They hate rentals, but they make promising technologies like VOD and downloads as unappealing as possible by loading them down with DRM. They can't keep their films from showing up on the Internet before they even hit theatres, but they think they can stop the pirates by putting 24-hour time limits on PPV. Pathetic.


----------



## loungeofmusic (Nov 26, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I very much disagree that this is a "knee-jerk" reaction...
> Given that the work to make sure the software is capable of it, has been going on for some time.
> 
> And when has anything related to DRM and restrictions on what you can do with the content, been good for customers.
> ...


The studio's want more money...
I can tell you that the studios are extremely short sighted and have made bad deals with above the line talent. (Not to mention too many bad films!). The execs don't use DVR's because they're always reading a screenplay and if they're not doing that they're eating breakfast, lunch and dinner with a client or they're at screenings. So they would never understand why this is such an imposition.

The staff want's more money...
They're not hurting. Their deals are sweet and so is the expense account and the bonuses. Besides which they have no time to spend it and their lives are essentially paid for anyway.

The actors want more money...
It used to be that when you attached talent to a project, you could guarantee profits. Not anymore. Now it's seen as more more 'risk aversion'; a way to try and limit box office loses. FYI - It was a studio head who gave the first '1st dollar gross' deal to a piece of talent. The studios caused it, let them deal with it.

The carriers want more money...
Exhibitors make their money on concessions. The movie gets them to the concession stand (unless you go to an arclight)

It is costing more to make, edit, distribute, ect...
Actually it's getting cheaper. Hence the production values are getting better. Proportionately it is much cheaper to put a film through post production today than it ever was.

Studios are expected to loose $5 billion in profits over the next few years (Remember we're talking profits - not outright losses here). So as new distribution platforms become apparent they want to stake a claim. Based on a guess (not a hunch!). The studios are all trailing behind wandering where the next revenue stream will come from. But they are not pioneers. In fact they spend more time reacting to markets than creating them.

It's certainly not D*'s fault if this information is correct and the Studios are behind this. But you would have thought at least 20th Century Fox wouldn't leverage D*? :lol:

If everyone boycotted PPV, the studios revenues would be down AGAIN and they would re-negotiate with D*.

So how about it, Earl? Let's support D* and organize a PPV strike - I mean boycott, until the Studios change the terms.  That's right folks. We'll do a WGA on them, but we'll have a legitimate argument 

And finally. I don't know what they are quibbling about. Eventually we'll all have to reformat our drives and lose everything anyway, right :lol:

I use PPV often. But this policy will, on principle, force me to no longer use PPV.

The Studios made their bed, let them lay in it. Besides they always tell creatives to 'get creative' when things get tight, so maybe they should. Cut down on the third assistant, make fewer 1st dollar gross deals. etc

Force them to get creative and innovative. Besides more people would go to the box office if the films were better!

Of course that's just my humble O.


----------



## Brian Hanasky (Feb 22, 2008)

Noticed in the guide last night that all pay per view movies now have a little "24" icon in a light blue shaded box. Kind of funny to see the 24 hr thing when I have Good luck chuck that was recorded almost 2 weeks ago sitting on my HR20 that I haven't had time to watch yet. The wife already watched it though so it would be gone by now with the 24 hr thing.


----------



## chiplatham (Sep 13, 2007)

there is a lot of ignorance floating around when it comes to pirating being ok because of all the millions movie studios and record companies are making.

i can't speak for film, but i do work in the music business. illegal downloading has put hundreds of small labels and bands out of business. it's also caused thousands of employees at the big labels to lose their jobs.

there are so many "blue collar" bands out there on small labels that depend on selling enough of their debut record to be in the position to record a second record....and keep their career going. in the past, these bands were able to make enough money from playing shows and selling merch to survive. making records just kept them in the game, even though most of them never sold enough records to earn royalties.

these type bands were always on the fence of being dropped...but managed to sell enough to keep the ball rolling. since free downloading has come along, these bands on the fence have now become 1 record wonders.

my point is simple....for every big record company raking in "millions"...there are 50small companies that fold. i would think the film industry has expreienced similiar problems.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

chiplatham said:


> there is a lot of ignorance floating around when it comes to pirating being ok because of all the millions movie studios and record companies are making.
> 
> i can't speak for film, but i do work in the music business. illegal downloading has put hundreds of small labels and bands out of business. it's also caused thousands of employees at the big labels to lose their jobs.
> 
> ...


You're exactly right. 24 hours is too short for a lot of people but it doesn't give them the "right" to record those movies illegally, since the studios are "making millions anyway". The stuidos will eventually figure it out if it hurts their bottom line, but don't do something that's ethically and legally borderline to "teach them a lesson."


----------



## Mac user (Feb 28, 2008)

chiplatham said:


> there is a lot of ignorance floating around when it comes to pirating being ok because of all the millions movie studios and record companies are making.
> 
> i can't speak for film, but i do work in the music business. illegal downloading has put hundreds of small labels and bands out of business. it's also caused thousands of employees at the big labels to lose their jobs.
> 
> ...


I do work in the film industry, and I can speak to it. I agree with your thoughts above. I'm always concerned about how pirating may affect the industry I work in. I'm not concerned about people copying a movie for their own library, but movies that are pirated and sold on the streets. It's a problem that keeps happening, DVD's of movies wind up being sold illegally, even before some movies are released in theaters. It may be happening more in other countries, but it is certainly happening here too.

So many people are hung up on the 24 hr recording time, which I agree is too short, but they're using it to bash the studios. Relax people, you do like movies I assume, so why so much anger towards studios, execs and money it generates. It's a big money industry that supports a lot of people in the entertainment business, and other businesses who cater to it. Just look what happened to businesses who cater to the entertainment business during the writers strike. They depend on this business for their lively hood and the strike crushed many companies during this time.

Of course the studios are going to protect their content as they see fit. Not all studios are making hand over fist, some do struggle to stay afloat and need to be concerned with distribution of their material. With technology and networking, comes the ability to copy and share content with others, easily. The music industry was decimated by it, the movie studios will not follow suit.

Even in economic times as today, with recession fears, people still go to the movies. It's relatively inexpensive and provides 2 to 3 hours of entertainment. You have options too, either watch at the theaters, or in your own home. It's flexible.

With that flexibility comes the advantage of owning the material you watch for a small amount of what it cost to buy it at a store(DVD's). It's been a great way to create a movie library for about 1/3 to 1/5 the cost of purchasing the movie from a store. However, the advantage of owning that material cheaply, may be eliminated. This is where the anger comes in.

If you don't like it and threaten not to watch VOD or PPV movies, you'll still go to the movies and/or rent DVD's. The studio doesn't lose. They'll make that business up elsewhere. Maybe the provider, D*, will lose. Boycott all you want, the studios will do what's best for them. You can threaten to boycott all movies, on all platforms, but I doubt you'll give it up altogether.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Mac user said:


> Boycott all you want, the studios will do what's best for them. You can threaten to boycott all movies, on all platforms, but I doubt you'll give it up altogether.


It has been over 7 years since I was in a theater and probably pushing 3 years since I last watched a movie for a variety of reasons. So yes I can easily give up movies with no problem at all especially with a DVR


----------



## Mac user (Feb 28, 2008)

Steve Robertson said:


> It has been over 7 years since I was in a theater and probably pushing 3 years since I last watched a movie for a variety of reasons. So yes I can easily give up movies with no problem at all especially with a DVR


Well, you're an exception to the rule. I think most people commenting on this thread are concerned about their ability to watch and record movies. Others are concerned about pirating. Some both. It's good to know that you have given up movies, long ago, and the studios are still in business.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Mac user said:


> Well, you're an exception to the rule. I think most people commenting on this thread are concerned about their ability to watch and record movies. Others are concerned about pirating. Some both. It's good to know that you have given up movies, long ago, and the studios are still in business.


Yup they don't need me as far as I am concerned and this is just me the quality that comes out of Hollywood these days leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

These changes won't hit premium channels. By the time a premium channel has the movie it's already out on DVD, and 90% of the people who are going to buy it already have. 

These changes will hit tv series though. Don't be surprised to see major networks filing so that you can only watch their tv series for 24 hours after you hit view now. They lose tons of DVD sales because of dvr's and people keeping them forever.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> These changes will hit tv series though. Don't be surprised to see major networks filing so that you can only watch their tv series for 24 hours after you hit view now. They lose tons of DVD sales because of dvr's and people keeping them forever.


I disagree that it will "hit" TV Series.

I highly doubt they are losing mega bucks on DVD sales, because people have kept entire seasons on their DVR... (Not many people have DVR's with that kind of storage space).

They are losing mega bucks on DVD Series, because they charge too much for them... and are syndicating the heck out of some of these shows.


----------



## jgriffin7 (Feb 16, 2007)

Unfortunate for D*. They won't get another dime on PPV from me.


----------



## Ashtonian (Jan 31, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:



> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6064445#post6064445


Seen everything on Netflix or Blockbuster first! 
Plus for less money, you get the DVD extras!


----------



## speedy4022 (Jan 26, 2004)

I use blockbuster online but did purchase a few movies on PPV but after this goes into effect I will purchase no PPV programs. A bad move on directv's part.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

speedy4022 said:


> I use blockbuster online but did purchase a few movies on PPV but after this goes into effect I will purchase no PPV programs. A bad move on directv's part.


Not D*'s choice. 
http://www.directv.com/ppvexp:


> Effective April 15, 2008, DVR recordings of PPV movies will be available for 24 hours of unlimited viewing after purchase. Major movie studios have required that satellite and cable providers alike may no longer allow their customers to view these recordings for longer than 24 hours. During the 24 hour viewing period, you will continue to enjoy all of your DVR features such as pause and rewind.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

I guess I am glad I still have my VCR...


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I disagree that it will "hit" TV Series.
> 
> I highly doubt they are losing mega bucks on DVD sales, because people have kept entire seasons on their DVR... (Not many people have DVR's with that kind of storage space).
> 
> They are losing mega bucks on DVD Series, because they charge too much for them... and are syndicating the heck out of some of these shows.


There's some rumors on the front that broadcasters are going to be able to start putting in their own encryption keys that will be attached to the programming. Thus removing the average person of outputting them to a dvd. While there will always be the more technically inclined people who will fight the encryption with the stations ability to change it on a whim it will remove in line devices from being able to remove it like they do currently.

While you are correct most people don't have modified Tivo's or use E-sata with dvr's that can it's not hard to save up 5-10 episodes and burn the to dvd.


----------



## loungeofmusic (Nov 26, 2007)

chiplatham said:


> there is a lot of ignorance floating around when it comes to pirating being ok because of all the millions movie studios and record companies are making.
> 
> i can't speak for film, but i do work in the music business. illegal downloading has put hundreds of small labels and bands out of business. it's also caused thousands of employees at the big labels to lose their jobs.
> 
> ...


There's an exception to that rule...
I listen to a lot of cutting edge; not heard of music that is not played on any typical radio stations. Mostly internet based and typically streamed by an amateur station.
When the record labels renegotiated broadcasting rights they crushed small internet radio and left a huge amount of acts without any venue for performance.

Commercial acts deserve the royalties but downloading can also open the door to discovering new talent who don't have a commercial sound and so don't have a forum to exhibit their work. The US has KCRW to provide cutting edge sounds and they are malmost old by the time it picks up here. Moreover, popular artists are turning to touring with high ticket prices to make up for the short fall in domestic record sales. In fact, concerts are up in attendance even though record sales are down. This means that studio acts need to perform live to make the big bucks. I don't see how that's bad.

I agree with you that downloading is morally wrong, but like I say there are exceptions to the rule (Dave Mathews to name but one).

Actually fighting downloading is like the drug war. You will not win. So we need to find alternative streams of income. That requires experts in 'new business development' and less reactionary measures. For instance, I think a buck a tune (DRM free) is fine but if you were to make that 20 cents, then you would find more people willing to pay for online purchases as they are so convenient. The harder you squeeze (in these economic times) the less likely people are to pay. Perhaps the labels should stop making high budget, morally corrupt videos (believe me, I've worked on plenty of them) and keep some of the cash. I mean even MTV isn't playing as many any more.


----------



## loungeofmusic (Nov 26, 2007)

Mac user said:


> I do work in the film industry, and I can speak to it. I agree with your thoughts above. I'm always concerned about how pirating may affect the industry I work in. I'm not concerned about people copying a movie for their own library, but movies that are pirated and sold on the streets. It's a problem that keeps happening, DVD's of movies wind up being sold illegally, even before some movies are released in theaters. It may be happening more in other countries, but it is certainly happening here too.
> 
> So many people are hung up on the 24 hr recording time, which I agree is too short, but they're using it to bash the studios. Relax people, you do like movies I assume, so why so much anger towards studios, execs and money it generates. It's a big money industry that supports a lot of people in the entertainment business, and other businesses who cater to it. Just look what happened to businesses who cater to the entertainment business during the writers strike. They depend on this business for their lively hood and the strike crushed many companies during this time.
> 
> ...


I work in the biz too.
So when was the last time you paid to see a flick :lol: 
Actually, PPV is the equivalent to the magazine racks at the checkout. It's all about impulse buying. If you take away the impulse (put a 24 hour viewing window on them) then you think twice. If you think twice, it's no longer an impulse buy.

So the studios will loose revenue because half the films I wacth on PPV I would never pay movie theater prices for. So if you're a parent with kids you'll have to spend $26 on two tickets (arclight) plus concessions and a babysitter ($50). It's not just the price of the movie ticket but everything else. These people won't pay that kind of money to watch a film they don't really care about.

PPV taps that market.

Which is why film biz execs need to get out more and talk to people in the real world instead of staying within the confines of their own small miniature, overly self important worlds. And that is the only way to discover the viability of NEW MEDIA outlets.

The studios won't make up the loss. Period. And quite honestly it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And given the ever shrinking DVD market, they would be better served by making PPV supremely attractive. In fact, lower the price, make it a 30 day rental and PPV purchases would go through the roof. And while that might not be the best solution in the studios mind, wouldn't they rather have %50 of something than %100 of f%#$ all!


----------



## ggmorton (Apr 12, 2007)

bluemoose said:


> I currently take the HR21's HDMI output and connect it to my PC's HDMI-in
> card. The recording(NASA on HDNet, for example) is recorded on hard drive
> in 1080i. Next, I take a blank BD-R and burn the show on the disc in my BD
> drive. The resulting BD-R plays fine in my PS3 and Panasonic Blu-ray plalyer.
> ...


Which HDMI card do you use, if I may ask?


----------



## Mac user (Feb 28, 2008)

loungeofmusic said:


> I work in the biz too.
> So when was the last time you paid to see a flick :lol:
> Actually, PPV is the equivalent to the magazine racks at the checkout. It's all about impulse buying. If you take away the impulse (put a 24 hour viewing window on them) then you think twice. If you think twice, it's no longer an impulse buy.
> 
> ...


I pay all the time. I pay to take my son to see movies, even the ones I've worked on (Trailer editor). After months of seeing the same footage over and over, I'll still pay money to see the same movie again, if I feel it's worth it or appropriate for him to see. We do it because we enjoy it. It's a form of entertainment we enjoy together. I also pay for PPV and VOD movies on occasion.

I pay for PPV and VOD for the convenience, not because I have some knee jerk reaction and can't think straight. I think most people would agree with this. Maybe impulsive for some, but the convenience factor eliminates having to go rent it, or have to wait for it to arrive by mail. What a pleasant luxury and powerful tool to have, even if you can't own it.

Even though you won't watch PPV, you may see the movie on network tv, HBO, TNT, DVD's, etc. The studios still make plenty in these other areas to make up for PPV. Who knows how much money the studios actually makes from PPV. The provider, D*, has a hand in these profits too.

I don't know where you're getting your facts about the DVD market shrinking. DVD sales are thru the roof, they're expanding not contracting. In the past, movie marketing was all about the theatrical release, but DVD sales have changed that. Studios are making profits off DVD's and will continue to do so. In many cases, profits are much higher in world wide DVD sales than the theatrical take.

All I can say is try not to feel entitled to things that you don't own. It'll drive you nuts. Enjoy what you can, and/or move on.


----------



## loungeofmusic (Nov 26, 2007)

Mac user said:


> I don't know where you're getting your facts about the DVD market shrinking. DVD sales are thru the roof, they're expanding not contracting. In the past, movie marketing was all about the theatrical release, but DVD sales have changed that. Studios are making profits off DVD's and will continue to do so. In many cases, profits are much higher in world wide DVD sales than the theatrical take.
> 
> All I can say is try not to feel entitled to things that you don't own. It'll drive you nuts. Enjoy what you can, and/or move on.


See if you were an exec - you wouldn't be paying for any movie! :lol:

Downloading entire movies has only really been available to the masses over the last few years since broadband has become so common place. Hence more movie downloads and less DVD rentals. The DVD market was growing exponentially until the advent of Broadband when the growth began to slow. It is no longer growing (common knowledge) especially while we're in the transition from DVD to blu-ray (the preferred format apparently). Now you have ATT, FIOS and other fiber optic lines offering 20 megs down with a full TV package. People will give up the cable subscription before they surrender their broadband connection. I don't condone downloading but like I said, it's a battle that the studios won't win. Besides, I thought, until know, the studios major concern was the unauthorized duplication and distribution (pirating) for the masses.

Go further... Netflix, Amazon, iTunes. They all carry movies for streaming/viewing and it's already easy to capture those streams. There's a lot of people downloading. Some for fun, some for the thrill, some to simply steal. Some folks are broke (okay so get a job). All I'm saying is, pick your battles. This one is lost.

And by the way, as a creative, I can tell you that the back end isn't nearly as lucrative as it used to be. Although production is still costly,some of the (fx) shots we conjure today for $20K would have cost $500k ten years ago. So we spend more to make films but the market isn't getting bigger.

And as budgets have gone up so much, the B.O. market hasn't and so the studios make almost all their money in DVD sales (you are correct). But it's getting harder to make profits on tent pole films when you're relying on the DVD market to cover your costs of production. So as that market slows down, the studios get squeezed. Everyone's making money in Hollywood. A lot of money. Everyone's getting their cut but the cost of exhibiting, p&a etc... is why the corporations (not the individuals!) will loose an estimated half a billion dollars in revenues over the next few years.

For the studios to remain strong, they need to redefine their market, not squeeze more out of the ones that they have. Simply put - How can we get the downloaders to pay for their content? That's the market that remains untapped.

PPV is convenient, hence I use it (and enjoy it!) and why PPV IS an impulse buy. But a 24 hour limit is simply stupid. I'm not mad a D* (in fact I like 'em, a lot!) But the studios are applying the same 'out of touch' business model to a market they do not understand.

Like you, I still go the movies. I love seeing films in a theater with the kids, but often times, I'll use PPV to catch up on the ones I miss; including those mediocre ones that you trailer guys do so well at making us want to watch  More than that, with my schedule, there's almost never a time I get to watch an entire movie at home in 24 hours (pathetic though it sounds!!!). Give me two weeks and I could handle that. Or how about an additional $1 dollar for every 3 days you keep the film? But making it unusable is unacceptable. I don't want anyone watching any of my stuff and not getting a chance to watch the end!

Also, I have an archive of material I use for reference (cinematography, location etc). I don't duplicate. The bookmarks feature is extremely useful...

Actually, I'm implying that I could make more money if the studios were a little smarter than this :lol: . And if I'm making more money, so are they.

Again, it would be nice if Hollywood execs actually spent some time in the real world and saw real lives and the choices people have to make. That's why I refuse to do the lunches and other b.s. Because it's all artificial. You can't understand something unless you learn how it works.

True story... I knew an exec (big studio!). He actually got into trouble because he hadn't been taking enough people out to breakfast, lunches or dinners. In other words, his expense account was too low. Ironically he was an exec who actually put a lot of time into writers and not blowing smoke. Or the Director who had a dinner party for a group of friends and put the expenses through to the studio on a film he never actually ended up directing.

I could go on and on... So I'll stop here.


----------



## Mac user (Feb 28, 2008)

loungeofmusic said:


> See if you were an exec - you wouldn't be paying for any movie! :lol:
> 
> Downloading entire movies has only really been available to the masses over the last few years since broadband has become so common place. Hence more movie downloads and less DVD rentals. The DVD market was growing exponentially until the advent of Broadband when the growth began to slow. It is no longer growing (common knowledge) especially while we're in the transition from DVD to blu-ray (the preferred format apparently). Now you have ATT, FIOS and other fibre optic lines offering 20 megs down witha full TV package. People will give up the cable subscription before they surrender their broadband connection. I don't condone downloading but like I said, it's a battle that the studios won't win. Besides, I thought, until know, the studios major concern was the unauthorized duplication and distribution (pirating) for the masses.
> 
> ...


Good stuff. I agree with a lot of what you're saying and do not have anything else to add. It's silly to try to hash things out here anyway. It won't change anything(not to be negative), I just needed to throw in my two cents. Copyright protection is important, 24 hour period to view a purchased movie is too short.


----------



## loungeofmusic (Nov 26, 2007)

Mac user said:


> Good stuff. I agree with a lot of what you're saying and do not have anything else to add. It's silly to try to hash things out here anyway. It won't change anything(not to be negative), I just needed to throw in my two cents. Copyright protection is important, 24 hour period to view a purchased movie is too short.


Agreed.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Mac user said:


> Copyright protection is important, 24 hour period to view a purchased movie is too short.


While you have a point about the time period limitation (a couple days surely wouldn't hurt the studios?), the problem I see is with the last part of the sentence.

Just like going down to Blockbuster, you are not _purchasing_ the movie; you are _renting_ it with a specific deadline:
* In the case of Blockbuster, a deadline to return the DVD or pay late fees. 
* In the case of D* & other PPV providers, a deadline for viewing before deletion (although not yet enforced, that was the general idea; DVRs didn't exist when PPVs came into existence, so they hadn't thought about the possibility of repetitive viewing).
The lack of a physical disc does not enter into the equation.

So now the studios are treating PPV as more like a limited-time rental instead of a purchase. I can't say I disagree with this; I just have a problem with the time limit chosen. I tend to watch movies in pieces over several days, or have it playing while working on other items, so I like to go back and rewatch portions I wasn't focusing on. So the 24-hour limitation won't work for me.

One interesting option, though, would be for D* (and others) to adopt a model similar to Netflix or Blockbuster On-Line: 
* Pay a monthly fee, variable depending on how many simultaneous rentals you want to keep on your DVR.
* "Check out" a couple PPV movies by recording them to your DVR, watch them all you want for as long as you want, paying the monthly fee.
* Delete the ones you no longer want.
* The DVR software would then allow you to record another movie to take it's place.
* Combine with D*OD to create wish lists using available and upcoming PPVs -- when you delete a PPV you don't want (like returning the disc to NetFlix), the next one could start downloading thru D*OD. This would work best only if D* bulks up on older movies in addition to the new ones.
* If you stop paying the monthly fee, all previously-recorded PPV movies are deleted off of your DVR.
* If you decide to exceed your monthly limit (by ordering another PPV movie or sporting event), you are billed for that one separately and have the usual time limitation on it.

From a software point of view, this wouldn't be difficult to enforce. And they could even co-brand with NetFlix or the like ("DirecTV NetFlix On-Demand").

Since a lot of the people in this thread that are sharing negative views of the 24-hour time limit keep saying they'll switch to NetFlix, this may make everyone happy: offer the 24-hour-limited PPVs for everyone, but give the option of a NetFlix-like monthly subscription model for those that choose it.

Any thoughts?


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Kheldar said:


> ... give the option of a NetFlix-like monthly subscription model for those that choose it.


I think that's brilliant! For example, $9 gives you 3 PPVs per month, keep 'em as long as you want but you can't watch the next one without "turning in" the current one.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

tcusta00 said:


> I think that's brilliant! For example, $9 gives you 3 PPVs per month, keep 'em as long as you want but you can't watch the next one without "turning in" the current one.


And in the case of PPV or DoD where there isn't a physical disc, simply deleting the recording would be the equivalent of "turning in" one of the movies.

Again, software-wise this would not be a difficult thing to manage, but it would depend on bulking up the available movie offerings (most likely on DoD) to make it worthwhile.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

I can imagine a pay in advance kind thing, too, where you pay for a half dozen movies up front and have, say, 3 months to use them. And, again, you can only watch/keep on the DVR one at the time. And you get a discount off the 3.99/4.99 individual price.


----------



## loungeofmusic (Nov 26, 2007)

Kheldar - Turn PPV into D* own netflix without postage? I think that is a brilliant model! Honestly, I would sign up for that in a minute. And I dare say D* would generate a whole new list of subscribers as would studios do in rentals. That's the equivalent of expanding the DVD market. You should get paid for that idea! And I'm totally serious.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2008)

Mac user said:


> I do work in the film industry, and I can speak to it. I agree with your thoughts above. I'm always concerned about how pirating may affect the industry I work in. I'm not concerned about people copying a movie for their own library, but movies that are pirated and sold on the streets. It's a problem that keeps happening, DVD's of movies wind up being sold illegally, even before some movies are released in theaters. It may be happening more in other countries, but it is certainly happening here too.


Not surprising comments coming from someone who thinks using your DVR and TV as intended is a "loophole" that prevents studios from maximizing their profits.

When copies of a movie show up online before it hits theatres, it's because they couldn't secure the print itself, not because pirates cracked any encryption. The movie hasn't even made it to DVD or PPV at that point. Putting DRM on home video isn't going to do anything to change that - in fact, in will just encourage people to bypass the DRM-laden PPV in favor of the illegal copy.



Mac user said:


> So many people are hung up on the 24 hr recording time, which I agree is too short, but they're using it to bash the studios. Relax people, you do like movies I assume, so why so much anger towards studios, execs and money it generates. It's a big money industry that supports a lot of people in the entertainment business, and other businesses who cater to it. Just look what happened to businesses who cater to the entertainment business during the writers strike. They depend on this business for their lively hood and the strike crushed many companies during this time.


The studios are bashed because of their own actions and their lack of respect for individuals. These are giant corporations with gobs of money and an army of lobbyists. They are intent on using them to control how people use their TVs.



Mac user said:


> Of course the studios are going to protect their content as they see fit. Not all studios are making hand over fist, some do struggle to stay afloat and need to be concerned with distribution of their material. With technology and networking, comes the ability to copy and share content with others, easily. The music industry was decimated by it, the movie studios will not follow suit.


The music industry was decimated because it clung to a broken business model - selling $15 CDs that contained mostly filler music (not to mention illegal collusion and price-fixing). Now they are selling DRM-free music by the song, which is what they should have done years ago.



Mac user said:


> With that flexibility comes the advantage of owning the material you watch for a small amount of what it cost to buy it at a store(DVD's). It's been a great way to create a movie library for about 1/3 to 1/5 the cost of purchasing the movie from a store. However, the advantage of owning that material cheaply, may be eliminated. This is where the anger comes in.


And why should anyone be angry about that? They're just closing another loophole, right? 



Mac user said:


> If you don't like it and threaten not to watch VOD or PPV movies, you'll still go to the movies and/or rent DVD's. The studio doesn't lose. They'll make that business up elsewhere. Maybe the provider, D*, will lose. Boycott all you want, the studios will do what's best for them. You can threaten to boycott all movies, on all platforms, but I doubt you'll give it up altogether.


If you were as knowledgeable about the industry as make yourself out to be, you would realize that the studios HATE rentals. If they had their way, you wouldn't be able to rent a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix. The rental market only exists because the studios couldn't overcome the legal doctrine of "first sale" (not that they didn't try). When you rent a movie, they get a fraction of the money they would get if you bought the disc or paid to see it on PPV. The same disc can be rented out thousands of times and the studio gets paid only once.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

I am surprised that nobody has asked the obvious question: what percentage of PPV revenue comes from DVR customers? If only 5% of the revenue for PPV is DVR accounts, this changes the DirecTV impact greatly. If most of the customers (greater than 80%) for this only have the option to watch the movie live or in a 24-hour windows (all-day ticket), they will not see any appreciable revenue loss. Keep in mind that the people that will change their habits, even for something with which they disagree, is normally less than 30%.

So if only 20% of PPV revenue stream is from DVR users and only 30% of them will change their behavior, this means they lose 6% of the revenue stream. This could fairly easily be recouped by repeat renters that are DVR users but won't change their habits.

Anyone have the real numbers?


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

gregjones said:


> I am surprised that nobody has asked the obvious question: what percentage of PPV revenue comes from DVR customers? If only 5% of the revenue for PPV is DVR accounts, this changes the DirecTV impact greatly. If most of the customers (greater than 80%) for this only have the option to watch the movie live or in a 24-hour windows (all-day ticket), they will not see any appreciable revenue loss. Keep in mind that the people that will change their habits, even for something with which they disagree, is normally less than 30%.
> 
> So if only 20% of PPV revenue stream is from DVR users and only 30% of them will change their behavior, this means they lose 6% of the revenue stream. This could fairly easily be recouped by repeat renters that are DVR users but won't change their habits.
> 
> Anyone have the real numbers?


I'd be interested to see this as well, but if it's that low I'd be surprised. My guess (and it's just that, a guess) is that probably up much higher than that.

Anyone know the percentage of D* customers that have at least one DVR in their home?


----------



## bowels (Mar 1, 2008)

Some of you may remember that after the movie industry lost the betamax case, they lobbied for several years to get a chip inside VCRs so that they could prevent certain recordings at their desire. This was back in the 80s, well before their recent attempts at the 'broadcast flag' legislation - that have so far failed.

The arguments against the chips back then was that it wasn't their business to get in between me and the use of my equipment. And there was a lot of support for this sort of argument - so the VCR chips never came to be. Now, how times have changed. The DMCA is nothing but a list of ways to get in between me and the use of my equipment.

I think that a fair use argument can still be made for the recording of a PPV movie for time shifting purposes. It could be argued that I am acting within fair use to watch the first half of a recorded PPV now, and the second half six months from now. That may be a weird viewing practice, but that is my business and no one else's. They provide access to the PPV program for whatever period (a single showing, or 24 hours, or whatever) and the transaction ends there. If I choose to pause or time shift the program later, it is not there place to disable or delete the program from my equipment.


----------



## ChrisPC (Jun 17, 2003)

I remember when I first got D* in 1996, I only got one showing of a movie with PPV. This was way before DVRs or VOD. It was something when they finally gave you 24 hours of showings to watch!


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

There's a thread on TiVoCommunity suggesting that there's expiration dates being set on HBO recordings...

Any truth to this??

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=388171


----------



## Blurayfan (Nov 16, 2005)

syphix said:


> There's a thread on TiVoCommunity suggesting that there's expiration dates being set on HBO recordings...
> 
> Any truth to this??
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=388171


It seems to be isolated to a cable operator error improperly flagging the program.
So far my HR20 has had the John Adams mini-series recorded since Monday mornings replay and its been watched twice now.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

You recorded on an HR20...this is a report of it occuring on a TiVo.


----------



## Blurayfan (Nov 16, 2005)

syphix said:


> You recorded on an HR20...this is a report of it occuring on a TiVo.


True...but the OP was asking if HBO would be doing the same as PPV 24 hour expiration announced by DirecTV. So the HR20 has the ability to and will honor the request if it's sent.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Mac user said:


> If you don't like it and threaten not to watch VOD or PPV movies, you'll still go to the movies and/or rent DVD's. The studio doesn't lose. They'll make that business up elsewhere. Maybe the provider, D*, will lose. Boycott all you want, the studios will do what's best for them. You can threaten to boycott all movies, on all platforms, but I doubt you'll give it up altogether.


ROFL!:lol: With no disrespect intended, you sound just like a record company executive from 10-15 years ago. Even worse, like a suit from the early 80s, when the "uncopyable" CD was being introduced.

It's all about control. The point of DirecTV DVRs is that *I* purchase something and decide when *I* want to watch it. If I can't do that, believe me, the exact same program is available by other methods that give the studios not a single centavo from my pocket. It's been that way since the first Edison cylinder record and will continue into the future.

Hollywood and its efforts to control what we watch....it is to laugh!:biggrin:



> All I can say is try not to feel entitled to things that you don't own. It'll drive you nuts. Enjoy what you can, and/or move on.


I'll buy that. After all, it's only a movie. 

As an aside....has there been any kind of similar announcement from Dish?


----------



## morgantown (Nov 16, 2005)

In more than 10 years I've probably orderd 2 movies via PPV (even when they were sending out the coupons way back when). So this does not really mean much to me personally. I certainly can see how folks view it as a negative all the same...


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

DVDKingdom said:


> True...but the OP was asking if HBO would be doing the same as PPV 24 hour expiration announced by DirecTV. So the HR20 has the ability to and will honor the request if it's sent.


the word is that the 24 hour thingy only applies to PPV, not other programming


----------



## loungeofmusic (Nov 26, 2007)

Mac user said:


> 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.


Nope. They will loose money. Period. DVD and ancillaries were always considered 'ancillary' income. The primary source of revenue was with the box office. But now that's changed. Now, the box office is meant to cover the cost of production and P&A and the studios count on getting repeat viewing.

Simply put, the studios think they can get away with double charging you for a movie. (remember, every time it's watched, we all get a piece of the pay). It's short sighted greed. Plain and simple. Ironically, it's going to be the least profitable approach they could have taken.

I have to say, I'm not quite sure where you're understanding of the studio business model comes from or how people view content. Instead of trying to redefine the market they are simply trying to squeeze more $$$ out of the existing market.

The studios will loose money over the next few years. It's not a question of if or when but how much.


----------



## AlexCF (Oct 14, 2006)

jgriffin7 said:


> Unfortunate for D*. They won't get another dime on PPV from me.


Same here.

If they start monkeying around with other capabilities of the DVR, such as fast forwarding.. I probably won't be a customer of theirs at all anymore.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Everybody needs to remember that these are NOT DirecTV's decisions. This is being forced on them by the content providers and is the same for all companies, sat and cable. I am not a PPV user so it is a non-issue for me, but if I was it would probably kill my use of the service.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Thanks Hollywood, you have now made my CHOICE easier as I will just RENT via Netflix or BUY HD DVDs to watch my movies!!!


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

longrider said:


> Everybody needs to remember that these are NOT DirecTV's decisions. This is being forced on them by the content providers and is the same for all companies, sat and cable. I am not a PPV user so it is a non-issue for me, but if I was it would probably kill my use of the service.


Maybe so, but the result is the same. Seems to me with such a large market share that DTV could have exercised a bit of leverage to lobby for a 48-72 hour window instead of a too-short 24-hour window.

If Hollywood refuses to budge - perhaps DTV should move a bit of that bandwidth to other uses which their subscribers would find more useful.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

AlexCF said:


> Same here.
> 
> If they start monkeying around with other capabilities of the DVR, such as fast forwarding.. I probably won't be a customer of theirs at all anymore.


So what will you do and where will you go when they all do that. Sooner or later broadcast flags will be honored everywhere in the USA.

I know what I'll be doing, for commercials that can't be skipped I'll be pressing the TV sets remote button marked VGA and browsing the net or reading e-mail until the commercials are past and then I'll be hiting the button marked HDMI on the remote and back to the show. Not to mention watching less shows.



richierich said:


> Thanks Hollywood, you have now made my CHOICE easier as I will just RENT via Netflix or BUY HD DVDs to watch my movies!!!


The non skippable introductions and warnings that you are forced to sit through when watching your DVD/BDs before the main menu don't bother you? They bother me...

When you start seeing Coke and pepsi advertisements before you can play the movie in addition to the the other video plugs we already get on some discs then what?


----------



## AlexCF (Oct 14, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> So what will you do and where will you go when they all do that. Sooner or later broadcast flags will be honored everywhere in the USA.


I'd rely on my UHF antenna, pipe it into a Myth box or something similar. That gets me local news and many of the prime time shows I watch. The rest I could see either through iTunes or similar, or buy the DVDs when they come out.

There comes a point when the hassle and expense isn't worth the limited entertainment value. Make me sit through commercials, and that hassle sky-rockets. It's not like it's free television, we all pay a good chunk of money to get it.



> The non skippable introductions and warnings that you are forced to sit through when watching your DVD/BDs before the main menu don't bother you? They bother me...


Indeed they do. I'm almost tempted to start ripping my DVDs and reburning them with just the main movie track.

It's a huge problem. And it relates to the PPV issue. Consumers should have rights, but we don't. If we want to watch Hollywood's precious content, we have to give up common sense and fairness.

D* should never have the right to remove functionality from a DVR I paid good money for. I don't care who is pulling the strings. Yes, it's leased.. fine. I still paid a lot for it, I consider it mine. To me, it's like hacking into my computer and erasing some of my files. Heck, I'm still annoyed that they made the to do list so hard to get to. Thanks a lot D*.



> When you start seeing Coke and pepsi advertisements before you can play the movie in addition to the the other video plugs we already get on some discs then what?


Nature finds a way. It kind of reminds me of the old moonshine business. The people weren't happy with prohibition, so they found a way to get what they wanted. Hollywood needs to mix some fairness in with their heavy-handed tactics, or they're just going to make themselves irrelevant.


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

I agree on the DVD thing not that I watch much anymore but I remember the last one I put in I almost turned into a frisbee because of all the crap before I could get to the movie. 

All this advertisement BS needs to be regulated it is way out of control.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2008)

mnassour said:


> It's all about control. The point of DirecTV DVRs is that *I* purchase something and decide when *I* want to watch it. If I can't do that, believe me, the exact same program is available by other methods that give the studios not a single centavo from my pocket. It's been that way since the first Edison cylinder record and will continue into the future.


You're exactly right about that. And that's why it isn't likely that you'll see any of these restrictions spread to regular TV as some have been suggesting.

Personally, I don't care what they do with PPV, because I don't use it anyway. I've never even redeemed any of the free coupons they've given me - it simply isn't worth the trouble. Same for VOD - if it has restrictions that don't suit my needs, I can just as easily do without it. But when it comes to regular TV, I expect to be able to record and watch it in the way that suits me. I pay a lot of money to watch DirecTV, but there are plenty of alternatives that wouldn't put a nickel into the coffers of either DirecTV or the studios.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2008)

TBoneit said:


> So what will you do and where will you go when they all do that. Sooner or later broadcast flags will be honored everywhere in the USA.


Re-read some of the other posts and you'll know the answer to that. The majority of what most people watch is available OTA anyway and can't be DRM'd. I pay for that content through DirecTV because of the convenience it offers. If it ceases to be convenient, I cease to pay DirecTV for it. For that matter, there are alternatives for any of the content that is out there. The studios know it, and so does DirecTV.



TBoneit said:


> The non skippable introductions and warnings that you are forced to sit through when watching your DVD/BDs before the main menu don't bother you? They bother me...
> 
> When you start seeing Coke and pepsi advertisements before you can play the movie in addition to the the other video plugs we already get on some discs then what?


I don't like the introductions and warnings either, but they last only a few seconds, so it's more of a minor irritation than anything. I'm pretty sure the studios know that putting commercial on the front of DVDs would only encourage people to rip them (not to mention discourage people from buying them to begin with). If you devalue the product, you reduce the number of people willing to buy it and the price they are willing to pay for it.


----------



## josejrp (May 5, 2007)

Did studios not learn anything from what happened to the music industry? Any time they throw hurdles to legitimate users, they will drive some of those users to less legitimate sources like file sharing sites. The studios have maybe a year before downloading a high definition version of a movie is as easy as downloading an MP3 - the main things holding people back today are older PCs and the time it takes to download a movie. It will be very hard for me to convince my college interns that they should buy/rent a movie when they will be able to get it easily and for free by other means...


----------



## mitchelljd (Aug 16, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Shouldn't effect those with an HR20 or HR21 as much since you don't actually pay for it until you view it.
> 
> BUT it would then delete itself after first viewing it. Fine for me since I rarely want to watch a movie again and if I do it will be available on DVD or on one of the movie channels in HD not too long after.


i agree. but to be honest. sometimes when i watch a movie, i may get pulled away and need to watch the rest later. one of the best benefits was that i could watch the rest say a day or two later. NOW... no dice.

also, what this does is level the field to compete against the other ppv digital services. ie apple tv, xbox and other ppv digital outlets.

honestly, i don't like this change. i wish the window for watching was 48 or 72 hours. studios get their money, and we get an honest good quality viewing window.


----------



## rbrome (Aug 18, 2006)

I totally understand the reasoning behind this change.

What I do not understand is the implementation. Now you have to remember to choose "record now, buy later", and then "buy" it when you want to watch it.

Why do they even give you that very user-hostile option to buy it and never watch it? WHY DOESN'T THE 24H CLOCK JUST START AUTOMATICALLY WHEN YOU FIRST WATCH IT? It seems like a really bone-headed way to implement it. Why have the extra "buy" step at all? It just creates unnecessary opportunity to screw up and be pissed that you paid for a movie you never watched.

Why not just have "record" and "play", with a confirmation screen on the first "play" action that warns you you're about to buy it and will have 24h before it expires? That would be so much simpler and make users happier. Same result for the movie studios and DirecTV, but with less angry customers.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I'm sure that Directv will monitor the PPV usage and when they see it go down, then they & others will share that info with the content providers who will be affected monetarily and there will be some adjustment so that eventually you will pay for how long you want the PPV!!!

Very simple!!!


----------



## DC_SnDvl (Aug 17, 2006)

I just removed all of the PPV channels from my guide.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

DC_SnDvl said:


> I just removed all of the PPV channels from my guide.


Good For YOU!!! I'm doing the same today!!!


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

I just ran across this announcement.
I don't do PPV, but if I did I'd be PO'd about this one.

Thank goodness for _alternative_ sources for movies and premium programming


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Again, does anyone believe it was DirecTV's intention to setup a PPV price to allow you to indefinitely retain a digital copy of a movie? This is illogical.

I understand the frustration but we have two camps of fairly irrational people responding. The first group believes it is horrible that DirecTV is putting an end to the free lunch instead of being appreciative it was there for so long. The other camp believes this is the first step in some long chain of events that would make the DVR completely obsolete.

Please read the actual discussion that has gone on throughout the length of this thread. PPV is very different from movies on premium networks because of timing. The rights that the content creators convey for PPV are significantly different than those for airing on the premium networks. This is not about the music industry or broadcast flags being setup for OTA programming.


----------



## cbeckner80 (Apr 19, 2006)

DC_SnDvl said:


> I just removed all of the PPV channels from my guide.


Never had em in there. Rarly watch PPV. Probably 4 or 5 in the past 8 years.


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

rbrome said:


> Why do they even give you that very user-hostile option to buy it and never watch it? WHY DOESN'T THE 24H CLOCK JUST START AUTOMATICALLY WHEN YOU FIRST WATCH IT? It seems like a really bone-headed way to implement it. Why have the extra "buy" step at all? It just creates unnecessary opportunity to screw up and be pissed that you paid for a movie you never watched.


I believe the 24 hour clock starts when you first watch it. Otherwise the movie will stay on your dvr for 2 weeks or so. Since you don't get charged until you first watch it, and the clock doesn't start until then, I don't see this as "bone-headed".

As for why the option is there: One may be scanning the guide and see a ppv but not have the time to view it at that moment. So the option works for some. If you change your mind and never watch it, then you don't get charged.

However the best option for me as a consumer would be to have the ppv on my dvr until I delete it, as it is today


----------



## Barmat (Aug 27, 2006)

richierich said:


> I'm sure that Directv will monitor the PPV usage and when they see it go down, then they & others will share that info with the content providers who will be affected monetarily and there will be some adjustment so that eventually you will pay for how long you want the PPV!!!
> 
> Very simple!!!


Tell that to the record executives that have watched there profits and market share go down the toilet.

I too have deleated all my PPV from my guide and have gone back to Blockbuster Online.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

So how does this rule apply if you download the same PPV twice in a 24 hour period?

Here's what happened: I downloaded a PPV movie on demand that decided to stop playing about halfway through. This was around 9pm last Friday. My wife was tired and went to bed while I fiddled with it. I couldn't figure it out so I downloaded the latest CE (as per my normal Friday night routine) and went to bed.

I woke up Sat morning - the movie was still in the playlist but still stopped and went blank at the same point. So I deleted it and re-downloaded it, figuring that when I inevitably got the duplicate charge on my aco**** I would simply explain what happened and they would chuckle with me, say sorry for your troubles Mr. tcusta00, and remove the charge.

Here's the response I got from the company that forgot what customer service is:



> Dear Mr. tcusta00,
> 
> Thanks for writing us...
> 
> ...


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> So how does this rule apply if you download the same PPV twice in a 24 hour period?
> 
> Here's what happened: I downloaded a PPV movie on demand that decided to stop playing about halfway through. This was around 9pm last Friday. My wife was tired and went to bed while I fiddled with it. I couldn't figure it out so I downloaded the latest CE (as per my normal Friday night routine) and went to bed.
> 
> ...


This probably has a lot more to do with the newness of VOD than some malignant intent by DirecTV. I would pursue it further, explaining that you were never able to view the program.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

gregjones said:


> This probably has a lot more to do with the newness of VOD than some malignant intent by DirecTV. I would pursue it further, explaining that you were never able to view the program.


Yup, did that in my original email and got that response up there ^

I replied to that email and gently told them one more time that I never got to see the whole movie the first time because it was a bad download. They have one more try and then I'm calling.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

gregjones said:


> Again, does anyone believe it was DirecTV's intention to setup a PPV price to allow you to indefinitely retain a digital copy of a movie? This is illogical.


By this logic, one should not be able to subscribe to a premium movie channel for a month and cancel and still keep all digital copies of recorded movies from that channel.


----------



## rbrome (Aug 18, 2006)

cariera said:


> I believe the 24 hour clock starts when you first watch it. Otherwise the movie will stay on your dvr for 2 weeks or so. Since you don't get charged until you first watch it, and the clock doesn't start until then, ...


Not so, according to this:

http://www.directv.com/ppvexp



> Q: Could a Pay Per View movie expire from my playlist before I get around to watching it?
> 
> A: Yes, the 24 hour viewing period is triggered by your purchase of the Pay Per View movie, so make sure to plan accordingly. If you are not sure you will be able to watch your selection within the 24 hour viewing period, use your "record/buy later" function available on DIRECTV Plus DVR or DIRECTV Plus HD DVR receivers.


That seems insane to me. I shouldn't have to "plan accordingly". There's no need for that kind of complexity. There should just be "record" and "play". Having the separate "buy" option without watching the movie is what I think is bone-headed. You shouldn't have to be careful to choose "record/buy later"... there should only be one "record" option, and the clock should start when you actually watch it.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

rbrome said:


> Not so, according to this:
> 
> http://www.directv.com/ppvexp
> 
> That seems insane to me. I shouldn't have to "plan accordingly". There's no need for that kind of complexity. There should just be "record" and "play". Having the separate "buy" option without watching the movie is what I think is bone-headed. You shouldn't have to be careful to choose "record/buy later"... there should only be one "record" option, and the clock should start when you actually watch it.


So are there FAQs on "Record/Buy Later"? Seems like this one FAQ is implying that the clock won't start ticking until the "Buy" action occurs on a "Buy Later" PPV ...


----------



## rbrome (Aug 18, 2006)

On the "fairness" of the policy change:

Face it: it was a loophole before. It was a loophole and they closed it. It's that simple.

When I got my first DirecTV DVR, I was *shocked* that you could record PPV movies and keep them as long as you wanted. It was *great*, *of course*, but it didn't make much sense. $5 for the whole movie and I can keep it as long as I want? Why buy DVDs ever again? (And I didn't!)

It's pay-per-*view*, not pay-per-*movie*. It's a simple concept. It sucks that they closed the loophole, but it was inevitable.

With that said, I do think the window should be more than 24 hours. 48 or 72 hours would be more reasonable.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> By this logic, one should not be able to subscribe to a premium movie channel for a month and cancel and still keep all digital copies of recorded movies from that channel.


And you can do that now, if I am not mistaken. The premium channels pay a single amount to the content owners to show the content on their channel. PPV distributors pay per view, just like the customers. I believe the issue is not keeping the content, but keeping the content when it was purchased under a PPV model.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Yup, did that in my original email and got that response up there ^
> 
> I replied to that email and gently told them one more time that I never got to see the whole movie the first time because it was a bad download. They have one more try and then I'm calling.


Well, they replied again and gave me the same song and dance. I called and sat on hold for 15 minutes before sending my last reply. Here's the crux of it:

"First of all, why would I want to watch the movie twice in a 24 hour period? Second, I watched it both times within a period of 24 hours, which is allowed by PPV terms of service so why should this even matter? If the DVR did it's job the first time I wouldn't be in this predicament.

Remove the duplicate fee or provide me with the phone number to Chase Carey's office so I can tell him myself how horrible absurd this situation is myself. I shouldn't be paying either of the fees given the fact that we couldn't watch the movie all the way through the first time but I'm being reasonable here and only asking for the duplicate fee to be removed."

Their stance is that I should have called in when I noticed the problem but I didn't feel like sitting on hold at 11pm on a Friday night. And I can't find anywhere in their terms of service that says I need to call in immediately to report DoD downloading errors.

<sorry to take this thread semi-off topic but I didn't want to start a whole new thread for this... and it's kinda on-topic :grin: >


----------



## BrettStah (Feb 7, 2003)

On the 480i output of the HR20, is Macrovision protection added for PPV movies that are played (or will it be added after the 4/15/08 implementation of this 24-hour rule)?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I don't believe that any copy protection will be added over composite or S-Video outputs.


----------



## BrettStah (Feb 7, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't believe that any copy protection will be added over composite or S-Video outputs.


OK, thanks... I haven't yet read this entire thread - in the earlier parts of it that I have read, there is some mention of Macrovision.

So hypothetically, if copyright laws did not exist or were found to be unconstitutional, a person could send the 480i output from an HR20/21 DVR to an Archos 605 with the optional DVR station (which can record straight to DivX format), and then copy that DivX recording to a hacked first-generation Xbox running XBMC, for playback at any future time/date? And if the Macrovision protection IS added to the 480i output after all, then a hypothetical video clarifier that has the unfortunate side effect of stripping out such protection would be added in between the HR20 and the Archos 605? Hypothetically speaking only, of course!


----------



## btmoore (Aug 28, 2006)

Vote with your wallet, if it has any kind of restrictions don't buy it. If we cut them off from their money the tune will change over time.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

btmoore said:


> Vote with your wallet, if it has any kind of restrictions don't buy it. If we cut them off from their money the tune will change over time.


I doubt it....

The DVR users are just a smaller fraction of the PPV population...

They would rather you obtain them via other means (like DVD's)
Or other physical rental models.

They get a bigger piece of the pie that way.


----------



## SFNSXguy (Apr 17, 2006)

Yet another example of the poor business training the D* executives have received.

When I began using D* (see signature) they were a World Class company. Now they're just another "what-not-to-do" example for a business school class.


----------



## btmoore (Aug 28, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> By this logic, one should not be able to subscribe to a premium movie channel for a month and cancel and still keep all digital copies of recorded movies from that channel.


I don't think you can but I think it is inconstantly implemented, once your subscription to that premium is over you may get a searching for authorized content message if you try to play that movie. This has happened to me once when I recorded some movies from a free preview weekend, but I recorded some from this last free preview and they are still working, so who knows. So much for Fair Use.


----------



## btmoore (Aug 28, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I doubt it....
> 
> The DVR users are just a smaller fraction of the PPV population...
> 
> ...


Not buying, hits someones wallet, typical people and business units are measured on their ability to increase % revenue not reduced % revenues, so not buying it will hurt someone and that is not a bad thing here. Additionally maybe cutting into D*'s PPV revenues will put some pressure on them to start being consumer centric vs caving to what ever insane restrictions content providers come up with.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I recorded all the HD Star Wars movies off of HBO when they were running them all. I've recorded the entire second season of Dexter off of Showtime. In both cases (and many other recordings off of premium channels as well), I've been able to watch all of those recordings long after I cancelled those channels. In fact, in the case of Star Wars and Dexter, I didn't watch any of that recorded content while I was actually still subscribed to those channels. I never had any problem watching what I had recorded.


----------



## SFNSXguy (Apr 17, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> I recorded all the HD Star Wars movies off of HBO when they were running them all. I've recorded the entire second season of Dexter off of Showtime. In both cases (and many other recordings off of premium channels as well), I've been able to watch all of those recordings long after I cancelled those channels. In fact, in the case of Star Wars and Dexter, I didn't watch any of that recorded content while I was actually still subscribed to those channels. I never had any problem watching what I had recorded.


Just wait.... soon a NR software update will wipe your hard drive to zero. It's happened to me. D* wants you to count on the stupidity that their DVRs can't be used reliably to archive.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I've already deleted all the Dexters, the Star Wars movies are on an owned HR20 that I've deactivated. Won't be watching any of them now anyway.

I've been participating in the CE program for a long time, and have never had any of my HDs wiped clean.

Nice post. Thanks for participating in the forums. I'm going to completely ignore it now and not feel badly about it at all.


----------



## bc3tech (Jan 3, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Around here it costs 3.99 for a rental at Blockbuster and it's not in HD. So it's actually the same exact price for me for SD PPV and a DVD rental. For the extra buck I get it in HD.


not to mention netflix's subscrip gets you HD DVDs at NO additional cost


jjohns said:


> Informed the family last night of the new D* 24-hour rule regarding PPV movies. Not a bunch of happy campers. All agreed we would purchase a blu-ray dvd player and rent them.


same reaction my wife had. we're waiting for a good sale / best buy coupon now.


Brian Hanasky said:


> Noticed in the guide last night that all pay per view movies now have a little "24" icon in a light blue shaded box. Kind of funny to see the 24 hr thing when I have Good luck chuck that was recorded almost 2 weeks ago sitting on my HR20 that I haven't had time to watch yet. The wife already watched it though so it would be gone by now with the 24 hr thing.


it was my understanding this meant "24 hour purchase" meaning "all day ticket" kind of thing.... for now anyway


richierich said:


> Thanks Hollywood, you have now made my CHOICE easier as I will just RENT via Netflix or BUY HD DVDs to watch my movies!!!


um.... that's probably what they're REALLY TRYING to do here! think about it. they probably make more money of rental and DEFINITELY make more off purchases. "push the DVR PPV out, and get them to go to where we make more money!"

i'm a cynic.


Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't believe that any copy protection will be added over composite or S-Video outputs.


you're probably right, as i believe it's not possible to copy-protect the video output from those. however you won't get hi-def output from those either.

i did try and go through this whole thread, and didn't see this mentioned:
3 options when you start to buy a ppv movie.
"24 hour rental: $3.99"
"7 day rental: $5.99"
"purchase: $9.99"

i don't see anything wrong w/ that. but we all know it won't happen. this thread should just be closed cuz it's never going to amount to a change.


----------



## jzoomer (Sep 22, 2006)

It seems like this will be a revenue loss for Directv. I personally will be less likely to watch it on PPV versus rent/own DVD option now.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jzoomer said:


> It seems like this will be a revenue loss for Directv. I personally will be less likely to watch it on PPV versus rent/own DVD option now.


We have no idea how the revenue sharing works for DirecTV and the content owners.

So while there is going to be a loss... I am sure it isn't going to be massive.

Why? The bulk of PPV purchases are from those that use non-dvrs (and nothing is changing with those systems).... and special even PPV's (which are not affected by this).

So while they may lose some... for those people that are so upset that they won't be able to keep the recordings for ever...

In the bigger picture, I doubt there is going to be a significant hit.


----------



## m4p (Apr 12, 2007)

btmoore said:


> Vote with your wallet, if it has any kind of restrictions don't buy it. If we cut them off from their money the tune will change over time.


Good advice! I know personally I will not be purchasing any PPV's. Many times we start watching a movie and may not finish it until several days later, and even weeks later. I think it's just easier to rent a movie and not have to worry about watching it within 24 hours.


----------



## vlj9r (Nov 23, 2005)

This is exactly why I will not purchase an AppleTv. The 24 limit is ridiculous. 

Goodbye PPVs and hello Netflix. I do not mind the wait.


----------



## Incog-Neato (Apr 21, 2006)

More info: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6116492#post6116492


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I doubt it....
> 
> The DVR users are just a smaller fraction of the PPV population...
> 
> ...


I'm not sure that is so true:

U.S. DVR subscribers for satellite increased from 4.4 million in 2004 to 7.8 million last year. That would be around 25% of the entire Satellite subscriber base. Predictions are that it will be 50% in another year or two. Content holders HATE netflix and blockbuster...they only get that one sale on the media and then that's it. You are right in that they would prefer that you purchase the DVD / Blu Ray as it pockets them a bigger slice of the pie.


----------



## Incog-Neato (Apr 21, 2006)

According to DirecTV this will affect the entire (DVR enabled) industry, not just DirecTV:

Is this change only with DIRECTV?
No. This is an industry-wide change required by movie studios, and this policy change being implemented by all other cable and satellite television providers.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

TBlazer07 said:


> According to DirecTV this will affect the entire (DVR enabled) industry, not just DirecTV:
> 
> Is this change only with DIRECTV?
> No. This is an industry-wide change required by movie studios, and this policy change being implemented by all other cable and satellite television providers.


If thats the case I wonder why we haven't heard any statements from Dish and cable?


----------



## bobbyv (Sep 29, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Well, I don't use PPV very often (maybe once or twice per year), but was considering possibly using it more. I won't consider that anymore. There's lots of times where we'll start to watch a movie and won't finish (tired, kids, etc.). We'll usually finish watching it a few days later (or the next weekend). Since we won't be able to do that with PPV, it won't be worth it to us.


Same here . . .


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> They would rather you obtain them via other means (like DVD's)
> Or other physical rental models.
> 
> They get a bigger piece of the pie that way.


They get none of my pie.
*I eat their pie. I eat it up!*


----------



## Incog-Neato (Apr 21, 2006)

Good question .... I dunno!

Also, if you are in the middle of watching a movie and your 24hrs runs out it will cut you off.



theratpatrol said:


> If thats the case I wonder why we haven't heard any statements from Dish and cable?


----------



## saryon (Aug 12, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> The post over at TCF had the following:
> 
> Does this mean pay-per-VOD willl not have the restriction? I can't think of what else "other PPV programming" refers to - can't be premiums, because that's not per view - that's per package. Can't be MLB-EI - same thing...


Sporting events?


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

This is the reason why there are so many videos of copyrighted broadcasting material being posted on YouTube. It needs to be stopped. YouTube got sued so many times because users are committing a federal crime for posting clips of a tv show, cartoon, sporting event, music video or movie. If this doesn't stop, YouTube will be forced to shut down.

As a matter of fact, Tivos should be banned, boycotted, or restricted from recording broadcasting copyright material unless you have permission from a broadcasting company to record live sporting events, game shows, cartoons, movies, etc. It's the same as recording a program on a VHS tape or a writeable DVD.


----------



## Incog-Neato (Apr 21, 2006)

Sports and VOD PPV will not have the same restrictions. That was just confirmed in a phone conference today.


saryon said:


> Sporting events?


----------



## Incog-Neato (Apr 21, 2006)

Actually by 2010 DirecTV only plans on supplying ONE type of receiver, the HD-DVR so the % will skyrocket.


luckydob said:


> I'm not sure that is so true:
> 
> U.S. DVR subscribers for satellite increased from 4.4 million in 2004 to 7.8 million last year. That would be around 25% of the entire Satellite subscriber base. Predictions are that it will be 50% in another year or two. Content holders HATE netflix and blockbuster...they only get that one sale on the media and then that's it. You are right in that they would prefer that you purchase the DVD / Blu Ray as it pockets them a bigger slice of the pie.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

luckydob said:


> Content holders HATE netflix and blockbuster...they only get that one sale on the media and then that's it.


I believe that these days content providers have deals with the rental companies which allow the content providers to participate in the revenue from each rental in exchange for providing the rental DVDs to the rental outfits at much less than the "buy-to-own" price. That's how Blockbuster can put 100 copies of the latest blockbuster DVD that has just been released on their shelves in order to fulfill their guaranteed rental availability promises and not have to worry that in a few weeks 95 of those 100 copies will no longer be needed to keep up with rental demand.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Jtaylor1 said:


> This is the reason why there are so many videos of copyrighted broadcasting material being posted on YouTube. It needs to be stopped. YouTube got sued so many times because users are committing a federal crime for posting clips of a tv show, cartoon, sporting event, music video or movie. If this doesn't stop, YouTube will be forced to shut down.


That makes no sense whatsoever. I fail to see how puting a time limit on PPV viewing will decrease the amount of copyrighted material that is posted on Youtube.


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever. I fail to see how puting a time limit on PPV viewing will decrease the amount of copyrighted material that is posted on Youtube.


Wow! You just tried to apply logic and reason to a completely illogical and unreasonable statement.
For a second there, I swear I could see 1963 in my beer glass. :lol:


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

Jtaylor1 said:


> This is the reason why there are so many videos of copyrighted broadcasting material being posted on YouTube. It needs to be stopped. YouTube got sued so many times because users are committing a federal crime for posting clips of a tv show, cartoon, sporting event, music video or movie. If this doesn't stop, YouTube will be forced to shut down.
> 
> As a matter of fact, Tivos should be banned, boycotted, or restricted from recording broadcasting copyright material unless you have permission from a broadcasting company to record live sporting events, game shows, cartoons, movies, etc. It's the same as recording a program on a VHS tape or a writeable DVD.


Orrrrr......
The music, movie, and entertainment industry could get their craniums out of their nether regions and start realizing that Youtube can actually work FOR them, by promoting their content to a more interested and captive audience.

Of course, their whole pimp/ho model of doing business with artists will have to be reworked as well.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I can't tell you how many YouTube videos I've seen accompanied by copyright statements and sometimes embellishment such as "Presented here to promote and support the artist and company". Maybe this is enough to keep the lawyers at bay ... the videos have been around for a long time with these statements.


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

True.
And many networks have now begun posting their own programming on their websites for free.

Although they are a non-profit, PBS has allowed online viewers to watch their latest acclaimed two part series (which cannot be mentioned by name here) in its entirety.

Remember the days when ESPN wanted you to pay for content?  

Kudos to PBS and to Radiohead for pioneering new ways of thinking regarding media delivery!

I have purchased exactly two albums in the past 8 years.

The most recent one was the web release from Radiohead.
They allowed users to download the full album and then pay whatever they thought it was worth. I gleefully paid $8.00, and I'll bet the artists saw more of that than they ever did under a recording contract!


----------



## bowels (Mar 1, 2008)

gregjones said:


> Again, does anyone believe it was DirecTV's intention to setup a PPV price to allow you to indefinitely retain a digital copy of a movie? This is illogical.
> 
> I understand the frustration but we have two camps of fairly irrational people responding. The first group believes it is horrible that DirecTV is putting an end to the free lunch instead of being appreciative it was there for so long. The other camp believes this is the first step in some long chain of events that would make the DVR completely obsolete.
> 
> Please read the actual discussion that has gone on throughout the length of this thread. PPV is very different from movies on premium networks because of timing. The rights that the content creators convey for PPV are significantly different than those for airing on the premium networks. This is not about the music industry or broadcast flags being setup for OTA programming.





rbrome said:


> On the "fairness" of the policy change:
> 
> Face it: it was a loophole before. It was a loophole and they closed it. It's that simple.
> 
> ...


I'm surprised at the number of people who think that this policy change is justified, or that third party control of our recording equipment should ever be accepted.

Why should PPV be viewed any differently than any other programming offered for personal in-home use? Why should it be viewed differently than traditional network (CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX) programming?

It could be argued that a traditional network program is intended for a single viewing at the scheduled time of broadcast. The program is intended to be watched when it is broadcast, and payment for that viewing comes in the form of the inclusion of ads with that broadcast. If you miss the program, you miss it - or you have to wait until it is re-broadcast. This is how it was before the advent of home recording technology.

By definition, prior to the advent of home recording technology, every program broadcast (or cablecast) was effectively 'PPV'. When home recording technology came into being and made time-shifting possible, why should it be acceptable for some programs to be time-shifted but others not? If time shifting is a fair use of content broadcast (by whatever means) for personal in-home use, then there should not be any infringement of that right based on the content selected for time-shifting.

I realize that the courts have addressed the issue (of time-shifting being a fair use) for traditional broadcast networks only. But at the time, that was pretty much all there was. If the case was being heard today, It would interesting to hear the arguments about why time-shifting should be allowed for some content and prohibited for other content. I'm sure that the traditional broadcast networks and PPV rights holders would make similar arguments.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

bowels said:


> I'm surprised at the number of people who think that this policy change is justified, or that third party control of our recording equipment should ever be accepted.


There is a significant difference between controlling your recording equipment and controlling the use of content to which they own the rights.



bowels said:


> Why should PPV be viewed any differently than any other programming offered for personal in-home use? Why should it be viewed differently than traditional network (CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX) programming?


PPV should be viewed differently because it is licensed differently. It is like trying to sell a car you leased without every buying it yourself.



bowels said:


> It could be argued that a traditional network program is intended for a single viewing at the scheduled time of broadcast. The program is intended to be watched when it is broadcast, and payment for that viewing comes in the form of the inclusion of ads with that broadcast. If you miss the program, you miss it - or you have to wait until it is re-broadcast. This is how it was before the advent of home recording technology.


And channels license content differently than PPV providers. They pay knowing exactly which rights are conveyed by that payment to its viewers.



bowels said:


> By definition, prior to the advent of home recording technology, every program broadcast (or cablecast) was effectively 'PPV'. When home recording technology came into being and made time-shifting possible, why should it be acceptable for some programs to be time-shifted but others not? If time shifting is a fair use of content broadcast (by whatever means) for personal in-home use, then there should not be any infringement of that right based on the content selected for time-shifting.


You can time-shift within the licensed period. As always, the content creator has the ability to setup any license terms they wish. We, as consumers, have the ability to accept or refuse to agree to that license by failing to purchase content on those terms.



bowels said:


> I realize that the courts have addressed the issue (of time-shifting being a fair use) for traditional broadcast networks only. But at the time, that was pretty much all there was. If the case was being heard today, It would interesting to hear the arguments about why time-shifting should be allowed for some content and prohibited for other content. I'm sure that the traditional broadcast networks and PPV rights holders would make similar arguments.


Again, content is licensed. If the content creators had no rights to license content on their terms, there would be much less content to license. While many people may dislike this turn of events, it would be much different to say that the content creators have no right to license their content as they see fit.


----------



## bowels (Mar 1, 2008)

gregjones said:


> There is a significant difference between controlling your recording equipment and controlling the use of content to which they own the rights.


The two are not identical, but in this case, the latter entails the former, so the effective result is the same. They are controlling the use of content by way of deleting recordings on my equipment.

The police, in combination with auto manufacturers, could control speeding by way of having a remote control that adjusted the speed of my car to within legal limits.

It doesn't follow that any given right justifies any given means to exercise that right.



gregjones said:


> PPV should be viewed differently because it is licensed differently. It is like trying to sell a car you leased without every buying it yourself.


The issue of licensing is admittedly sticky. In this case, the issue of privity, and exactly whom is bound to whom, is not clear. No consumer of PPV content has an express agreement directly with the content creator. The PPV broadcast does not include the transmission of any license. Also, as of this date, there is no clause in the DirecTV subscriber agreement that specifically prohibits time-shifiting nor is there a clause where the subscriber consents to allowing any party to delete a recording. There is a clause in the the DirecTV DVR agreement which states:

```
"DIRECTV does not guarantee the access to or recording of any particular program, or the length of time any particular recorded program may remain available for your viewing".
```
This clause is vauge, as it does not expressly state that DirecTV or any third party providers may delete recordings at will, but only that they do not guarantee access. I expect that these agreements will change after April 15th, but as it stands now, the contract does not speak directly to this issue.



gregjones said:


> And channels license content differently than PPV providers. They pay knowing exactly which rights are conveyed by that payment to its viewers.


I doubt any content provider of any television content expressly grants permission to record any program to a DVR for storage indefinitely. Fair use, under copyright law, speaks to this issue, rather than any license or contract.



gregjones said:


> You can time-shift within the licensed period. As always, the content creator has the ability to setup any license terms they wish. We, as consumers, have the ability to accept or refuse to agree to that license by failing to purchase content on those terms.


I disagree that the content creator has the ability to setup *any* terms they wish. They can't setup license terms that are in violation of copyright law or other law. For example, content owners would likely love to prohibit the resale of used DVDs, CDs, books, ect. But copyright law does not permit them to dictate such terms.

Another excerpt from the DirecTV DVR agreement:

```
"Third Party Content is the copyrighted material of the third party that supplies it, is protected by copyright and other applicable laws, and may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the written permission of the third party that supplied it, except to the extent allowed under the "fair use" provisions of the U.S. copyright laws or comparable provisions of foreign laws."
```
Notice the phrase; "except to the extent allowed under the "fair use" provisions of the U.S. copyright laws or comparable provisions of foreign laws."

We circle around again to the crux of the issue. Is recording PPV content to a DVR a "fair use" of such content - and if it is, may the owner, creator, and/or provider of that content delete such recording at will?

I contend that if the legal basis for the permissibility of making DVR recordings is granted under the fair use provison of copyight law, rather than by way of license or contract, then it is not within the law for another party to delete such recordings. But I also concede, as I stated before, that the courts have not addressed this issue for television content other than traditional broadcast networks.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2008)

cartrivision said:


> I believe that these days content providers have deals with the rental companies which allow the content providers to participate in the revenue from each rental in exchange for providing the rental DVDs to the rental outfits at much less than the "buy-to-own" price. That's how Blockbuster can put 100 copies of the latest blockbuster DVD that has just been released on their shelves in order to fulfill their guaranteed rental availability promises and not have to worry that in a few weeks 95 of those 100 copies will no longer be needed to keep up with rental demand.


Not true. Blockbuster had some deals like that back in the days when VHS tapes retailed for around $100. Because DVDs are all priced to sell rather than rent, it no longer makes sense to operate that way. Netflix and Blockbuster make more money by buying discs and keeping all of the rental money. They sell of the surplus copies when demand declines.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

bowels said:


> It doesn't follow that any given right justifies any given means to exercise that right.


Their primary right as the owner of the content is to disallow its distribution. They absolutely have the right to withhold their content from distribution via PPV. The DVR created a loophole that is not explicitly protected by any law. The content provider can, in fact, setup any licensing arrangement not explicitly forbidden by law by definition.

The loophole has now been closed. Without specific legislation, there is no reason to expect it to be opened.

As for the privity of items recorded, I believe that battle has already been fought. For instance, fair use extends for a very specific amount of time in many cases. Ask any school librarian (now media coordinator) how long after a show airs on PBS they are allowed to use it as an instructional aid. There is a specific license granted with a time limit. If you look at it from this point, DirecTV could be libel if they did not act.

If 24 hours after purchase is the extent of the license granted, this would make sense. Otherwise, DirecTV would be failing to act when they had the ability to expressly remove content which was no longer licensed.

Keep in mind, I am not happy about this change. But I think arguing that it is sinister and/or illegal is simply not accurate. The free ride is over.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

I used to be a Netflix subscriber and generally loved the service. However, I started getting more and more DVDs delivered that were heavily scratched and skipped badly or would not play at all. I don't know how many times I had to break out my Skip Dr device to fix one of their DVDs. Thats my main issue with Netflix. If they had better quality control (maybe they have now), I would join back up in a flash.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2008)

Mac user said:


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


Once and for all, it's not a merger. If you were as knowledgeable about the industry as you've claimed to be, you would know that Time Warner already owned New Line and has for many years. They are just cutting costs by absorbing the New Line operation into their own studio. It is essentially a dismantling of New Line; it is not a merger.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2008)

gregjones said:


> For instance, fair use extends for a very specific amount of time in many cases. Ask any school librarian (now media coordinator) how long after a show airs on PBS they are allowed to use it as an instructional aid. There is a specific license granted with a time limit. If you look at it from this point, DirecTV could be libel if they did not act.


Sorry, but that isn't true. There is no time limit associated with fair use. You can borrow a book from the library and the publisher or copyright owner has no control over how long you keep it. Same thing with recording a TV show to a VCR - you can legally keep it for your own use as long as you like. What's being done with the PPV movies is simply preventing you from easily exercising fair use rights. If you can find a legal way to record it (and you can), you still have the right to keep it as long as you like.


----------



## rsteinfe (May 7, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Sorry, but that isn't true. There is no time limit associated with fair use.


As a retired school district tech. coordinator, I can tell you that there certainly were restrictions on programming we recorded off-the-air or off-satellite for classroom use. Some shows we were allowed to keep for a month, others for a year. Then we had to wipe the tape, and were periodically checked to see that we were in compliance.

While we are free to record a movie from HBO, for example, for our own personal use, the copyright owner can place limitations on public performance, and that's what happens with schools.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2008)

rsteinfe said:


> As a retired school district tech. coordinator, I can tell you that there certainly were restrictions on programming we recorded off-the-air or off-satellite for classroom use. Some shows we were allowed to keep for a month, others for a year. Then we had to wipe the tape, and were periodically checked to see that we were in compliance.
> 
> While we are free to record a movie from HBO, for example, for our own personal use, the copyright owner can place limitations on public performance, and that's what happens with schools.


That is correct. Recording for a classroom is *not the same thing as recording for your own personal use. *Recording for your own use is what constitutes fair use. The previous poster cited recording for a classroom as an example of fair use having time limits set by the content provider, which is simply not true. If you were recording those same programs for your own personal use, that would constitute fair use and the provider would have no way of limiting how long you kept it.


----------



## bowels (Mar 1, 2008)

gregjones said:


> But I think arguing that it is sinister and/or illegal is simply not accurate. The free ride is over.


I strongly disagree. I contend that it is both exceedingly sinister and quite possibly illegal.

1. The legal basis to record any television content for personal home use is afforded via the fair use provision of the copyright law. Or, to put it another way, permission to record television content is never explicity granted via contract or license for any television content.

2. So, if it is ever legal to record television content, it is legal only by way of fair use.

3. If the legal basis (for recording) can only be by way of fair use, and only law governs fair use, then only law can govern the terms for such recording as applicable under fair use.

4. If the terms for a recording can only be governed by law as applicable under fair use, then only such law is governing, and no other party may dictate the terms of such fair use.

5. If another party dictates the terms of fair use for a recording of television content made for personal home use, then such party has infringed fair use rights and copyright law, since such terms may only be governed by fair use under copyright law.

The point is that once a fair use recording is made for personal home use, it is not in the domain of any private party to dictate the terms (such as by deleting the recording) of fair use. It is in the domain of law.

I also think that a distinction needs to be make between the rights of the provider to make the programing available (via an active broadcast) for some limited period (such as 24 hours) and the fair use rights for a recording made during those 24 hours of the active broadcast. My view is that the license and terms of the provider govern only the active broadcast, while fair use governs any recording made during the active broadcast.


----------



## Skooz (Jul 20, 2007)

bowels said:


> I strongly disagree. I contend that it is both exceedingly sinister and quite possibly illegal.
> 
> 1. The legal basis to record any television content for personal home use is afforded via the fair use provision of the copyright law. Or, to put it another way, permission to record television content is never explicity granted via contract or license for any television content.
> 
> ...


What you said.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Unbelievable. I can't believe you people are still moaning and groaning over this. Let it go, it's just flippin' television, and not good stuff lately, either.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> Let it go, it's just flippin' television, and not good stuff lately, either.


But it's not TV ... i'ts DIREC*TV*.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

:lol:



Drew2k said:


> But it's not TV ... i'ts DIREC*TV*.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> But it's not TV ... i'ts DIREC*TV*.


But its not DIRECTV, its HD DIRECTV.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

bowels said:


> I strongly disagree. I contend that it is both exceedingly sinister and quite possibly illegal.
> 
> 1. The legal basis to record any television content for personal home use is afforded via the fair use provision of the copyright law. Or, to put it another way, permission to record television content is never explicity granted via contract or license for any television content.
> 
> ...


*But*...
The recording of a live TV broadcast for personal use is not a valid analogy for the PPV 24-hour window situation. A more comparable analogy is that of a rental DVD or video: you are renting the item for a specified length of time, after which you no longer have the right to use that rented item.

Imagine this: You rent a DVD from Blockbuster for a set period (it's been so long since I've rented a video that I'm not even sure what the current time frame limit is), and...
* Copy the DVD and continue to use the copy after you return the rented disc. Or...
* Don't return the DVD.

Just like both of those situations are not allowed (one is copyright infringement [at least according to the wonderful FBI warning at the beginning], the other is theft), the movie studios say you should not be allowed to keep a copy of the movie after the rental period expires.

So, I believe the studios are within their copyright to require the deletion of pay-per-views after a certain time frame.

They are, after all, _pay ... *per ... view*_.


----------



## bowels (Mar 1, 2008)

Kheldar said:


> *But*...
> The recording of a live TV broadcast for personal use is not a valid analogy for the PPV 24-hour window situation. A more comparable analogy is that of a rental DVD or video: you are renting the item for a specified length of time, after which you no longer have the right to use that rented item.
> 
> Imagine this: You rent a DVD from Blockbuster for a set period (it's been so long since I've rented a video that I'm not even sure what the current time frame limit is), and...
> ...


While I admit that this point is arguable, I still disagree.

Any television transmission is more analogous to another television transmission than it is to distribution by some form of physical medium, such as DVDs. The betamax case addressed the issues of time-shifting and fair use of televison broadacasts (transmissions).

The viewing window for any content that is distributed via a television transmission is typically less than 24 hours - typically the window is only for the period of the original transmission.

The issue is not purchase or rental, but use of a television broadcast. If I record an epsiode of Lost broadcast by ABC, I have not converted a rental to a purchase, but rather I am making use of the broadcast. This is a different issue entirely than any use made of that same Lost episode released on DVD.

The betamax case specifally addressed the issue of making use of a televison broadcast in a manner not intended by the broadcaster, namely time-shifting to any time of the viewers choice.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

bowels said:


> While I admit that this point is arguable, I still disagree.
> 
> Any television transmission is more analogous to another television transmission than it is to distribution by some form of physical medium, such as DVDs. The betamax case addressed the issues of time-shifting and fair use of televison broadacasts (transmissions).
> 
> ...


Two points:
1) Technically, cable and satellite transmissions are _narrowcasts_, not _broadcasts_. The difference is that only people that subscribe to the service are allowed to receive the transmissions; a _broadcast_ is freely available to anyone with the correct equipment. Pay-per-view movies are also not _broadcasts_ -- they are the very definition of narrowcasting -- "the transmission of data to a specific list of recipients".

2) Read a portion of actual Betamax ruling (emphasis is mine): _"When one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and *that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge*, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use."_
* The Betamax case only discussed _broadcast content_, and the ruling specifically stated that it doesn't cover cable broadcasts: "The lengthy trial of the case in the District Court concerned the private, home use of VTR's for recording programs broadcast on the public airwaves without charge to the viewer. No issue concerning the transfer of tapes to other persons, the use of home-recorded tapes for public performances, or the copying of programs transmitted on pay or cable television systems was raised." (VTR = "Video Tape Recorder", the original name for VCRs).



bowels said:


> The betamax case specifally addressed the issue of making use of a televison broadcast in a manner not intended by the broadcaster, namely time-shifting to any time of the viewers choice.


So, based on the above information, the BetaMax case specifically addressed television _broadcasts_ ("a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge"), and _*not* narrowcasts_ like cable or satellite broadcasts.

Therefore, the analogy of television broadcasts to the PPV narrowcasting model is invalid. The analogy of PPV narrowcasting to DVD/Video rental is very accurate.


----------



## bowels (Mar 1, 2008)

Yes, Kheldar, I agree. If you review my previous posts to this thread, you will see that I made note that the betamax case only addressed traditional ("free") broadcast networks. But, I think the reason that only broadcast networks were addressed was purely an effect of the time at which the case was decided, when cable penetration was relatively low and satellite penetration was probably zero.

Since that time, the majority of the population has been induced to rely exclusively on cable or satellite distribution for all of the "cast" (broad and narrow) television content that they consume. The extent to which any of this content is still considered narrowcast today is questionable in my view, since it has nearly replaced the broadcast model in the time since the case was decided.

Under your argument, which I admit is strong, the typical cable/satellite television consumer would have the legal basis, absent express permission, to time-shift only a small fraction of the channels that they receive - namely the channels that are also available via broadcast. Or maybe not even those, since both DirecTV and Dish Network specifically charge for their local channel packages -- which makes them no longer entirety free of charge, since the local broadcast networks charge DirecTV and Dish Network for each subscriber.

If there is any progression to the restriction of recording, or the deletion of recordings, of television "casts" (broad and narrow), then hopefully the legality of fair use of narrowcasts will be more clearly defined in light of the current environment.

I still disagree strongly that any "cast" (broad or narrow) is more analogous to a piece of physical media than it is to another "cast" (broad or narrow). A piece of physical media conveys certain rights and abilities that just aren't otherwise obtained from a "cast", and vice-versa.


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2008)

Kheldar said:


> So, based on the above information, the BetaMax case specifically addressed television _broadcasts_ ("a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge"), and _*not* narrowcasts_ like cable or satellite broadcasts.


There isn't any question from a legal standpoint that the concept of fair use applies to satellite and cable transmissions.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> There isn't any question from a legal standpoint that the concept of fair use applies to satellite and cable transmissions.


But does it apply to PPV satellite and cable transmissions?


----------



## ub1934 (Dec 30, 2005)

theratpatrol said:


> But its not DIRECTV, its HD DIRECTV.


 But its not DirecTV , its Pay HD DirecTV 
By the way Blockbuster is $ 3.99 for 48 hrs


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Until this "wise" decision, I had not looked into any other ways to get dvd movies. I have now, and will use them. I can't believe this will not show up on the bottom line for these folks. But by the time these geniuses figure out its going to cost them money and will eventually change it back, those that were peeved about it will have found a better way to get them.


----------



## su_A_ve (Sep 27, 2007)

ub1934 said:


> But its not DirecTV , its Pay HD DirecTV
> By the way Blockbuster is $ 3.99 for 48 hrs


48 hours ? What about the 7 day grace period ? And what about the 30 days full fee refund ?

I like the idea of Redbox. $1 for a day. You keep it longer, you pay more. Simple and cheap.

If they changed their system to something like this, PPV use would indeed increase. 4.99 for a rental is excessive.

My .02...


----------



## hookemfins (Jul 3, 2007)

They have already started to apply an expiration date on PPV. I recorded "Into the Wild" last Friday and today I noticed it said "expires 4/28.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hookemfins said:


> They have already started to apply an expiration date on PPV. I recorded "Into the Wild" last Friday and today I noticed it said "expires 4/28.


That has nothing to do with the other expiration date that we are talking about. That expiration date has been around which encourages you to view the PPV without letting it sit on your DVR forever.


----------



## hookemfins (Jul 3, 2007)

richierich said:


> That has nothing to do with the other expiration date that we are talking about. That expiration date has been around which encourages you to view the PPV without letting it sit on your DVR forever.


First time I had seen it. I had a PPV recorded earlier in the month and no expiration was on.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

I dont get the entertainment industry. They cant seem to get it, if we pay for the content we want to view/use the content when and how we want it.

I'm so sick and tired of this.

Latest Directv flyer should read;

_*For $78 a month look at all the features you get!
2 year contract requirement for any significant change in service!
Leased hardware that you cant own but we wont service unless you pay for a service plan!
A full featured listing system including Force fed advertising!
Pay Per Views that you can record with your DVR and we can erase on demand!

See inside for more loving features!*_

BLAH :nono2:


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

the thread that just 


won't




die!


:lol:


----------



## pacjag (Apr 10, 2007)

Hmm, when I went to watch a recorded program this morning I found a
recording there that I did not order. It was actually a short (said 2 minutes)
video explaining this new 24 hour policy. Why the heck don't they make use
of the message function on the receivers?


----------



## beavis (Jun 9, 2005)

So when people call D* complaining about this policy they can't play stupid and say they didn't get any notice.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

pacjag said:


> Hmm, when I went to watch a recorded program this morning I found a
> recording there that I did not order. It was actually a short (said 2 minutes)
> video explaining this new 24 hour policy. Why the heck don't they make use
> of the message function on the receivers?


Because more people will see the recording in their list... then the little mail icon "lit" up.

And they can explain it more in a 2 minute clip video... then a static text message in the mail/message feature.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

beavis said:


> So when people call D* complaining about this policy they can't play stupid and say they didn't get any notice.


Actually more so they can get more information out there in a 2 minute video, with a listing to the website.... in one fixed-cost method...

Then having larger volume of phone calls to the call centers after 4/15


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

"Sports and VOD PPV will not have the same restrictions. That was just confirmed in a phone conference today. "

If this is so - why don't all the arguments for having the 24 hour restrictions apply to sports or VOD PPV?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> "Sports and VOD PPV will not have the same restrictions. That was just confirmed in a phone conference today. "
> 
> If this is so - why don't all the arguments for having the 24 hour restrictions apply to sports or VOD PPV?


I am pretty sure, VOD PPV Movies will have the same restrictions.
Unless they have two different "tiers" in their contract that cover "first run" PPV Movies, and "library" titles on VOD PPV Movies

Sports and special events don't apply, because they are not from the studios (the entity that is requiring this).


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

From DirecTV's own web site on 24 hour PPV - http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P4540022

"PPV movies will be available for 24 hours of unlimited viewing after purchase."
"During the 24 hour viewing period, you will continue to enjoy all of your DVR features such as pause and rewind."

"24 hours of unlimited viewing"? That sentence is funny.

What happens if I'm over my 24 hours because my DirecTV dvr is stuck in pause or the audio has been stuck stuttering for the last hour and my time runs out?


----------



## beavis (Jun 9, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually more so they can get more information out there in a 2 minute video, with a listing to the website.... in one fixed-cost method...
> 
> Then having larger volume of phone calls to the call centers after 4/15


True that. IIRC, D* also put notices in bills and sent emails. I'd bet 80% of people just look at their bills and nothing else that comes with it. Price increase notices as well.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> What happens if I'm over my 24 hours because my DirecTV dvr is stuck in pause or the audio has been stuck stuttering for the last hour and my time runs out?


You would have to call and explain your situation to the CSR tier to see if they will grant you a credit on the PPV purchase.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I am pretty sure, VOD PPV Movies will have the same restrictions.
> Unless they have two different "tiers" in their contract that cover "first run" PPV Movies, and "library" titles on VOD PPV Movies
> 
> Sports and special events don't apply, because they are not from the studios (the entity that is requiring this).


Sports and special events don't apply.
Who would have ever thought that the time would come when Don King was the unselfish one.


----------



## Sander (Jun 3, 2007)

Bad enough I can no longer burn DVD's from my PPV-HD downloads. Now, even those recorded on my HR20 and my TiVo2 will disappear after 24 hrs. 

**** on the customers -- make them pay, and pay, and pay, and.......


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sports and special events don't apply, because they are not from the studios (the entity that is requiring this).


Good to see the D* had our best intersts at heart and was willing to comprimise with the studios on our behalf at a moments notice.

I wonder if their collections people are as spineless...

I am irked...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

rahlquist said:


> Good to see the D* had our best intersts at heart and was willing to comprimise with the studios on our behalf at a moments notice.
> 
> I wonder if their collections people are as spineless...
> 
> I am irked...


Have you been reading the lengthy discussion on this?
Or just starting now. This isn't a "moments" notice, and something that has been discussed (here in the forum world) for almost two months... (when it first leaked in early February that this may be comming).

This new policy is not new... and will make it's way to every carrier.
Major players are already under this agreement.... Apple, Microsoft, and now from other posts... Looks like Amazon is as well.

What would you have rather had? No PPV?

As for the sports and special events... they are not owned by the same people that own the rights to the movies... so that idea of compromise doesn't come into play.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

rahlquist said:


> Good to see the D* had our best intersts at heart and was willing to comprimise with the studios on our behalf at a moments notice.
> 
> I wonder if their collections people are as spineless...
> 
> I am irked...


Who says they didn't negotiate? Maybe the studios wanted live-play only and D* was able to negotiate a 24-hour playback window.

Just because they didn't get to keep everything the way it was, doesn't mean they didn't negotiate.

And, since all of the other major providers are agreeing to the same rules, D* was in the position of either creating the 24-hour window or losing access to all studio-controlled PPV. Not much a negotiating position, is it?


----------



## Juppers (Oct 26, 2006)

I'll just switch away from PPV purchases and go back to DVD rentals. Problem solved for me.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

All I am saying is that sometimes the best option i to stand your ground. Look its taken how many years to get the record industry to understand that people dont want DRM control in their music. They finally have backed down on forcing DRM into music as evidneced by the Amazon music store. If D* stood their ground who knows what may have happened. Sorry I'm a principal guy at heart.


----------



## ub1934 (Dec 30, 2005)

Juppers said:



> I'll just switch away from PPV purchases and go back to DVD rentals. Problem solved for me.


 At least there for $ 3.99 you get to keep them for 2 days


----------



## ToddinVA (Mar 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Because more people will see the recording in their list... then the little mail icon "lit" up.
> 
> And they can explain it more in a 2 minute clip video... then a static text message in the mail/message feature.


Wow, I follow this stuff and this recording was the first I've heard of this. Oh well, they just guaranteed that I'll probably never order another PPV movie. Stupid Hollywood....


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

rahlquist said:


> All I am saying is that sometimes the best option i to stand your ground. Look its taken how many years to get the record industry to understand that people dont want DRM control in their music. They finally have backed down on forcing DRM into music as evidneced by the Amazon music store. If D* stood their ground who knows what may have happened. Sorry I'm a principal guy at heart.


As has been mentioned, the DVR crowd would have little impact. Kind of like a rabbit standing up to a cougar. The largest segment of PPV movie buyers are the non-DVR crowd. They won't be directly affected by this whatsoever.


----------



## Frank5575 (Nov 1, 2006)

Not sure if this was said or not, but here's my two cents...

I personally have know problem with a "rental" expiring, Micro$oft, Apple, and others have the same 24 hour period. That to me is where the problem lies - 24 Hours. Why 24 and not 27 or 30?

Think about it; I come home from work, have dinner, play with the kids and begin my movie at 8:00PM; I dose off and need to watch the rest tomorrow...well I come home from work, have dinner, play with the kids and then decide to watch the rest of my movie. Well what do you know it's 8:00PM and my 24 Hours has EXPIRED - NO MOVIE. This is easily remedied with a 27 or 30 Hour time limit...makes sense to me????


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

Just watch. Next, DirecTV will be forced to remove the "slip" and "skip" options from the DVR because it is used to skip over commercials. When will it all end?


----------



## ToddinVA (Mar 5, 2006)

Frank5575 said:


> Not sure if this was said or not, but here's my two cents...
> 
> I personally have know problem with a "rental" expiring, Micro$oft, Apple, and others have the same 24 hour period. That to me is where the problem lies - 24 Hours. Why 24 and not 27 or 30?
> 
> Think about it; I come home from work, have dinner, play with the kids and begin my movie at 8:00PM; I dose off and need to watch the rest tomorrow...well I come home from work, have dinner, play with the kids and then decide to watch the rest of my movie. Well what do you know it's 8:00PM and my 24 Hours has EXPIRED - NO MOVIE. This is easily remedied with a 27 or 30 Hour time limit...makes sesne to me????


+1, big time!!


----------



## taonut (Dec 14, 2006)

Perhaps this has more to do with the final resolution of the writer's strike. It ensures that they are paid per showing of the movie. 

I wouldn't be as PO'd if the price of the PPV went down to a couple of bucks. I pay more for a cup of coffee these days.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

ThomasM said:


> Just watch. Next, DirecTV will be forced to remove the "slip" and "skip" options from the DVR because it is used to skip over commercials. When will it all end?


What does that have to do with the PPV expiration situation? Last time I checked, PPVs didn't have commercials to skip through.


----------



## srtpusher (Jan 25, 2007)

well, i can foresee not only movies but soon any television show may have time limits. there has been a great popularity for box set tv series so why wouldn't they do the same thing?


remember how divx failed? i guess the movie industry doesn't...


----------



## Jaytee946 (Jan 29, 2008)

ThomasM said:


> Just watch. Next, DirecTV will be forced to remove the "slip" and "skip" options from the DVR because it is used to skip over commercials. When will it all end?


Not to get off subject, but remember reading years ago (another web blog) that TIVO had devoloped either software or chip for their units that would automatically skip commercials during recorded payback, but the TV moguls somehow got that stopped? Any comment?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Jaytee946 said:


> Not to get off subject, but remember reading years ago (another web blog) that TIVO had devoloped either software or chip for their units that would automatically skip commercials during recorded payback, but the TV moguls somehow got that stopped? Any comment?


That was ReplayTV... and was one of the main reasons why they got into "trouble"


----------



## tonyc (Jun 12, 2006)

Directv Pay Per View selection has not been very good. it was better when the had a deal with blockbuster movies.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I still haven't heard if E* and cable have to abide by this as well.


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

Well...on Xbox Live Marketplace here is what we have: Movie Rentals are downloads that expire after a certain period of time (for example, a 14-day rental). After you start watching the movie, play it as often as you want for 24 hours, after which the rental expires.

So after downloading/buying, you get 14 days to start watching and then 24 hours after you start watching it.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/marketplace/moviestv/vmp101/default.htm


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

theratpatrol said:


> I still haven't heard if E* and cable have to abide by this as well.


they do indeed have to abide by this


----------



## lbacker52 (Jan 14, 2007)

curt8403 said:


> they do indeed have to abide by this


Then where is their announcement and if it is not d's decision,where is Dish Net announcement?


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

The one question that I haven't seen asked here is how Directv expects this policy to benefit their bottom line. I don't see how they can make one penny of profit off this policy, while they run the risk of sending many of their PPV customers back to Blockbuster.

If anyone can show me how this can be profitable to Directv, I am willing to listen.


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> If anyone can show me how this can be profitable to Directv, I am willing to listen.


Was PPV profitable for DirecTV before DVRs became the average setup?


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

PoitNarf said:


> Was PPV profitable for DirecTV before DVRs became the average setup?


I'm guessing it is, or we would see fewer PPV channels.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Sander said:


> Bad enough I can no longer burn DVD's from my PPV-HD downloads. Now, even those recorded on my HR20 and my TiVo2 will disappear after 24 hrs.
> 
> **** on the customers -- make them pay, and pay, and pay, and.......


If it's a DirecTiVo series 2, it will NOT be affected, meaning the 24hr limit will not apply.......at least for now.

This is listed on their website.

This may make those PPV movie junkies ditch the DirecTV DVR's and go back to TiVo units! HeHe.


----------



## hbkbiggestfan (May 25, 2007)

I don't know if it has been answered in this thread yet or not, and I don't want to read through all 19 pages just to get it. Is this effective for PPV Events also?


----------



## Blurayfan (Nov 16, 2005)

hbkbiggestfan said:


> I don't know if it has been answered in this thread yet or not, and I don't want to read through all 19 pages just to get it. Is this effective for PPV Events also?


NO, sports or events PPV (boxing, wrestling, UFC, music concerts, etc.) are not subject to the 24 Hour expiration.


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

Netflix..they must be happy.....I know this will increase my business with them!


----------



## d0ug (Mar 22, 2006)

This change in policy guarantees I won’t be ordering any more PPV movies. I guess it wont really be a big loss on their part from me, since I was already a light PPV purchaser, but I liked being able to keep the HD movies on my DVR, especially while waiting for the HD-DVD/BluRay format war to settle out. This was one of the reasons I purchased a 1TB drive for my HR20

I did end up buying into HD-DVD in late nov of last year. Sucks that the format lost, but I’ve taken advantage of the sales, especially circuit city’s 50% off sale last week to build up a nice library of movies. These should keep me satisfied until profile 2.0 BluRay player prices drop below $200, course by that time there will probably be a profile 3 or 4. One of the reasons I dislike BluRay, It's an unfinalized format. Unlike HD-DVD which has had all the features of profile 2.0 BD since it was finalized years ago

I'll just stick with renting physical media, unless there is a policy change, at least something a bit more reasonable, 48-72 hours would be nice. For the prices they charge for PPV, I feel even non DVR subscribers should be given a 48-72 hour window in which to tune to one of the PPV channels with their purchase to watch the movie. I never purchased PPV before getting a DVR because of the small viewing window.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

leww37334 said:


> The one question that I haven't seen asked here is how Directv expects this policy to benefit their bottom line. I don't see how they can make one penny of profit off this policy, while they run the risk of sending many of their PPV customers back to Blockbuster.
> 
> If anyone can show me how this can be profitable to Directv, I am willing to listen.


DirecTV may be well aware that this particular action may mean somewhat of a drop in their PPV sales, but they did not make this decision themselves and they can't do anything about it except abide by it or possibly lose PPV all together if they don't. It has been dictated by the studios (as has been mentioned several times in this thread), it's not something that DirecTV decided to do themselves.

And as PoitNarf stated, they still do a lot of PPV business with non-DVR customers. I would venture to guess a much larger segment of non-DVR users make up the greater number of PPV buys - and they aren't affected by this new policy at all. This will be much more of a 'blip' to DirecTV than a 'speed bump'.


----------



## lbacker52 (Jan 14, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well enjoy using Blockbuster then, or the other options.
> 
> No one said you have to use PPV.
> 
> ...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

lbacker52 said:


> Then where is their announcement and if it is not d's decision,where is Dish Net announcement?


Just like you didn't hear about this until DirecTV had to implement it...

When Dish Networks renewal of their PPV contract comes up, I bet you will see it then.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Just like you didn't hear about this until DirecTV had to implement it...
> 
> When Dish Networks renewal of their PPV contract comes up, I bet you will see it then.


Why would you bet we will see it then?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

jjohns said:


> Why would you bet we will see it then?


When do you think we'll see it, if not then?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> Why would you bet we will see it then?


Are they just going to make the change... without announcing it then?

So yes... I expect to see an announcement from Dish and every other carrier, when their contrat renewal with the PPV content owners are renewed.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

No fair answering a question with a question.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> No fair answering a question with a question.


Fine...

No company would make an unpopular announcement (like this is), until they have to. Hence, Dish Network and other carriers will not make an announcement of their changes, until it is closer to the implementation date.

Just like DirecTV didn't make a statement on this until late last month, when it was originally rumored late in January; early February.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Oh, okay then. 
I thought you had some sort of inside information on what the Dish Network was going to do - but just conjecture. Thanks for the 411.


----------



## sdicomp (Sep 12, 2006)

wildbill129 said:


> Netflix..they must be happy.....I know this will increase my business with them!


My local video store will be happy as well!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

sdicomp said:


> My local video store will be happy as well!


And that is exactly what the studios want.

They want to re-invigerate the rental market, as that is a major portion of their revenue.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And that is exactly what the studios want.
> 
> They want to re-invigerate the rental market, as that is a major portion of their revenue.


So...the studios put the 24 hour restriction on the PPV's because they don't want you to use them.

That's a good one.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> So...the studios put the 24 hour restriction on the PPV's because they don't want you to use them.
> 
> That's a good one.


What part of this entire discussion have you missed.

The studios are the ones that requested the 24 retention on the DVRs after it has been paid for.

Yes... because they want it to expire... so that you have to re-purchase it... instead of keeping it for longer period of times.

Or so that you go out and go and get it from another source (like purchasing the DVD, or from the rental markets... )

So yes... that is exactly what I am saying.
They want you to use PPV's the way it was intended... Pay *PER* View.


----------



## Barmat (Aug 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Or so that you go out and go and get it from another source (like purchasing the DVD, or from the rental markets... )
> 
> *PER* View.


Or downloading it for free from bittorrent. Will the studios never learn.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Barmat said:


> Or downloading it for free from bittorrent. Will the studios never learn.


I think they have learned... since some of the major "casual" bittorent sites are no more....

They have learned where to pick their battles to have the biggest impact on that aspect.


----------



## cmtar (Nov 16, 2005)

does this include sport events?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cmtar said:


> does this include sport events?


No


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

This thread started a month ago. It is amusing to see the outrage, surprise, and same old questions already addressed 19 pages ago repeat themselves. I predict in a year from now, someone will dredge this thread up from archive with an outraged reply and it will start all over again. You saw it here first ! :lol:


----------



## Mike-SVT (Sep 24, 2007)

I got a DVR so I could record and time-shift anything I want so I can view it when it is convenient for me. A twenty-four hour time period is NOT reasonable.

*Listen up DirecTV - keep your PPV movies as I won't be purchasing any.*


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

See, the thing is, it doesn't matter what you think. Doesn't matter what I think. It just is, and it is a decision apparently taken by the content owners. Chill. Don't buy PPV, it's of no import.



Mike-SVT said:


> I got a DVR so I could record and time-shift anything I want so I can view it when it is convenient for me. A twenty-four hour time period is NOT reasonable.
> 
> *Listen up DirecTV - keep your PPV movies as I won't be purchasing any.*


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Mike-SVT said:


> I got a DVR so I could record and time-shift anything I want so I can view it when it is convenient for me. A twenty-four hour time period is NOT reasonable.
> 
> *Listen up DirecTV - keep your PPV movies as I won't be purchasing any.*


But that isn't changing....

The 24 hour clock... doesn't start until you pay for the movie...
Which you do, when you start playback of the movie.

So if it is not convenient for you to watch it when you record it... that hasn't changed.... You can record it today... watch it on Saturday when it is convient.

What you won't be able to do... is watch it again, after 24 hours... unless you want to pay for it again.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

24 hours is too restrictive. Why not a week, at least?

This new policy ASSURES I will never order a DirecTV pay-per-view movie again.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

That is certainly an available option to you. I'm not sure if it will change my family's PPV habits or not. It probably won't. We only do 2-3 a month anyway. 
For us the kids movies is going to be where it's a pain. My kid will watch the same movie 100 times.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Mine, too. We buy DVD's for the kiddies. Personally, with rare exception, I can't watch something more than once - once I know how it goes, it doesn't hold my interest anymore. Even worse, if I recognize a recycled plot line, it ruins a new movie for me too, unless, of course, some beautiful new actress is going to show something 



HDTVsportsfan said:


> That is certainly an available option to you. I'm not sure if it will change my family's PPV habits or not. It probably won't. We only do 2-3 a month anyway.
> For us the kids movies is going to be where it's a pain. My kid will watch the same movie 100 times.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

jrinck said:


> 24 hours is too restrictive. Why not a week, at least?
> 
> This new policy ASSURES I will never order a DirecTV pay-per-view movie again.


Again, this isn't DirecTV. It's the movie studios doing it. And everyone else will be doing the same thing as well soon enough.

Personally, PPV is just a waste of money for me and always has been. I can get the same movie for "free" on the movie channels a couple months later or if I'm that hard up for the movie I can just go rent the DVD or even buy it.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

bonscott87 said:


> Again, this isn't DirecTV. It's the movie studios doing it. And everyone else will be doing the same thing as well soon enough.
> 
> Personally, PPV is just a waste of money for me and always has been. I can get the same movie for "free" on the movie channels a couple months later or if I'm that hard up for the movie I can just go rent the DVD or even buy it.


It doesn't matter who is responsible--the net result is that I'm not buying.

I don't like someone telling me when I should watch something--it's one of the reasons why I have a DVR.

Be afraid when crap like this gets pushed through. "Selective Ad-Skip Blocking" isn't going to be too far behind, which will be when a broadcaster either pays extra or otherwise mandates that commercial skipping be blocked for a particular show or broadcast.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jrinck said:


> 24 hours is too restrictive. Why not a week, at least?
> 
> This new policy ASSURES I will never order a DirecTV pay-per-view movie again.


How many times are you going to watch the movie in a week?

Again... the clock starts when you start to watch the movie... not when you download it.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> How many times are you going to watch the movie in a week?


Once--but as others have said--I might start watching it, but not be able to finish it all at once.

A week should give plenty of time, though.

This is one of the reasons why Netflix is so popular. It isn't just about avoiding late fees--it's about watching the movie on your own schedule--whatever that may be--one day, two days, three days--whatever.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

jrinck said:


> It doesn't matter who is responsible--the net result is that I'm not buying.
> 
> I don't like someone telling me when I should watch something--it's one of the reasons why I have a DVR.
> 
> Be afraid when crap like this gets pushed through. "Selective Ad-Skip Blocking" isn't going to be too far behind, which will be when a broadcaster either pays extra or otherwise mandates that commercial skipping be blocked for a particular show or broadcast.


It does sort of run contradictive to having a dvr doesn't it?


----------



## patertz (Apr 8, 2008)

kentuck1163 said:


> All it will take for most subscribers is to have one instance of paying for a movie which it turns out they cannot watch (or watch to completion without paying a second time) and that will be the last time they use PPV.
> 
> I think there will be market reaction, for sure.


I regularly ordered 2-3 movies a week on PPV, but never watch them that day. So what can you do? Well, I have already removed all the PPV channels from my "Favorites". Out of sight out of mind. there's an old saying, "pigs get fed, hogs go to slaughter" The Studios went Oink! Oink!

I'll just wait till they're free. Sooner (rather than later) they all come out on HBO, SHO, etc. We should all boycott PPV! The Studios need to be reminded of the basic concept of "supply & demand".


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

jjohns said:


> It does sort of run contradictive to having a dvr doesn't it?


Yes, but I do understand the point. Keeping the movie forever is like buying the DVD for the pay-per-view price.

But 24 hours isn't nearly enough time, at least for me. There has to be a way to appease everyone, and I propose that one week will work just fine for that.


----------



## d0ug (Mar 22, 2006)

jjohns said:


> It does sort of run contradictive to having a dvr doesn't it?


It's not really contradictive to the use of a DVR. The primary purpose of the DVR as sold by the cable and sat companies to time shift a show, which they will still fully be capable of doing even if they block the ability to FF though commercials.

This shows that DirecTV is willing to bend over and take it up the a** for the media companies. How long till someone big like ESPN or Disney says "We won't be renewing the contract to carry our channels without the ability to block FF through commercials"


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jrinck said:


> Yes, but I do understand the point. Keeping the movie forever is like buying the DVD for the pay-per-view price.
> 
> But 24 hours isn't nearly enough time, at least for me. There has to be a way to appease everyone, and I propose that one week will work just fine for for that.


"Live" no retention time... seems to work pretty good for non-dvr users (the primary users of PPV).

So 24 hours after the purchase time....

I understand that some may be busy... and can't sit still for 3 hours to watch a full movie....

But how many of you actually take multiple days to watch 1 movie?

The 24 hour clock starts when you PLAY (not record) the movie..


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

You know - I see that argument a lot, but I don't understand it. Why sit down and start a movie if you can't finish it ? My God, what do you do when you go to a theatre ? "Theatre manager sir, would you please pause the movie ? I have a disruption, and I would like to come back in 3 days and finish it" :lol:

I have kids, I had once a job full of disruptions. I still managed to 99% of the time schedule a simple 2 hour block without disruption. Those of you without kids, or are still kids yourselves, you can't possibly have any excuse beyond time-management issues.



jrinck said:


> Once--but as others have said--I might start watching it, but not be able to finish it all at once.
> 
> A week should give plenty of time, though.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why Netflix is so popular. It isn't just about avoiding late fees--it's about watching the movie on your own schedule--whatever that may be--one day, two days, three days--whatever.


----------



## rcpilot82 (Oct 13, 2006)

Even though I am a little upset about the 24 hour PPV restriction I can't complain because most movie rental companies in this area allow only 24 hours for new releases anyway. However, if DirecTV reduced the price of its PPV movies then there would still be advantages to purchase though DTV rather than roaming the rental stores.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But how many of you actually take multiple days to watch 1 movie?


It happens all the time at my house. No worries though, I'm done with PPV.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

d0ug said:


> It's not really contradictive to the use of a DVR. The primary purpose of the DVR as sold by the cable and sat companies to time shift a show, which they will still fully be capable of doing even if they block the ability to FF though commercials.
> 
> This shows that DirecTV is willing to bend over and take it up the a** for the media companies. How long till someone big like ESPN or Disney says "We won't be renewing the contract to carry our channels without the ability to block FF through commercials"


So what does DirecTV do then in that scenerio?

Refuse to carry ESPN or Disney? or comply to still carry the content.
The content owners legaly control the content.... so unless there are some laws or changes to the fact...

We then go back to how we watched TV for decades before DVRs...
Leaving the room to do something else when a commercial is on...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

raott said:


> It happens all the time at my house. No worries though, I'm done with PPV.


Really? All the time? 
And I thought my life style was hectic... we usually find a good solid few hours to sit and watch a movie at least a couple times a month...


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Really? All the time?
> And I thought my life style was hectic... we usually find a good solid few hours to sit and watch a movie at least a couple times a month...


Yes, really, all the time.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

raott said:


> Yes, really, all the time.


Well...... at least you then have the rental market... which fits your lifestyle even better (And works better for them as well).


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Not to mention - if you watch a movie in 10-15 minute segments, interrrupted by days of other activities, that sure ruins the flow of a good movie. Unless, of course, raott refers to porn, in which case, disruptions mean nothing, the plot never varies.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> "Live" no retention time... seems to work pretty good for non-dvr users (the primary users of PPV).
> 
> So 24 hours after the purchase time....
> 
> ...


But many people PAY for the right to use their DVR, and a big selling point of DVRs is to time-shift shows.

This tactic is limiting the use of the DVR technology that we are paying for.

And how many days does it take to watch a movie? Here's my current example...

*DAY ONE:* Received "Ocean's Thirteen" from Netflix. Started watching. Got interrupted. Couldn't finish. No problem--I wasn't time constrained.
*DAY TWO: * Too busy--did not resume watching. No problem, as I wasn't time constrained.
*DAY THREE (today):* I plan on finishing it. Good thing I wasn't time constrained by some stupid MBA bean-counters, or else I'd be SOL.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

And another option they could have considered is to give you a free week of time to watch the movie, and then GIVE YOU THE OPTION to keep it for an additional period of time, either a few more days, or indefinite, for an added fee. Sort of like a DIVX approach but without a bunch of wasteful discs floating around.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

JeffBowser said:


> Not to mention - if you watch a movie in 10-15 minute segments, interrrupted by days of other activities, that sure ruins the flow of a good movie. Unless, of course, raott refers to porn, in which case, disruptions mean nothing, the plot never varies.


Who pays for pRon?


----------



## shortcut (Dec 17, 2006)

I haven't seen anyone mention it, so I thought I would. I noticed a Spotlight<?> recorded that notified of the change to 24hrs for PPV. I am at work now and I don't remember the actual wording. I guess others have gotten this also already?...


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

shortcut said:


> I haven't seen anyone mention it, so I thought I would. I noticed a Spotlight<?> recorded that notified of the change to 24hrs for PPV. I am at work now and I don't remember the actual wording. I guess others have gotten this also already?...


I first noticed it last night.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

yeah it was discussed yesterday a few times - not sure where.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Better still - who watches ? BORING. Real life is much better 



raott said:


> Who pays for pRon?


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Week would be fine for me.. Wife and I work opposite shifts, so I might watch a movie and then recommend/save it for her to watch later.. 24hrs is way too short..


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

When my wife and I were briefly on different time schedules, we'd wait until we were both off to watch. I still think it's just a scheduling issue, and not an earth shattering, soul crushing, lawsuit worthy scourge some would have us believe. 



houskamp said:


> Week would be fine for me.. Wife and I work opposite shifts, so I might watch a movie and then recommend/save it for her to watch later.. 24hrs is way too short..


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> DirecTV may be well aware that this particular action may mean somewhat of a drop in their PPV sales, but they did not make this decision themselves and they can't do anything about it except abide by it or possibly lose PPV all together if they don't. It has been dictated by the studios (as has been mentioned several times in this thread), it's not something that DirecTV decided to do themselves.
> 
> And as PoitNarf stated, they still do a lot of PPV business with non-DVR customers. I would venture to guess a much larger segment of non-DVR users make up the greater number of PPV buys - and they aren't affected by this new policy at all. This will be much more of a 'blip' to DirecTV than a 'speed bump'.


This is the point I was trying to make, if this 24 hour policy is not profitable to Directv, then why would they do it, unless they were forced into it by outside influences.

I don't think we can blame Directv for this one.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

leww37334 said:


> This is the point I was trying to make, if this 24 hour policy is not profitable to Directv, then why would they do it, unless they were forced into it by outside influences.
> 
> I don't think we can blame Directv for this one.


You can blame them for not fighting hard enough to stop it. I don't think they were forced into anything.

The studios don't care, as they profit no matter what--if I don't get the PPV from DirecTV, I'll still watch the movie some other way. That other way won't involve DirecTV, though.

In the end, it's DirecTV who are the sole losers here.

Smart business decision.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

You're kidding right? :lol:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jrinck said:


> You can blame them for not fighting hard enough to stop it. I don't think they were forced into anything.
> 
> The studios don't care, as they profit no matter what--if I don't get the PPV from DirecTV, I'll still watch the movie some other way. That other way won't involve DirecTV, though.
> 
> ...


-) No changes to the non-dvr systems (which account for more then 70% of their user base)

-) For DVR users:
---- PPV for 24 hours after purchase....
Or --- No PPV Movie content. for DVR or possible all of DirecTV users...

Yah... seems like a pretty smart business decision


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> -) No changes to the non-dvr systems (which account for more then 70% of their user base)
> 
> -) For DVR users:
> ---- PPV for 24 hours after purchase....
> ...


Is that really what they were faced with? Did the studios give that ultimatum to DirecTV? Either impose the 24 hour restriction, or no PPV?

I think DirecTV simply folded without a fight.

So if the big content providers decide they don't like FF, we're all doomed?

What if they also decide they don't like DVRs? So we should say goodbye to them?

DirecTV made a decision that will hurt their PPV sales. Plain and simple. And it opens up the door to all sorts of viewer-unfriendly practices.

Every DVR user just lost some use of their DVR, and none of us should be happy about this or rationalize is as good in any way. It is NOT good for us.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jrinck said:


> Is that really what they were faced with? Did the studios give that ultimatum to DirecTV? Either impose the 24 hour restriction, or no PPV?


We don't know... but can you give a plausable explanation on why DirecTV would agree to something that will hurt THEIR revenue stream?



jrinck said:


> So if the big content providers decide they don't like FF, we're all doomed?
> What if they also decide they don't like DVRs? So we should say goodbye to them?


Yes... they own the content... and the law allows them to protect it and control the way they determin.

If they decide to go that route... then yes.
Look at Replay TV... they were the first to have advertising auto-skips... and was the focus points that they were attacked on... and one of the reasons we talk about TiVo today... more so then we talk about Replay.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> We don't know... but can you give a plausable explanation on why DirecTV would agree to something that will hurt THEIR revenue stream?
> 
> Yes... they own the content... and the law allows them to protect it and control the way they determin.
> 
> ...


Well, I do agree with that. My whole argument is that 24 hours is too restrictive for me and it will curtail my PPV purchasing on DirecTV.

I'm sure DirecTV could have bartered to give us more time to watch the content we pay for, but it doesn't look like they cared to. Their loss, as I'll just pay somebody ELSE to deliver the content to me.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jrinck said:


> Well, I do agree with that. My whole argument is that 24 hours is too restrictive for me and it will curtail my PPV purchasing on DirecTV.
> 
> I'm sure DirecTV could have bartered to give us more time to watch the content we pay for, but it doesn't look like they cared to. Their loss, as I'll just pay somebody ELSE to deliver the content to me.


I wasn't there... so I can't say for sure..

But when you have three major players: Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon (from recent reports they have a 24 view rule now as well for downloads)...

That have already agreed to those terms... You are going to have a very difficult time getting someone to agree to something different.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

Me and my wife rarely watch PPV anymore. Especially now with the 24 hour limit. One way I guess around that is set my DVD player to burn it at the same time it is recording and then be able to watch it when I want. Is that possible?

But, now I have found Netflix and love that. I get my BluRay's and keep it until I am able to watch it.

I don't think it is a good decision for the movie studio's to do this. But, I also see why they want this done.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I wasn't there... so I can't say for sure..
> 
> But when you have three major players: Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon (from recent reports they have a 24 view rule now as well for downloads)...
> 
> That have already agreed to those terms... You are going to have a very difficult time getting someone to agree to something different.


Until Netflix starts imposing limits like this, I'll continue to subscribe to THEIR service.

And didn't Circuit City's DIVX model fail for essentially this same reason? You only had 48 hours to watch the movie and then you'd be locked out. That was in addition to the PIA method of getting the discs and the disposal/storage hassles.

This is like DIVX without the disc, and we all know how DIVX turned out. And hey, even crappy DIVX gave more time to watch the content! Holy hell, talk about regression!


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

Has E* done the same with the 24 hour viewing window?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jrinck said:


> Until Netflix starts imposing limits like this, I'll continue to subscribe to THEIR service.
> 
> And didn't Circuit City's DIVX model fail for essentially this same reason? You only had 48 hours to watch the movie and then you'd be locked out. That was in addition to the PIA method of getting the discs and the disposal/storage hassles.
> 
> This is like DIVX without the disc, and we all know how DIVX turned out. And hey, even crappy DIVX gave more time to watch the content! Holy hell, talk about regression!


DiVX failed for a lot of reasons... And we can have that debate.
And yes... the model of payment didn't help... but there were a lot of factors why it failed.

But what this discussion constantly keeps overlooking...

This has NO impact to the larger population of PPV users... the non-dvr people. Nothing has changed for them.

In the bigger picture this has an impact on a very small population of users that kept PPV recordings on their hard drive for long lengths of time.

It doesn't have an impact on those people that:

-) Find the time to sit and watch a movie to completion on the first viewing
-) Record and Buy/Watch later... once

It does have an impact on those that purchase PPV's for lower costs... but kept the recordings as an "online-dvd" that they can access over and over and over again.

It does have an impact on those that have such hectic lives, that they can't watch a movie in a single sitting (or with in a 24 hour period).

And honestly... those that fall into those later cases... the other avenues (like NetFlix and purchasing DVD's) are designed and more appropriate.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

SDizzle said:


> Has E* done the same with the 24 hour viewing window?


Nope, not yet.


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

jrinck said:


> I'm sure DirecTV could have bartered to give us more time to watch the content we pay for, but it doesn't look like they cared to. Their loss, as I'll just pay somebody ELSE to deliver the content to me.


Maybe they did. As Earl states, he wasn't there, and I am going to assume that your weren't either.

Maybe the studios wanted to literally enfore Pay Per *View* and Directv said, that's not going to fly. How about letting our customers have the PPV for 24 hours? And the studios agree.

That would be a great example of Directv going to bat for you. But you assume that they don't care about their customers or revenue stream and are punishing you because the studios won't allow the PPV to be had for greater than 24 hours.

Time to explore your other options - Netflix, Redbox, etc.


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Nope, not yet.


I bet they will real soon. But, maybe not, we know Charlie likes to go to court.:lol:


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But what this discussion constantly keeps overlooking...
> 
> This has NO impact to the larger population of PPV users... the non-dvr people. Nothing has changed for them.


But isn't the trend that DVRs are being adopted at a very high rate? Today, this issue applies to a small few, relatively, but in the future it will apply to a much larger percentage.

But with policies like this, though, the growing rate of adoption of DVRs is sure to slow down, and I'm sure DirecTV loves the revenue they stand to gain by getting a DVR in every customer's home.

It's really a flawed execution of an otherwise reasonable idea. Give me five days and I'm a content guy. Give me only 24 hours and I'm not.

Only time will tell if the market is filled with more "jrincks" than not. Hopefully, for the sake of humanity, let's hope it's not.


----------



## Brent04 (Nov 23, 2004)

Like Earl has said, its PPV (Pay *Per* View) not POVMT (Pay Once View Multiple Times). If the movie studios had their way they would want you to pay for the movie each time you viewed it to get the most money. So if you watched the movie 5 times in a 24 how time they really would want you to pay for the movie each of the 5 times. I'm surprised that the movie studios did not make it a requirement that once the recording was over that it just automatically deleted the move instead of even giving you the option not to delete for the first 24 hours.


----------



## Brent04 (Nov 23, 2004)

Also does anyone remember before DirecTV even had DVR's and the ADT (All Day Ticket) when you paid for the movie and could only watch it for the specific time and channel you purchased it for? How new technology spoils people.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Brent04 said:


> Also does anyone remember before DirecTV even had DVR's and the ADT (All Day Ticket) when you paid for the movie and could only watch it for the specific time and channel you purchased it for? How new technology spoils people.


That is the whole motivation to improve technology, though--to make things better than they were before.

Remember when it would take ten months to go from New York City to Philadelphia? (well, no, we don't, but I'm sure it sucked). But now we have cars and highways. With backward thinking, though, I'm sure the horse traders would have prevailed and killed the automobile before it had a chance to take over.

So you'd be more worried about feeding your horse Beefarino than you would be about the price of gasoline.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jrinck said:


> But isn't the trend that DVRs are being adopted at a very high rate? Today, this issue applies to a small few, relatively, but in the future it will apply to a much larger percentage.
> 
> But with policies like this, though, the growing rate of adoption of DVRs is sure to slow down, and I'm sure DirecTV loves the revenue they stand to gain by getting a DVR in every customer's home.
> 
> ...


Honestly... DVRs by their nature are an issue to the entire PPV model.

Why? Since I got a DVR... I haven't purchased a PPV.
I have more TV shows/movies, from broadcast Television... that I just don't get PPV movies...

I have PPVed a few UFC as of late, but that is because of parties and friends over.

PPV with VOD downloads, online access to other programs and libraries...

That is the trend it is heading


----------



## Brent04 (Nov 23, 2004)

jrinck said:


> That is the whole motivation to improve technology, though--to make things better than they were before.
> 
> Remember when it would take ten months to go from New York City to Philadelphia? (well, no, we don't, but I'm sure it sucked). But now we have cars and highways. With backward thinking, though, I'm sure the horse traders would have prevailed and killed the automobile before it had a chance to take over.
> 
> So you'd be more worried about feeding your horse Beefarino than you would be about the price of gasoline.


But remember that the movie and music companies have making the most money on the top of their mind. So they would like it if you had to pay a fee each time you watched a movie or listened to a song. The goal of the movie and music companies is not to improve technology but to make money.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Honestly... DVRs by their nature are an issue to the entire PPV model.
> 
> Why? Since I got a DVR... I haven't purchased a PPV.
> I have more TV shows/movies, from broadcast Television... that I just don't get PPV movies...
> ...


This isn't going to make you buy any MORE PPVs, though.

Maybe the whole concept of "Pay Per View" needs to change, then. Instead of "Per View", they could just treat it like a rental, but with a specific time frame...

You "purchase" it, then you have five days to watch it. Having the DVR makes this possible. After the five days, you are given the option to either keep it (on your same, said handy DVR) for an extra fee, or delete it.

It's the perfect use of the technology, and doesn't come with any unfriendly restrictions.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Brent04 said:


> But remember that the movie and music companies have making the most money on the top of their mind. So they would like it if you had to pay a fee each time you watched a movie or listen to a song. The goal of the movie and music companies is not to improve technology but to make money.


They should know from the failure of the RIAA that this model doesn't work, and only serves to promote piracy.

A smart and lasting business uses technology to its full extent and does not look to destroy it.


----------



## Brent04 (Nov 23, 2004)

jrinck said:


> They should know from the failure of the RIAA that this model doesn't work, and only serves to promote piracy.
> 
> A smart and lasting business uses technology to its full extent and does not look to destroy it.


That's the movie and music companies for you  Like when digital music players came out. The music companies would want them off the market because it is new technology that does not let them have control of "their content" hence the digital rights management and all the other things the movie and music industry make a requirement so they have the control.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jrinck said:


> This isn't going to make you buy any MORE PPVs, though.
> 
> Maybe the whole concept of "Pay Per View" needs to change, then. Instead of "Per View", they could just treat it like a rental, but with a specific time frame...
> 
> ...


So how is that better then the model that it is today...

You record it today....
You purchase/watch it 5 days from now when you a ready to watch it. (or 15-31 days from now... when ever you get the chance to watch the recording)


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Their loss for me and people I know

I tend to DVR them and watch them later whenever I can. Then I delete it after I watch it.

I have a busy life so I may not watch things for awhile after I DVR them OR when I do want to watch them, they either may NOT be on or their times don't mix for me on that day.

I will move to another source of watching Movies now with my PS3 so Netflix or Blockbuster may get my business now


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

DawgLink said:


> Their loss for me and people I know
> 
> I tend to DVR them and watch them later whenever I can. Then I delete it after I watch it.
> 
> ...


How has that changed?

You can still DVR them now.... and watch them when you want to...
You don't pay for it until you watch it....


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:



> How has that changed?
> 
> You can still DVR them now.... and watch them when you want to...
> You don't pay for it until you watch it....


I was under the mistaken assumption that when you DVR it, the clock started ticking

I still don't like how it deletes 24 hours after you purchase it. I may watch an hour and leave and want to watch the rest the next day


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So how is that better then the model that it is today...
> 
> You record it today....
> You purchase/watch it 5 days from now when you a ready to watch it. (or 15-31 days from now... when ever you get the chance to watch the recording)


24 hours is not enough time, whereas five days IS enough time, or should be.

In other words, if you can't commit to watching it within the next week, then don't buy it. Just wait until next week.

Some may say that if you can't watch it within the next 24 hours that you shouldn't buy it, but all it takes is one distraction and then that's blown. Anyone who gets distracted to the point where they can't watch a movie within five days, though, isn't a good candidate to watch anything.

Once again, I agree with the concept; I just think that the time frame is too restrictive and can easily be relaxed a bit without compromising security or revenue.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I wasn't there... so I can't say for sure..
> 
> But when you have three major players: Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon (from recent reports they have a 24 view rule now as well for downloads)...
> 
> That have already agreed to those terms... You are going to have a very difficult time getting someone to agree to something different.


Some of the terms and conditions for related services (blue emphasis is mine):

*Amazon Unbox*:
* 30-day storage of unviewed content
* 24-hours after viewing starts

Amazon Unbox Terms of Service, section 4(a):


> *a. Rental Digital Content.* Upon your payment of the rental fee, Amazon grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to view, use and privately display for Non-Commercial, Private Use, the Rental Digital Content purchased by you, by way of one (1) non-portable Authorized Device (e.g., a laptop or desktop computer, TiVo® DVR) connected to the Service over the Internet as specified on the detail pages of the Rental Digital Content or other help or informational pages of the Service at the time of your payment. Unless otherwise designated on a detail page for Rental Digital Content, the license for Rental Digital Content is limited in its term and duration to thirty (30) days from your payment of the rental fee or twenty-four (24) hours from the time you start viewing the Rental Digital Content, whichever is sooner. Amazon may automatically delete Rental Digital Content that is beyond its limited license term from your Authorized Device, and you consent to such automatic deletion. You may not copy or move Rental Digital Content from its originally stored location on your Authorized Device. There can only be 1 (one) account for the Service on an Authorized Device.


*Apple iTunes*:
* 30-day storage of unviewed content
* 24-hours after viewing starts

iTunes Terms and Conditions, section 9(b)(xiv)(cc):


> You have thirty (30) days after downloading a movie to begin viewing. Once you begin viewing, you have twenty-four (24) hours to view the movie (the "Viewing Period"). You may view the movie an unlimited number of times during the Viewing Period. Movies are not viewable after the thirty (30) day period. Stopping, pausing or restarting a movie does not extend the available time for viewing.


*X Box Live*:
* 14-day storage of unviewed content
* 24-hours after viewing starts

Xbox LIVE Terms of Use and Privacy Statement, section 11.2:


> 11.2 VOD Content
> Upon payment of the required fees, we shall grant you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license, subject to the terms of this contract, to view and privately display in your residence, for non-commercial purposes, solely on an Xbox 360 console, any VOD Content you obtain via the Service. The initial license to each item of VOD Content is limited in its term and duration to fourteen (14) days from its original date and time of download or twenty-four (24) hours from the start of its initial display and viewing, whichever occurs first (the "VOD Viewing Time"), unless otherwise specified as being limited to a shorter term at the time of purchase. Once a license to an item of VOD Content is obtained, a copy of such VOD Content will be saved to your Xbox 360 console for the VOD Viewing Time. Upon the expiration of the VOD Viewing Time, you will no longer be able to view the VOD Content without obtaining an additional license (provided an additional license is offered on the Service at such time). You may not copy or move the VOD Content from its originally stored location.


An even more related detail:

*Time Warner Cable On Demand*:
* Unspecified storage of unviewed content
* 24-hours after viewing starts

Time Warner's Frequently Asked Questions page:


> *Q: How long can I watch a Movies On Demand movie?
> A:* From the time you begin watching a Movies On Demand movie, you have unlimited access to it for 24 hours. You'll enjoy the power to pause, fast-forward, and rewind your movie so you'll never again miss a minute of the action because of life's interruptions.


*Cox Cable On Demand*:
* Unspecified storage of unviewed content
* 24-hours after viewing starts

Cox Cable On Demand FAQ


> *What is On DEMAND?*
> On DEMAND is an exciting new way to access movies and other video programming from the comfort of your home. With On DEMAND service, you can use your Cox Digital Cable remote control to select from hundreds of hit movies and other programming - controlling your selection with full VCR-like functionality. This means that you can start the film whenever you like, pause, rewind, fast-forward and view repeatedly within your 24-hour rental period. The best part is you never have to leave the comfort of your home and you also don't have the worry over late return fees.


*Charter Cable Pay-Per-View*:
* Unspecified storage of unviewed content
* 24-hours after viewing starts

Charter PPV FAQ:


> *What is the difference between Charter On Demand and Charter Pay-Per-View?*
> 
> Charter On Demand offers the flexibility and convenience of watching thousands of movies and shows that start anytime you want - many are FREE. You also have the ability to play, pause, rewind, and fast-forward On Demand programs using your remote. Additionally, any On Demand program you rent may be watched as often as you like within 24 hours of purchase.


*CableVision/Optimum Cable Pay-Per-View*:
* Unspecified storage of unviewed content
* 24-hours after viewing starts

Optimum's On-Demand page:


> Check out these hit movies that are now available on demand! Order any time you want -- only $4.95 each* for 24 hours of unlimited viewing.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Khelder...

Thank you for the work that went into building that post


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Kheldar said:


> Some of the terms and conditions for related services (blue emphasis is mine):


...and I won't be spending any money on any of them.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

kheldar - that took some time and research! Well done ...


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Three-way jinx! (At least two appreciated the effort.)


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I just have to laugh! :lol:

It's been said (many times, many ways!) that non-DVR users are the majority of PPV buyers. Taking this one step further, I would venture to guess that of the DVR users, the vast majority of those will take into account the 24 hour restriction, record the PPV, and take the time to sit and watch it - even those that feel 24 hours isn't enough. OK, so they take the extra effort to set aside the time to watch it all the way through.

I'm also guessing that it is a *very* small portion of the current PPV buying public that both (1) DO use DVRs AND (2) can't (or refuse to) adapt to the 24 hour restriction that will find other outlets. I just don't see this as any big hit to anybody's bottom line.

I really am amused by the almost militant arguements that this will be the downfall of DirecTV. Perspective, people, perspective!


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> I really am amused by the almost militant arguements that this will be the downfall of DirecTV. Perspective, people, perspective!


Who has said that this will be DirecTV's downfall?


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Drew2k said:


> Three-way jinx! (At least two appreciated the effort.)


I appreciate the effort of the research, but not what those companies are offering.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

JLucPicard said:


> I really am amused by the almost militant arguements that this will be the downfall of DirecTV. Perspective, people, perspective!


It's not the downfall of DirecTV, it's the downfall of the use of the technology as we know it.

As I mentioned before, get ready to have your FF button disabled during commercials. Why? Because the content providers don't like it, and they get what they want.

And has anyone else been noticing the sky is lower lately?


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Continuing from my previous post:

*Wide Open West*:
* Unspecified storage of unviewed content
* 24-hours after viewing starts

WOW's Cable VOD page:


> And you can watch as many times as you want, for up to 24 hours.


And, finally (this one took some time to dig up on their site), the big fish of them all:
*Comcast*:
* Unspecified storage of unviewed content
* 24-hours after viewing starts

Comcast On Demand FAQs:


> Can I stop my ON DEMAND movie and finish watching it later?
> 
> You can stop your movie anytime you want and it will be saved for up to 24 hours from the time you place your order (viewing times for some programs may vary). You may watch the movie more than once during that time.


E* appears to be the only major provider that doesn't state anything about a 24-hour limit on their site.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Kheldar said:


> Continuing from my previous post:
> 
> *Wide Open West*:
> * Unspecified storage of unviewed content
> ...


They're not getting my money, either. In fact, I'm going on a hunger strike until we get at least 72 hours. Now who's with me? Come on! Let's go! Yeaaaaaahhhh!


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

Maybe this will force familys to spend some more time together by having to watch the movie within 24 hours.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> Maybe this will force familys to spend some more time together by having to watch the movie within 24 hours.


Go back to 1930. This is the new America. We don't even breathe in the same room unless the controllers are wired.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> Maybe this will force familys to spend some more time together by having to watch the movie within 24 hours.


How many of those families don't already have a VCR attached to their receiver? So they can record the PPV on VHS for the little kiddies. In my experience, the kids don't care about a little picture degradation as long as they can watch the same Disney cartoon a dozen times a day.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

My point in my really long post (and the follow-up) comparing the other providers is this:
*This is not just a D* decision.* D* has publicly announced it to begin on 4/15, yes, but the Top 5 cable companies are already enforcing this limitation.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

Kheldar said:


> My point in my really long post (and the follow-up) comparing the other providers is this:
> *This is not just a D* decision.* D* has publicly announced it to begin on 4/15, yes, but the Top 5 cable companies are already enforcing this limitation.


And I didn't realize that at first, so thanks for confirming it.

I still don't like it, and wish DirecTV could have negotiated something better, which certainly would have been a huge competitive advantage to them, in addition to something nice for us.

But the MBA mentality of today dictates that even if it's a bad decision, it's OK if everyone else is doing it, too.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

Kheldar said:


> How many of those families don't already have a VCR attached to their receiver? So they can record the PPV on VHS for the little kiddies. In my experience, the kids don't care about a little picture degradation as long as they can watch the same Disney cartoon a dozen times a day.


I posted something similiar about my kids watching the same movie over and over and over. If I see High School Musical II one more time.........

VCR..what he hell is that. Seriously, I wouldn't think many of the average joe has a VCR connected to teh receiver. But no one really knows i guess. I haven't turned mine on in well over 8 months.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

jrinck said:


> Go back to 1930. This is the new America. We don't even breathe in the same room unless the controllers are wired.


No....I think I like it right here in 2008 (geez..that would make me 78). Yeah....that wired comment is sad but true. Hopefully I can prevent that as my kids get older.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> I posted something similiar about my kids watching the same movie over and over and over. If I see High School Musical II one more time.........
> 
> VCR..what he hell is that. Seriously, I wouldn't many of the average joe has a VCR connected to teh receiver. But no one really knows i guess. I haven't turned mine on in well over 8 months.


Most people I know still have VCRs, although a large portion of them are in DVD Player / VCR combos.

And those few that are a little more technology-forward have DVD Recorders that would still allow the same kind of recording I mentioned.


----------



## Brent04 (Nov 23, 2004)

It's not DirecTV's rule and they have said so on their website and in the video that was recorded on the DVR's *"Major movie studios have required that satellite and cable providers alike may no longer allow their customers to view these recordings for longer than 24 hours."* Just a matter of time before DishNetwork starts it.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Brent04 said:


> It's not DirecTV's rule and they have said so on their website and in the video that was recorded on the DVR's *"Major movie studios have required that satellite and cable providers alike may no longer allow their customers to view these recordings for longer than 24 hours."* Just a matter of time before DishNetwork starts it.


The only questions left for E*: 
* How many levels of the U.S. court system have to hear the case before E* caves in and agrees to the limitation? 
* And how many years of litigation will be involved? 
* How many months will E* not carry PPVs before they give up?

 :grin:

Do the companies buy the PPV rights directly from the studios individually, or through some middleman company?


----------



## Brent04 (Nov 23, 2004)

Also maybe DishNetwork has not announced it yet because they have not implemented the possible required firmware/software changes on their receivers to do this or they have some issues implementing it with their equipment.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Kheldar said:


> E* appears to be the only major provider that doesn't state anything about a 24-hour limit on their site.


I stand corrected, if only in part.

*DISH Network Movies On Demand*:
* This is NOT the same as their PPV movies; this is their broadband-connected on-demand service
* Unspecified storage of unviewed content
* 24-hours after viewing starts

Movies On Demand from DISH Network:


> *The movies you want. When you want!
> 
> Enjoy a variety of movies anytime!* Get 24-hour access to a movie for only $4.99. The movie can be viewed as often as you like within that 24 hours. You can also use your DVR features (pause, rewind, skip ahead) to enhance your viewing experience.


So E*'s "Movies On Demand" downloadable PPVs (the ones you can access with an Internet-connected DVR) have a 24-hour time limit on them already.

Now the only question is when they will impose the same limitation on their normal PPV channels.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> VCR..what he hell is that. Seriously, I wouldn't think many of the average joe has a VCR connected to teh receiver. But no one really knows i guess. I haven't turned mine on in well over 8 months.


I rented a condo for a vacation a couple of weeks ago, and all they had was some clunky VCR that was completely useless.

Good thing I remember what the heck the tracking buttons are, but even they were no help.

The digital age is truly a wonderful thing!


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

jrinck said:


> And I didn't realize that at first, so thanks for confirming it.
> 
> I still don't like it, and wish DirecTV could have negotiated something better, which certainly would have been a huge competitive advantage to them, in addition to something nice for us.
> 
> But the MBA mentality of today dictates that even if it's a bad decision, it's OK if everyone else is doing it, too.


Dude, *none* of us like it.

DirecTV could do nothing with negotiation. Nothing. When, as shown, every cable company already does this as do all the online vendors, DirecTV has to do what everyone else does. Do you not understand that to the MPAA DirecTV is just a gnat on the windsheild? They are nothing compared to those megalith companies. DirecTV falls in line or it gets squashed. Period. You seem to think DirecTV is bigger or has a lot more power then they do.

So DirecTV falls in line or it has no PPV at all. Can you not understand that? Or are you just stubborn?

Even Earl doesn't like it. But he understands why it's been done. MPAA and RIAA suck. Period. They don't get it and maybe never will. Will, the RIAA is finally getting it after a decade of getting killed that DRM free music really is the best way. Let's see if the MPAA will follow.

We don't have to like it. None of us do. But we seem to understand why better then you.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

bonscott87 said:


> We don't have to like it. None of us do. But we seem to understand why better then you.


I understand and agree with it in concept. 24 hours is too short, though.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

jrinck said:


> 24 hours is too short, though.


I think we all agree on that. It's been said continously through out this thread.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> I think we all agree on that. It's been said continously through out this thread.


We're all in agreement, then.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

Finally.....571 posts later.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Without reading 23 pages. Has anyone been able to delete this without it coming back? This showcase in my playlist is like a booger on my finger.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> Finally.....571 posts later.


To heck with you, I'm getting the last word.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

jrinck said:


> To heck with you, I'm getting the last word.


No your not


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

jrinck said:


> To heck with you, I'm getting the last word.





houskamp said:


> No your not


*Am I going to have to separate you two? Don't make me stop this car!!*

Sorry, flashback to my childhood.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

armophob said:


> Without reading 23 pages. Has anyone been able to delete this without it coming back? This showcase in my playlist is like a booger on my finger.


What? You mean it doesn't have a 24-hour expiration?  :hair:
Oh, that's right, D* isn't a "major movie studio".


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Kheldar said:


> What? You mean it doesn't have a 24-hour expiration?  :hair:


You are being funny, but I really thought that. Having no interest in PPV, I did not know about any of this until that stupid showcase popped up. I quick read the tiltle and deleted it. I thought it actually meant the showcase was 24 hours only.:lol:


----------



## Zamps (Sep 17, 2006)

Sorry I'm late to the game on this and I'm not reading through 24 pages to find my answer. 

If I understand this correctly. I don't get charged for the PPV movie until I actually watch the movie. So if I watch the movie a couple of days after the inital recording then the 24 hour timeframe kicks in?


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

No....from the time you start the movie you have 24 hours to finish it.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Zamps said:


> Sorry I'm late to the game on this and I'm not reading through 24 pages to find my answer.
> 
> If I understand this correctly. I don't get charged for the PPV movie until I actually watch the movie. So if I watch the movie a couple of days after the inital recording then the 24 hour timeframe kicks in?





HDTVsportsfan said:


> No....from the time you start the movie you have 24 hours to finish it.


I think *HDTVsportsfan*'s answer needs clarification.
So, since *Zamps* doesn't want to go back a few pages, here is the simplified version:

*For DirecTV Plus-based DVRs* (R15, R16, HR20, HR21), beginning April 15th:
* If you select "Buy Now": you start watching the movie now, and it deletes itself in 24 hours, even if you never finish watching the movie.
* If you select "Record Now/Buy Later": you can store the movie on your DVR to watch later. The 24-hour window begins from the moment you start to watch it. Even if you never complete the movie, it deletes itself in 24 hours. You are charged once you _start_ to watch the movie. You are not charged for the movie until you watch it, and if you never watch it you are never charged.

*For TiVo-based D* DVRs*:
* _Currently_ not affected by the 24-hour window. I emphasize _currently_ because eventually that will change.


----------



## Zamps (Sep 17, 2006)

Thanks, that's what I needed to know!


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

armophob said:


> Without reading 23 pages. Has anyone been able to delete this without it coming back? This showcase in my playlist is like a booger on my finger.


That's why you should use someone else's finger - then it's their problem.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> That's why you should use someone else's finger - then it's their problem.


How bought I give someone elses DVR this showcase? Hmmm? Maybe yours? Hmmmm?:lol:


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Kheldar, sorry I am late to this, but thanks for your post on other providers policies. This certainly takes all the hot air out of the conspiracy theorists that DirecTV is out to ruin their lives one PPV at a time.


----------



## Larry G (Apr 13, 2006)

Kheldar said:


> I think *HDTVsportsfan*'s answer needs clarification.
> So, since *Zamps* doesn't want to go back a few pages, here is the simplified version:
> 
> *For DirecTV Plus-based DVRs* (R15, R16, HR20, HR21), beginning April 15th:
> ...


Thank You.
This is exactly what I was wondering about after I watched the showcase last night.


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

JeffBowser said:


> Kheldar, sorry I am late to this, but thanks for your post on other providers policies. This certainly takes all the hot air out of the conspiracy theorists that DirecTV is out to ruin their lives one PPV at a time.


I disagree. I am convinced that DirecTV is sending me subliminal messages through channel 201 in order to drive me completely insane.

In fact, just yesterday, Tanya Memme came to me in a dream and cursed me to never be able to watch an entire movie within 24 hours.

And what a nerd I am. I dream about Tanya Memme and all I can think about is the attenuation of technology in modern business society.

I am pretty PO'd about it, though.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

:lol:



jrinck said:


> I disagree. I am convinced that DirecTV is sending me subliminal messages through channel 201 in order to drive me completely insane.
> 
> In fact, just yesterday, Tanya Memme came to me in a dream and cursed me to never be able to watch an entire movie within 24 hours.
> 
> ...


----------



## jzoomer (Sep 22, 2006)

Is new policy a result of the writer's strike settlement where they wanted residuals on new media content?

It seems to be a brute force response that Directv and others are taking. Why not charge a smaller fee per day if the content is watched again on subsequent days?


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

I don't think anyone here knows for sure. This has probably been in the works for awhile though.


----------



## acezzz (Sep 16, 2007)

I dont buy too many ppvs from directv now as their prices are ridiculous. But with this new 24 hr deal they can be assured that this long time customer will NEVER buy another ppv from them again. Way to go directv!


----------



## Ibuildem69 (Apr 7, 2008)

I can't see buying PPV in the first place, Netflix is $10.00 / mo. all the bluray I want as long as I want and unlimited PC downloads to the PC home theater.


----------



## ub1934 (Dec 30, 2005)

acezzz said:


> I dont buy too many ppvs from directv now as their prices are ridiculous. But with this new 24 hr deal they can be assured that this long time customer will NEVER buy another ppv from them again. Way to go directv!


*[/B Right On *


----------



## ub1934 (Dec 30, 2005)

Ibuildem69 said:


> I can't see buying PPV in the first place, Netflix is $10.00 / mo. all the bluray I want as long as I want and unlimited PC downloads to the PC home theater.


 + 1 for me also


----------



## radamo (Nov 13, 2003)

Ibuildem69 said:


> I can't see buying PPV in the first place, Netflix is $10.00 / mo. all the bluray I want as long as I want and unlimited PC downloads to the PC home theater.


I totally agree... This will cause me to completely avoid PPV on DTV. Netflix is so much more sync with my needs. 
RA


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I promise, by all that is holy, that this infernal thread will die someday.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Only to be resurrected a year later for nothing but a "+1"!


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

What!?!? Only 24 hours for PPV?!?! What is this nonsense??? :lol:


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2008)

JeffBowser said:


> I promise, by all that is holy, that this infernal thread will die someday.


Maybe you should just quit reading it.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Maybe you should just quit reading it.


Reading a thread does not hinder nor aide its death.


----------



## Dood (Mar 16, 2006)

radamo said:


> I totally agree... This will cause me to completely avoid PPV on DTV. Netflix is so much more sync with my needs.
> RA


BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> No


We'll see. I'm recording a PPV event tonight and my DVR is indicating it expires tonight. I sure hope it doesn't expire this evening as I might not get to see it until tomorrow.


----------



## Barmat (Aug 27, 2006)

acezzz said:


> I dont buy too many ppvs from directv now as their prices are ridiculous. But with this new 24 hr deal they can be assured that this long time customer will NEVER buy another ppv from them again. Way to go directv!


This is not a choice DTV made. This was forced by the movie studios.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

This thread is now DNR. Make no attempts to revive it.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Since there are over 25 thousand views on this thread, looks like this is not a very popular decision.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

jjohns said:


> Since there are over 25 thousand views on this thread, looks like this is not a very popular decision.


The popularity of the decision can not be measured simply by the thread view count ... we could just be an inquisitive bunch who like to stay on top of DIRECTV happenings.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

*For anyone just joining this thread that hasn't read the first 600 posts, please refer back to the following posts:*

Post 544: Amazon Unbox, Apple iTunes, XBox Live, Time Warner Cable, Cox Cable, Charter Cable, CableVision/Optimum Cable _all have a 24-hour PPV expiration policy_

Post 553: Wide Open West & Comcast _both have a 24-hour PPV expiration policy_

Post 566: DISH Network _also has a 24-hour PPV expiration policy_

*This is not a D* decision: this is a requirement by the major movie studios, and everyone else is being required to do the same thing!*


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> The popularity of the decision can not be measured simply by the thread view count ... we could just be an inquisitive bunch who like to stay on top of DIRECTV happenings.


Oh yeah.
The "You going to just stand there and believe your lying eyes?" thing.


----------



## on7green (Oct 29, 2007)

> this is a requirement by the major movie studios


So they may see a drop off in PPV sales. Do they get more $ per viewing from renters like Blockbuster?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

on7green said:


> So they may see a drop off in PPV sales. Do they get more $ per viewing from renters like Blockbuster?


Are you actually expecting the use of logic in this issue?


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

jjohns said:


> Are you actually expecting the use of logic in this issue?


Just a supposition on my part:
The movie studios probably believe extended use of a PPV recording is eating into their DVD sales. And that would make sense: why buy the DVD for $20 when you can rent the movie for $3.99 and keep it forever?

Sounds logical to me.

Not that I agree with the 24-hour limit, but I kind of see their point.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

I just don't have the space to keep every PPV I buy on my DVR. Eventually it needs to go and normally if I buy it on PPV I will not buy the DVD regardless of the 24 hour window or not.


----------



## loungeofmusic (Nov 26, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> 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.


With all due respect... You don't get to judge other peoples schedules just because they are different to yours and perhaps with different commitments. Maybe I should feed the kids more niquill :lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

My wife and I seldom if ever watch a complete movie on DVD because we fall asleep being exhaused from work. So we finish it the next night. Alot of people fall into this category and that is why I rent from Netflix. 

I could care less about HD PPV especially since the last one I watched (The Bournce Ultimatum) was delivered in DD 2.0 and not DD 5.1 which was advertised as HiDef & Surround Sound. Directv finally gave me a refund after I told Customer Retention that they had false advertising if they deliver a product in DD 2.0 but advertised Surround Sound.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Netflix to raise Blu-ray prices.


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

theratpatrol said:


> Netflix to raise Blu-ray prices.


Yep, entertainment seems to be raising prices faster than the oil industry, but guess which commodity is less needed and will be first to be cut in my house....


----------



## Deathknight (Aug 24, 2007)

Did this policy not include special events? I assumed from the language they used that it did, however my UFC recording from Saturday night has not deleted yet. 

Personally I could see why the movie studios would want PPV movies deleted (basically this allowed purchase of a movie for the fraction of the cost to buy the DVD). PPV of special events however has a price premium to see it live. It makes sense to be able to keep it indefinitely. Contrary to movie PPV, special events cost far more to watch live than they cost to purchase on DVD.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Deathknight said:


> Did this policy not include special events? I assumed from the language they used that it did, however my UFC recording from Saturday night has not deleted yet.


www.directv.com/ppvexp:


> _Does this new policy apply to Pay Per View events?_
> This new 24-hour policy applies only to Pay Per View movies.


----------



## vandergraff (Sep 26, 2007)

In case anyone is listening.

We'll stop purchasing PPVs as a result of this. 24 hours is too short - 7 days would be OK. Quite often we'll see the start of a movie one night and the finish the next night. XBOX Live Market Place has the same restriction and for this reason we have watched one PPV Movie from XBOX Live Marketplace - picture/sound were great but the 24 hour restriction is too restrictive.

We'll either wait for the movie to be on Starz or HBO or rent the DVD if we really want to see the movie. I know it is not DIRECTV (or Microsoft for XBOX Live) doing this - but the result is that DIRECTV (and also the studios if I wait for Starz/HBO) is losing revenue from me.

DIRECTV if you can get the studios to agree to 7 days I'll start buying PPVs again - if not no more PPVs for me.


----------



## ItsMeJTO (Dec 22, 2006)

Kheldar said:


> *For anyone just joining this thread that hasn't read the first 600 posts, please refer back to the following posts:*
> 
> Post 544: Amazon Unbox, Apple iTunes, XBox Live, Time Warner Cable, Cox Cable, Charter Cable, CableVision/Optimum Cable _all have a 24-hour PPV expiration policy_
> 
> ...


Well, time to buy a ferrari then, wait for the termoil in Block Buster and wallymart's parking lot late at night if the renters HAVE to return them within 24 hours.

I'm gunnah record them to DVD instead of the DVR and watch em as many times as I damn well please. ("save to video function")

That's if I was ever going to buy another PPV.
Which I'm not.


----------



## ItsMeJTO (Dec 22, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> Kheldar, sorry I am late to this, but thanks for your post on other providers policies. This certainly takes all the hot air out of the conspiracy theorists that DirecTV is out to ruin their lives one PPV at a time.


Methinks they already have, try to watch a PPV on a w/e when they "borrow" the bandwidth for other "more important events"

i'm heading to blockbuster now.


----------



## ItsMeJTO (Dec 22, 2006)

ItsMeJTO said:


> Methinks they already have, try to watch a PPV on a w/e when they "borrow" the bandwidth for other "more important events"
> 
> I wonder if we'll at least get a warning splash screen telling us it's going to be deleted in 5 mins if you don't watch it now.
> 
> i'm heading to blockbuster now.


http://www.dbstalk.com/images/smilies/ohbfrank.gif
:nono2:


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

ItsMeJTO said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/images/smilies/ohbfrank.gif
> :nono2:


most likely a 1 second warning with a dvd going into a shredder


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

jrinck said:


> In fact, just yesterday, Tanya Memme came to me in a dream and cursed me to never be able to watch an entire movie within 24 hours.
> 
> And what a nerd I am. I dream about Tanya Memme and all I can think about is the attenuation of technology in modern business society.


I think Tanya Memme and Matt Gallant switched to DISH Network a few years ago when DirecTV fired them. 

Now they have that robotic-looking girl in the orange outfit pushing PPV...and that old coot Maltin throwing in his 2 cents worth (after The Movie Channel fired him).


----------



## michaelp95 (Jan 17, 2008)

ThomasM said:


> I think Tanya Memme and Matt Gallant switched to DISH Network a few years ago when DirecTV fired them.
> 
> Now they have that robotic-looking girl in the orange outfit pushing PPV...and that old coot Maltin throwing in his 2 cents worth (after The Movie Channel fired him).


Ahhh Tanya.....when she was around she made Directv look sexy


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2008)

theratpatrol said:


> Netflix to raise Blu-ray prices.


Small premium for Blu-ray.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

theratpatrol said:


> Netflix to raise Blu-ray prices.


Well, I am GLAD that they are RAISING PRICES so that I can get BluRay & HD DVD DVDs as I am really into this HD THING!!! Gotta pay for the more expensive HD DVDs somehow or it would eat into their profit margin.

NETFLIX ROCKS!!! I was one of their first customers many many years ago and I haven't regretted leaving BlockBuster for one minute especially when they kept charging me LATE CHARGES when I turned the DVD in on time but their 18 year old embicils kept failing to scan our DVDs in on time.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Looks like Dish is starting 24 hour limit too.


----------



## WayBog (Oct 30, 2007)

fwiw - Blockbuster no longer charges late fees. 

I'm def not a fan of the 24 hour expiration on ppv's though. It looks like once you watch it, it stays on the drive for another 2 weeks or so. But when you go watch it again it prompts you to pay again. At least that's what I noticed.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

WayBog said:


> fwiw - Blockbuster no longer charges late fees.
> 
> I'm def not a fan of the 24 hour expiration on ppv's though. It looks like once you watch it, it stays on the drive for another 2 weeks or so. But when you go watch it again it prompts you to pay again. At least that's what I noticed.


Blockbuster may not _call_ them late fees, but you do pay extra. They just charge you the rental fee again. It's not like you can keep them forever after just paying the one rental fee.


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

any idea if the 4hr playboy .25 blocks will delete on HDtivo after 24 hours?


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

newsposter said:


> any idea if the 4hr playboy .25 blocks will delete on HDtivo after 24 hours?


no


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

newsposter said:


> any idea if the 4hr playboy .25 blocks will delete on HDtivo after 24 hours?


Mine *says* it will expire tomorrow. We'll see.


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

Bob Coxner said:


> Mine *says* it will expire tomorrow. We'll see.


nope still here 24 hours later on hdtivo


----------



## eswalker (Mar 21, 2007)

If the MPAA has their way, you won't be able to save movies to your DVR at all. Take a look at the story on slashdot.

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/06/15/0246236


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

why would they care about that...the PA from the S video is hardly worth pirating!


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

eswalker said:


> If the MPAA has their way, you won't be able to save movies to your DVR at all. Take a look at the story on slashdot.
> 
> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/06/15/0246236


There is a separate thread for this which is rather involved. The request centers on movies made available via satellite between their theatrical release and prior to the normal PPV window. I can only think of one movie released during this window: Transformers. It was treated as a PPV event and had a high price tag (I think $50) since it was available the day of the theatrical release.


----------

