Inventor Files “First Run” Movie Patent to Beat Piracy

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
First run movies, viewable at home, on any internet connected device the same day it is in theaters? Yes, please.

Almost all movie fans wants to be able to see Hollywood blockbusters soon after release but currently that can only be achieved in a cinema. However, if the author of a new patent application has his way, he will be the only one in the world with the legal right to show first-run movies via a 'watch anywhere' multi-screen system.
 
So he is patenting Netflix, but with brand new movies? Are you freaking kidding me?
 
Between this, working from home, and Amazon Pantry, I wouldn't need to ever leave my apartment.
 
THIS is what the patent system in the US has come to?!? I'm honestly, truly attempting to find something innovative in his application, but ... nothing. Sounds like some dumb hick who will next invent a "portable music player capable of storing and playing back multiple compressed audio files" or even a "product intended to lower movement friction via a device with a shape that is a curve which is constantly equidistant from the centre of the object".

Shit. I just gave out my billion-dollar idea.
 
This is a joke, right? No movie studio is going to get behind this.

For one, the idea that this will help piracy assumes that pirates are willing to pay, which they probably aren't. Also consider your now putting a high quality copy of a new movie into peoples homes. Within an hour you'd have HD rips everywhere. All this does is give the people who pirate cam copies a better copy, and the people who wait to pirate a BR rip get their HQ rip immediately. Piracy will get worse, not better.

Two, any movie that does this is guaranteed a theatrical boycott. Just like the major theater chains boycott Neflixes in house movies. Even movies that have a release window remotely close to theaters have trouble (ēx. Paranormal Activity getting axed by Regal for having a digital release planned for 17-days after theaters).

Basically any studio that does this is trading the platform that generates a very large majority of their income for one that is a would be pirates wet dream. Genius!
 
I've watched plenty of movies legally outside of a public movie theater. Yeah it costs a couple of grand and you have to know people to get on the list, but it does happen and then their is the dvd's that get sent out during award season...
 
Well, that's a new low... lets see if the patent office will approve it!
 
It could work... it could also fail miserably

People would pay to see a high def release the same time theaters show it... 19.95 is no different then paying for 2 people to visit the theater, and popcorn will cost you $1.00 instead of another $20.

The issue will be, not only is it making it more accessible to those who might pay, it's also making it more accessible to those who won't pay, essentially removing the 2-3 month window people can only find CAM or TS releases so they go see it in a theater.
 
Viper87227 said:
This is a joke, right? No movie studio is going to get behind this.

For one, the idea that this will help piracy assumes that pirates are willing to pay, which they probably aren't. Also consider your now putting a high quality copy of a new movie into peoples homes. Within an hour you'd have HD rips everywhere. All this does is give the people who pirate cam copies a better copy, and the people who wait to pirate a BR rip get their HQ rip immediately. Piracy will get worse, not better.

Two, any movie that does this is guaranteed a theatrical boycott. Just like the major theater chains boycott Neflixes in house movies. Even movies that have a release window remotely close to theaters have trouble (ēx. Paranormal Activity getting axed by Regal for having a digital release planned for 17-days after theaters).

Basically any studio that does this is trading the platform that generates a very large majority of their income for one that is a would be pirates wet dream. Genius!
Click to expand...

+1 this is what I immediately thought. Although this idea could work, this would only increase the amount of movie pirating since people are already willing to download shitty cam rips of new movies. Without real policing of pirates this will never work.
 
ssnyder28 said:
+1 this is what I immediately thought. Although this idea could work, this would only increase the amount of movie pirating since people are already willing to download shitty cam rips of new movies. Without real policing of pirates this will never work.
Click to expand...

Digital watermarking can help with this. At least the guy responsible for the Rip could be taken to the woodshed.
 
Viper87227 said:
For one, the idea that this will help piracy assumes that pirates are willing to pay, which they probably aren't. Also consider your now putting a high quality copy of a new movie into peoples homes. Within an hour you'd have HD rips everywhere. All this does is give the people who pirate cam copies a better copy, and the people who wait to pirate a BR rip get their HQ rip immediately. Piracy will get worse, not better.

Two, any movie that does this is guaranteed a theatrical boycott. Just like the major theater chains boycott Neflixes in house movies.
Click to expand...

Hush, your going to ruin all the fun :)

I do agree that something like this would wipe out a large portion of the remaining theaters.
 
The problem is there has already been cases where movies are released online the same same day as theater, and in the patent world that means you are trying to patent something that already happened (I know Apple does it all the time). 10:1 this application gets rejected. But then it seems the patent office is full of morons, so who knows.
 
People who don't pay to go to see the movie aren't going to pay to watch it at home either if they are already pirating movies. All this would do is create profits for said company while likely raising the cost of a movie ticket at the theater as well.
 
rpeters1969 said:
THIS is what the patent system in the US has come to?!? I'm honestly, truly attempting to find something innovative in his application, but ... nothing. Sounds like some dumb hick who will next invent a "portable music player capable of storing and playing back multiple compressed audio files" or even a "product intended to lower movement friction via a device with a shape that is a curve which is constantly equidistant from the centre of the object".

Shit. I just gave out my billion-dollar idea.
Click to expand...

It said he filed for the patent.

That doesn't mean he will be awarded the patent.

That being said, the patent clerks are overworked, and under paid, and often approve things they shouldn't due to lack of understanding, so it wouldn't surprise me if it does, get awarded.

But I am hoping it wont.
 
Personally first run movies aren't a big deal to me.

I don't really care if I have to wait 6-8 months to watch them at home.

It's still the same movie.

Just like I don't line up outside a hardware vendor's store to buy their new phones on day one. :p

It's not that important.
 
I'm confused. Technically, this can be done through any type of app with "agreements." Secondly, there's already a VIP service that offers higher than BD quality films to the home. Granted, you have to have an income on par with Hollywood Royalty to afford it.
 
Some people will not have access to the Web Cinema technology The movie will still be pirated and delivered on another medium.
 
Pirates are going to pirate regardless. I don't see something like this lowering piracy rates.

But, I do see something like this being somewhat popular. For most movies, I'd pay $19.95 to watch it the same day it was in theater. No matter what, though, movies like Star Wars would be viewed in a good theater. I have a decent setup, but that theater experience is what I want for those huge movies.

As far as a patent? No way. Too many people have already had the idea (one major studio is thinking about it and has asked folks about it under NDA) and have it somewhat fleshed out. He'd get a lot of push back, and a few lawsuits to get him out of the way.
 
No edit -

Those that pirate will continue to do so. Those that don't mind paying for a movie on release will now try this instead of going to a theater. Many will still go to the theater.
 
People should stop patenting things period. The whole idea of patenting is to keep others away from innovations, it's backwards, and counter productive.
 
M76 said:
People should stop patenting things period. The whole idea of patenting is to keep others away from innovations, it's backwards, and counter productive.
Click to expand...

If used the way they were originally intended, they DO make sense.

Patents are supposed to be Novel and Non-Obvious.

The purpose is to guarantee to an entity willing to make an economic investment of millions in R&D that someone isn't going to turn around and steal their design, so that their investment was for nothing.

IMHO, most patent applications (and this one included) fail the "Non-Obvious" test.

In my opinion, there should be a minimum investment required to file for a patent.

You want to patent something? Sure, but spend at least $10 million actually developing it first, then we'll talk, otherwise we'll just consider the invention obvious and making it public domain.

You're not supposed to be able to patent an idea you had in your sleep. You're supposed to patent all the super expensive development work that makes that idea work!
 
xX326Xx said:
People who don't pay to go to see the movie aren't going to pay to watch it at home either if they are already pirating movies. All this would do is create profits for said company while likely raising the cost of a movie ticket at the theater as well.
Click to expand...

I don't go to the theaters because it's almost 20$/person so I can sit in a dirty seat annoyed by idiots who can't stfu or stop playing with their phone. I would much rather pay/stream it right away at home. Don't go assuming pirates are pirating because of money, when it's actually convenience for most people.
 
Biznatch said:
I don't go to the theaters because it's almost 20$/person so I can sit in a dirty seat annoyed by idiots who can't stfu or stop playing with their phone. I would much rather pay/stream it right away at home. Don't go assuming pirates are pirating because of money, when it's actually convenience for most people.
Click to expand...

I think the reasons people pirate change over time.

When you are young its simply because you want to listen to that song/watch that movie/TV show and you don't have $1 to your name to do it legally.

As you get older, graduate college, it becomes more and more a matter - as you say - of convenience.

There is a sense that content holders intentionally try to alienate legitimate consumers through hurting fair use by using DMCA-style disc encryption, or region based restrictions for streaming services, or by making it difficult and enforcing using a particular app or web interface to stream their content, and have multiple interfaces rather than a single unified one, etc. etc. etc. etc.

I - for instance - can't watch HBO or any Fox channel at home despite subscribing to cable, because they flag their content as "copy once" rather than "copy freely" which means that no open source media platform (like my MythTV setup) is going to work.

So a reasonable person might think to themselves: If the content owners are going to try to screw me over, and follow practices that only hurt legitimate consumers, then screw them.

If content owners did the following, they wouldn't have to worry about adults pirating anymore, at least not in large numbers: (In order of importance):
  1. Remove all DRM encryption or other copy protection from content. Pirates don't care and can hack it anyway, it only hurts legitimate paying customers.
  2. Abandon the use of location specific restrictions or releases. Make all licensing agreements and all launches apply globally at the same time.
  3. Settle on a single easy to use unified user interface through which to distribute all content, regardless of studio/content owner. End users hate having to install one app for one company, and one for another.
  4. Price things reasonably. $4 for a two day rental, $12 for an outright purchase for any movie sound reasonable to me.

Do these things, and reasonable adults won't feel offended by your business practices and will likely legitimately pay for services.

The kids? They are going to pirate no matter what. They want what all of their friends have, and they are going to find a way to pirate it no matter what. No scare tactics are going to work either, as - you know - the pre-frontal cortex, responsible for rational decision making, and delayed gratification isn't fully developed until age 25 on average.

The Oatmeal nailed it with this comic
 
the only reason "first run" online releases haven't already happened is because it would completely undermine the motion picture industry.

i can see the valid reasons for people wanting it, but what's to stop people from inviting 20 - 30 of their friends/family over to their house to watch the movie all at once, and charging each person $3 - $5 to do so?

not only does that "one" viewing cause 20 - 30 other people to not buy a movie ticket, but now it's allowing others to make a profit off of a high-quality digital copy of the movie, while at the same time, putting the movie theaters out of business.

even if they don't charge their friends/family to watch it, that's still a TON of extra ticket sales that are not happening, and the movie studios will end up going bankrupt.
 
I guess he never heard of PRIMA Cinema. They offer first run movies from their $35000 player with movies rentals at $500 a pop.
 
Biznatch said:
I don't go to the theaters because it's almost 20$/person so I can sit in a dirty seat annoyed by idiots who can't stfu or stop playing with their phone. I would much rather pay/stream it right away at home. Don't go assuming pirates are pirating because of money, when it's actually convenience for most people.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of this. I stopped going to the theaters earlier this year for the same reasons.

That said, I wouldn't care to stream it because the quality you get from that is sub par compared to the physical media. I'd rather see the ability to have the physical media able to be purchased 30 days after it's in the theaters at an increased cost of course.
 
xXaNaXx said:
the only reason "first run" online releases haven't already happened is because it would completely undermine the motion picture industry.

i can see the valid reasons for people wanting it, but what's to stop people from inviting 20 - 30 of their friends/family over to their house to watch the movie all at once, and charging each person $3 - $5 to do so?
Click to expand...

That's the only way I'd even consider paying for a 1st run movie.
Maybe not 20-30 people, as that would be too much like a theater, but splitting $20 between 10 people would be a decent deal.
Or I could take a hint from the theaters, and just make my money on the popcorn.
- no charge for the movie, but sell popcorn and sodas :)
 
LordCalin said:
The issue will be, not only is it making it more accessible to those who might pay, it's also making it more accessible to those who won't pay, essentially removing the 2-3 month window people can only find CAM or TS releases so they go see it in a theater.
Click to expand...
^ this. Was going to post the same thing but already posted. So +1. If anything I see it making piracy WORSE.
 
nutzo said:
That's the only way I'd even consider paying for a 1st run movie.
Maybe not 20-30 people, as that would be too much like a theater, but splitting $20 between 10 people would be a decent deal.
Or I could take a hint from the theaters, and just make my money on the popcorn.
- no charge for the movie, but sell popcorn and sodas :)
Click to expand...

Which brings up an interesting point.

I wonder how large a proportion of the ticket price the theater pays to the studio in licensing fees?

I wonder how these agreements are structured. Is it one lump sum, and you show it as many times you want, is it a fixed fee per viewer, is it a fixed percentage of the ticket price, or is it some unholy mix of the above with different deals depending on the theater?

Would be interesting how much of a theaters profit is attributable to the actual ticket, vs concessions.
 
This service already exists.


Pretty shit journalism here.
 
While I am for the idea of this being done. I think this guy should be dragged into the street and clubbed like a baby seal with a base ball bat for filing such a fucking stupid patent request and waste their time.
 
This dude is a loon and this patent application will never be granted.

In the filing, he repeatedly undermines his claim for an invention with prior art.
 
Viper87227 said:
This is a joke, right? No movie studio is going to get behind this.

For one, the idea that this will help piracy assumes that pirates are willing to pay, which they probably aren't. Also consider your now putting a high quality copy of a new movie into peoples homes. Within an hour you'd have HD rips everywhere. All this does is give the people who pirate cam copies a better copy, and the people who wait to pirate a BR rip get their HQ rip immediately. Piracy will get worse, not better.

Two, any movie that does this is guaranteed a theatrical boycott. Just like the major theater chains boycott Neflixes in house movies. Even movies that have a release window remotely close to theaters have trouble (ēx. Paranormal Activity getting axed by Regal for having a digital release planned for 17-days after theaters).

Basically any studio that does this is trading the platform that generates a very large majority of their income for one that is a would be pirates wet dream. Genius!
Click to expand...

This is actually an opportunity that movie studios might miss. The ability to feed first run movies directly into peoples homes means that they will be able to reach a much larger audience than ever before. The only people this will piss off are theater owners. But as long as studios can shoot their films in 1080p with surround sound embedded, then this can be a win.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041935188 said:
Which brings up an interesting point.

I wonder how large a proportion of the ticket price the theater pays to the studio in licensing fees?

I wonder how these agreements are structured. Is it one lump sum, and you show it as many times you want, is it a fixed fee per viewer, is it a fixed percentage of the ticket price, or is it some unholy mix of the above with different deals depending on the theater?

Would be interesting how much of a theaters profit is attributable to the actual ticket, vs concessions.
Click to expand...

It's percentage per ticket sold, and based on date. So first week showing it would be 80% of ticket goes to studio, while a month later it might only be 55% goes to studio which is why the theaters are so against it, not because less people will go, but because to actually make a profit movies need to be running the 2-3 months to turn the scales to their favor.

While concessions are just pure flat profit... in a year on 700M in concession sales, costs not including labour might be 80 - 85M based on 10K filings from the theater companies.
 
LOL. Good luck defending that in court.

Recently they have frowned on "Do x but on the internet" patents. Hollywood goons will crush these clowns. Tell them how they can show their movies? LOL. Right. :rolleyes:
 
"This is not Netflix or Hulu, where the consumer is forced to wait for many months to view an anticipated movie. WebCinema is a new and useful process that enables the general public to completely control where and when they choose to conveniently watch new or currently released Hollywood-produced movies.”"\
Click to expand...

Oh god. I'm cracking up here. I work on a major VOD service for REDACTED. The only difference is the date the offer lights up in the catalog. There is no new technology here. The balls on this guy are HUGE.

For fucks sake, we did "The Interview" and turned it around in hours after delivery from Sony. It was available on all supported clients.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top