The Movie Theater Experience Sucks

Hey look at that: a NYTimes piece about the box office slump where they didn't claim copyright infringement was to blame. And even better, it comes up with some interesting points as to why the box office isn't bringing in the masses like they have in years past. I think it chronicles many of the reasons why I am loathe to visit the cinemas these days.

The last movie that got me to ante up $20 (I never go to the movies alone) was Batman Begins, a blockbuster that still manages to be a good film. But that's been an exception over the past few years. Let's face it, there's little to be excited about when movie studios rely on old favorites to bring in new audiences. Bewitched or Dukes of Hazzard or Herbie could only inspire the most nostalgic and least jaded of movie watchers.

And then there's Netflix... I am a big fan of this service for a few reasons. First, it's not BallBuster. Second, unlike pay-per-rent, you don't get penalized for picking poorly. No matter how many bad films you happened to see, your membership price stays the same. You can't roll that dice in the theaters and you certainly can't watch a movie you liked more than the one entrance your ticket allowed you. And the other thing about Netflix is that you are part of a community. Rate movies and they will recommend other titles. And after using those recommendations, they've turned me on to some really great stuff. Netflix killed the theater experience because they make movies a fun endeavor. Loews and Regal just seem like all the other big corporations that exist merely to extract dollars from you. Why the endless crap film trailers, NBC's latest TV lineup, or car commercials? The theater should be insulation from the world outside where it's all but impossible to avoid such advertising. Instead theater owners insist on bringing that world right back inside the cocoon.

The last big reason movie theaters have lost me is for the audience itself. Yammering on a cell phone through the presentation is bad enough. But worse is the hooting and hollering that ensues at the inappropriate moments. An ironic joke? You'd think moviegoers never heard of such a thing... Don't get me started on the seat kickers or the late arrivals. The shared experience you gain from watching the movie with others is totally lost when they aren't your friends and have no respect for your enjoyment of the film.

But in the end I think this story is similar to the music industry one. You can't expect the old paradigms to work for eternity. The home theater with the DVD as centerpiece has provided (as mentioned in that NYT article) an intimate version of the movie theater experience. This goes to show how powerful the medium of film really is, despite the lackluster box office sales. If the movie industry focuses on quality content, they can take heart in knowing that their material will continue being in demand.

The Futility of Monetizing P2P

After all these years feuding with the entertainment cartels, p2p is becoming legitimated. News.com has a writeup discussing the coming launch of MashBoxx and how SonyBMG CEO Andy Lack thinks it'll make millions for MashBoxx head Wayne Russo. The recent Supreme Court decision against Grokster makes it apparent that US operators will be found liable for copyright infringement but this desire has been in the works for years. However the emerging authorized services don't mean that P2P will go from record industry bane to digital music retail stars. Currently the only largely successful retailer is iTunes Music Store but they offer the traditional server-client approach. It results in effective search, lightning fast downloads, and an extensive catalog that can be readily downloaded.

Contrast that to current p2p applications: search is spotty, download speeds vary greatly depending on the peer's upload speed and number of uploaders, and the catalog available is polluted by the likes of MediaDefender or Loudeye's Overpeer. While authorization will take that last problem away, the other 2 issues are outstanding. Perhaps the next crop of legitimized p2p services like MashBoxx will relieve the searching problems but if they rely on the peer system, download predictability will remain suspect.

The second big issue is whether peers will appreciate their paid-for broadband connections being used for music industry profits. After years of being sued by the RIAA, will users be agreeable to providing free infrastructure to line executives' pockets? With iTMS, Apple supports the entire infrastructure and bears the bandwidth costs. This creates a significant bar of entry; for example iTMS Japan racked up a million downloads in its first 4 days online. If you assume the average file size is 4 megs (about 4 minutes of music), the service transferred about a terabyte of data each day. In order to even move that much data in 1 day you'd have to provide at least 2 T3 connections which theoretically only provide close to half a terabyte maximum. Once you factor in the network bursts and redundancy, even more connectivity is required.

On the other hand utilizing users' bandwidth instead of bearing those costs is workable only when there are perceived benefits. In that sense, p2p has shown hugely successful because you can find rare, prereleased, or catalog deleted songs (or movies or video games or porn). A second reason p2p providers have flourished is because their systems barter upload streams and user data collections in exchange for unlimited data downloads.

Monetizing this ends the community's bartering system. No longer given the free data downloads, will users continue providing their upstream bandwidth and their data collections? Considering that most p2p users already limit upstream rates or disable shared files, it's very likely the "sharers" (who provide the bulk of available data) will simply vanish.

Gov. Taft: Almost Did The Right Thing

Well this is a heartening story. A politician getting caught for ethics violations and he actually admits to it. There's a rarity in this day and age. Unfortunately while he claims he's bearing responsibility for these ethics violations, responsibility requires consequence. And in this matter, the proper acceptance of responsibility requires resignation.

So add me to the list for the clarion call: step down Governor Taft. Step the fuck down.

Dave Matthews Barking Up the Wrong Tree

Dave Matthews Band is one of those bands you gotta respect even if you're not into them. Unlike most signed acts, they've encouraged their fans to tape their live shows and trade their music. Instead of being hyper protective of their art, they have a more grounded view where enabling fans is a great way to further connect them to your music.

Unfortunately the recording industry doesn't see it that way. And DRM is their favorite acronym these days. So now mainstream acts are producing CDs that don't rip MP3 files if you're a Windows user. Instead you are given the opportunity of digitizing your music with encrypted WMA files which require license keys to enable playback. Unfortunately protected WMA files are unusable within iTunes; that in turn means you can't convert those WMA files into an iPod playable format such as AAC or MP3. And considering the tremendous market share Apple currently enjoys, a lot of music fans are left in the cold for portable audio purposes.

Enter the workaround. Dave Matthews Band has posted instructions detailing how a Windows user could rip the protected WMA files, burn them to CD and then rip that burned disc within iTunes. But then they blame Apple for not opening up their proprietary format and encourage users to contact Apple to complain. I saw this once before with the latest Life of Agony disc so it begs the question: why blame Apple?

Considering this was a business decision by the label's management, Apple should not be the source of DMB fans' ire. Apple's iPod playsback many open formats and 1 proprietary one: M4P (aka AAC protected). It isn't Apple's decision to prevent Windows users from putting songs on their iPod; quite contrary it's Apple's best interest to support that endeavor. But it does not mean that Apple shoulders the responsibility for content owners' anti-customer stances.

If DMB is really interested in serving their fans needs, they would petition the label and encourage fans to not purchase product that doesn't conform to standard CD audio. Labels will continue to pursue only self-interest because consumers are treated as criminals and not valued for their contribution to the company's bottom line. If you can't use the music on your iPod where you want it, don't purchase the music. Your dollar is your vote, and it's mighty powerful for the music execs that expect your wallet to be open.

Close it for once and see what effect it has...

eBooks are Great (Well They Could Be)

Another day, another DRM story. Princeton and several other universities will participating in offering electronic versions of their textbooks. I could totally give my support for this. Carrying around your science and math books are no easy feat, especially when you got to reach class in 5 minutes but it's on the other side of campus. Speed reading is no substitute for a full-text search.

But oh the restrictions... 5 months after purchase, you no longer can open the file; your two-thirds priced ebook has no resale value. The ebook isn't transportable if you downloaded it onto your desktop computer; so much for hiking to the library when trying to hide from your dorm mates. These restrictions may be wonderful for a publisher (no used book market to compete against!) but terrible if you're actually consuming these things.

Thankfully I think the society of consumers (in this case) will reject this scheme. Out of necessity (like no dead-tree books in stock) some will get sold and price might sway the penny pinchers. All the rest will see this for what it is: an expensive and restricted book lease.

WinVista's Big Selling Point is Security?

Surfing along today I found this Newsweek writeup describing WinVista's key selling point is security. Here's my beef: what credibility does Microsoft have in this arena? Their current client operating system, Windows XP, has proven woefully defective between viruses, scumware, and phishing. The problem isn't new either; Windows exploits have disproportionately affected computer users for generations (even as far back as DOS).

The fact of the matter is that customers looking for better security should dollar-vote a different operating environment. Linux and Mac OS have proven more reliable on the security front. This isn't to admonish Microsoft since they've focused a lot of their attention to the security problem. SP2 for XP helps as does the acquired AntiSpyware application from Giant. Windows 2003 Server has also been relatively secure but I'd posit the reasons include professional IT staff using that technology and the fact that servers don't get used for casual websurfing. In the years following Bill Gates's trusted computing mantra, those 3 releases have been standouts.

But despite all that, should you really buy Windows Vista based on Microsoft's past track record? More importantly, should you even consider it a "feature" when you're deciding to upgrade? Computer security is like having car seatbelts: standard equipment that would never be touted as a reason to buy a new car. I mean, if Ford built a car with ineffective seatbelts, would you buy another?