iTunes and Apple TV rentals and purchases: what you can (and can't) do
By Ryan Block 
posted Jan 16th 2008 12:06PM
posted Jan 16th 2008 12:06PM
- Green indicates goodness, or the general perception of awesomeness.
- Red indicates badness, or not-goodness (but not including inherent lameness due to DRM).
- The columns (iTunes / Apple TV) represent the point of purchase / rental. The Apple TV column assumes AFTER the Take 2 update.
- So to say Buy shows: SD / iTunes is the equivalent of asking "Can I Buy shows: SD through iTunes on my PC?)
- Nerdy: likewise, the circuitous logic of checking to see if an Apple TV can transfer a purchase from a computer to an Apple TV has a nixed answer.
| iTunes (desktop) | Apple TV (PC-free) | Comments / notes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buy show: in SD |
Yes - $1.99 |
Yes - $1.99 | |
| Buy shows: HD | No |
No |
|
| Rent show: in SD | No |
No |
|
| Rent show: in HD | No |
No |
|
| Buy movie: in SD |
Yes - up to $15 | Yes - up to $15 | |
| Buy movie: in HD | No |
No |
|
| Rent movie: in SD | Yes - $2.99 / 3.99 |
Yes - $2.99 / 3.99 | Library / new |
| Rent movie: in HD |
No |
Yes - $3.99 / 4.99 | Library / new |
| Play purchased: on previous-gen iPods | Yes |
Yes |
|
| Play rentals: on previous-gen iPods | No |
No |
|
| Play purchased: on current-gen iPods | Yes |
Yes |
|
| Play rentals: on current-gen iPods | Yes | No |
|
| Transfer anything: ATV to any iPod / iPhone (without PC) | -- | Hells no | |
| Transfer anything: to non-Apple devices | Um, no | Are you high? | |
| Transfer purchase: computer to ATV | Yes |
-- |
SD (shows, movies) only right now |
| Transfer purchase: to previous-gen iPod | Yes |
Yes |
Only video-enabled iPods (duh); for ATV - by way of sync to PC, only |
| Transfer purchase: to current-gen iPod / iPhone |
Yes |
Yes |
For ATV - by way of sync to PC, only |
| Transfer purchase: ATV to computer | -- |
Yes |
SD (shows, movies) only right now |
| Transfer rental: to ATV | -- |
Yes |
SD (shows, movies) only right now |
| Transfer rental: to previous-gen iPod | No |
No |
|
| Transfer rental: to current-gen iPod / iPhone | Yes |
No |
So, what'd we miss?
I really need some help. I am a parent and have a 13yr old son with a new ipod. I have about $200 of itunes bills in the last two weeks. My son is in trouble, but I'm not sure how much.
The billed songs are in the exact order on his ipod (date added) as on the bill. He says that he got the songs from a friend to his ipod, then transferred them to our PC. Our PC has an itunes account. He says that when he transferred the songs (right-clicking) he said yes to "transfer the purchase." He says that this action must have triggered our account being billed.
I don't think this is really possible. I am trying to figure out what happened; I really want to just set up the consequences for him and have both of us move on with our lives. Can anyone help?
thanks much.
David:
This is pretty confusing, but at first glance it seems that your son may have used illegal file sharing to transfer the songs to his iPod and then to your PC, or he made unauthorized purchases on your credit card using your PC and then transferred them to the iPod. Since corresponding charges are on your iTunes account, it seems to me that he made the purchases, either inadvertently or deliberately.
Either way, this would and should be considered theft (i.e. copyright infringement or unauthorized credit card purchases). Knowing teenagers, he could be trying to confuse the issue to escape scrutiny and punishment. If he transferred the songs illegally, they should be erased from the hard drive, along with any other illegally obtained songs (and any file sharing software he may have installed on your PC such as Limewire). If he deliberately made the $200 in purchases without your knowledge, let him pay for them by working off the bill, but maybe punish him by taking custody of the iPod until the bill is paid.
On the other hand, you also could be at fault. In iTunes on your computer, the Preferences settings under the iTunes menu allow you to set Store preferences. Make sure you disable the default setting, "Buy and download using One-Click" and instead enable "Buy and download using a Shopping Cart. " This will help both of you avoid confusion about transactions. The first time I used iTunes, this default, One-click setting tripped me up on a purchase too. So, the One-Click" purchase option can cause confusion. If iTunes on your computer was set up this way, maybe he deserves a pass.
For what free advice is worth, I believe that when parents give iPods to children as gifts, they also should give minors a monthly allowance to buy music CDs or iTunes downloads (Apple allows you to fund the account with an iTunes allowance feature for kids. Just make sure he doesn't have the iTunes account password that would allow him to get into iTunes and change the allowance or Store settings). Discuss illegal file sharing too. Make it clear that peer-to-peer file sharing via online download networks is illegal. You do not want this software on your computer either. Some song files actually are not song files at all, but spyware. Also, the software can and will slow down your computer if you do not properly manage the default shareware settings. Copying their friend's CDs or allowing friends to copy your son's (or your) CDs should not be allowed either.
Know matter what your feelings are on the subject (or your son's), these actions are copyright infringements, and thus, forms of theft. Until the law or licensing contracts change, they should not be tolerated if you hope to teach a kid the difference between right and wrong.
If you didn't take these steps, didn't change that One-Click purchase setting for the iTunes account and didn't going over some ground rules, you may have abdicated your parenting responsibilities, and left him to figure out how to get music onto what otherwise would become a useless iPod. Given no other recourse, he did whatever was necessary to fill it with songs.
You now have a chance to start over.
HD:
Thanks tons; your thoughts are really, really helpful. It's particularly helpful hearing your guidance about file sharing and allowances.
Unfortunately, we have set clear limits (grounded for two weeks, buy back the ipod) and all are suffering in our household.
But this too shall pass, and I hope for a better weekend; the emotional weather of a teenager can be counted on to change.
thanks again.
drv
I think some is missing from this discussion.
1080i is 24 frame/second while 720p is 60 frame/second
This is a near equal amount of information.
Question: What is Apple calling HD these days? I'm talking the $3.99/$4.99 HD movie rentals over iTunes.
Hello? Any word on the resolution of their "HD" rentable movies?
Nevermind. It's only 720p. Why do people buy Apple TV's again?
The resolution is 720p.
Because 720p is a perfectly fine resolution? Yeah, in the midst of all this 1080p mania, people seem to forget that 720p still produces a damn good picture.
Yeah I found the other ATV article from yesterday and that had the answer. Thanks for your response though!
Is anyone getting the same eye-rolling reaction that I get when I hear Apple touting the ATV's HD support? 720p @ a 5Mbps max shitrate, 4 gig max file size will look like a bad DivX with upped resolution. No surround sound. People would be way better off spending their money on a Blu-Ray player and a Netflix subscription (Blu-Ray rentals for the same price as DVDs? Yes please).
Then again, I guess they did call the Time Capsule "Server Grade." I shot drink out of my nose when I read that.
Actually the Apple TV HD movie rentals are touting Dolby 5.1 surround sound.
Hey, ~5Mb 720p in H.264 would look pretty good actually, particularly if it's transcoded from the source material and not an optical disc. The difference between US DVD resolution and 720p is still pretty startling, unless you're blind of course.
Naturally, 1080p would be nice, but I guess the box would then be considerably more than $200ish, heh. Not to mention the download time!
I just don't see the point when you can get movies from OnDemand for less money at 1080i, or from Usenet at 1080p, or from Netflix on Blu-Ray...
Well, indeed. If you're serious about movies, you're still best investing in a subscription service. But instant gratification can be fun too ;-)
1080p would've been awesome, but there are way too many people that don't own a 1080p HDTV that it doesn't make sense currently. 1080i would be okay quality, but interlaced content is completely different than progressive in movies (TV shows not so much, but it's getting there) so quality would be an issue somewhere in the video pipeline. I'd rather have my movies in progressive than interlaced, since they tend to be shot in progressive anyway.
On Demand movies may be 1080i, but they must be compressed as hell, cause they're nothing special. I've got a Samsung LCD (1080P, 15000:1 contrast), and certain HD channels look amazing on it. My bluray player, likewise, puts out a sick picture. VOD looks good, but doesn't compare to the top tier HD channels or Bluray. I guess it would probably look about the same as AppleTV. Most people will be perfectly happy with that quality. I'm a bit of an HD snob, so I'll pass. But apple is all about making things simple and clean, people like that, and I think the new iteration of AppleTV will be a success because of it.
Fair enough. Well I'll save my QQing for a year or so, by when many more people will have a 1080p TV and the Apple TV will still be hardware limited to 720p.
Yep, wouldn't be an HD article without your obligatory HD snob chiming in with his bullshit "only 1080p is HD" whining. :p
OnDemand: Digital Cable is expensive. Apple TV you're not paying a subscription fee on top of the rental fee.
UseNet: Most Americans aren't really interested in downloading, transcoding, finding codecs that work, and hooking up their computer to their TV. Apple's all about ease of use.
Netflix: If I order a movie on Netflix, I *might* get it tomorrow. If I order a movie on Apple TV, I get it in about five minutes or less. In HD. With No subscription fees. And no trip to the store. And no needing to buy "points" to make purchases (XBox Live Marketplace is nice, but their whole MS Points system is skewed to make it hard to know what you're spending, and I don't like it.)
Apple is about ease of use: Click here. Watch movie in HD. No monthly fee.
Who needs apple tv when you have the pirate bay? Seriously, the stuff you get there is full of features...
jimbo: I hear you. Channels like HDNet and HDMovies do often have a higher quality picture than some VOD's that I've rented. Then again I've had VOD's that look great. And yeah obviously Blu-Ray looks the best because it's the least-compressed format available to the consumer.
TheZeroCorpse: I agree the ATV is very convenient. It's a compromise. Some people don't have a Blu-Ray player, nor the technical know-how to uncompress RAR files, download non-iTunes media players, and set up a digital audio out in Vista for surround sound.
The fact is, though, if someone is interested in renting an HD movie, they have an HD television (maybe only 720p, but an HD TV none the less). If they own an HD Television, I'd venture to guess they have an HD Cable / Sattelite reciever... to take advantage of that expensive HD TV they bought. If they have Cable / Sattelite, they have On Demand. On Demand is cheaper than the Apple TV's HD content, and higher quality, in my area.
I don't know... it seems like there's this imaginary market out there of people who own HD Televisions, Apple TV's, don't have HD Cable, and don't know how to download movies and play them on a TV. If you're one of these people and you have fifty thousand friends like you then I guess I should buy some Apple stock today...
well it looks like apple just buried some of its competitor, why??? first you won't have to go out and get movies anymore 2nd you are not tight down to any subscription just watch what you want when you want on your nice full screen TV. apple tv its a must have for any for any home system my opinion
Ty,
"Fair enough. Well I'll save my QQing for a year or so, by when many more people will have a 1080p TV and the Apple TV will still be hardware limited to 720p."
Apple TV is not hardware limited to 720p at all. That's merely the resolution of downloadable content from the iTunes Store; you can put your 1080p content on there (though not by buying it on iTS) and it'll work just fine.
transfer contents to any other devices not made by Apple???? I guess not. First to fill a monopoly lawsuit
Good point, albeit almost too obvious to put in there. Still, I'll put it in anyway.
Apple is getting a little too "closed" for my tastes lately. I really love OS X, but this whole "Only our stuff works with our stuff, so if you don't like that then TS" thing was cute at first, but is getting way outta hand.
They're more proprietary now than MS ever thought about being. Lame.
Too closed? Gee, that sounds like Microsoft and its Internet Explorer browser and certain web pages and apps only working with IE in particular.
Oh and the Microsoft page itself only working with PCs.
I'm not sure what you've been smoking but Apples have always been a closed market.
Microsoft's website is going to their flash alternative silverlight which will work in other browsers so all in all they might even get slightly more open than now. Heck, maybe one day we'll even be able to use the update site in firefox ;)
you cant file a monopoly on a business model that everyone is failing at,lets face the facts, if you rent a movie you do one of 3 things, you go to a local store and browse around which i still love to do when i go back home to visit my younger sis(family time experience)if you have cable which i think everyone does these days(im a cable guy) you use VOD to order a movie which slaps apple across the face with quality and pricing and finaly you use a service like net flicks just because its so darn cheap to rent movies with them with no late fees. so lets face it this is nothing but another failed attempt to rent movies over the internet and is not going to catch on anytime soon.
If you want to talk about closed devices, why not mention Sony Playstation, Microsoft Xbox, or anything Nintendo. People complain about Apple being "closed", but few people complain about the many other equally "closed" systems.
Apple has always been annoyingly proprietary. No one cared 10 years ago, because most people didn't even know anyone with a Mac back then, and Apple was nearly dead. It wasn't until 5 years ago that they started making decent products that normal people might want.
In the past five years, Apple has given regular, non-Mac people a reason to take notice, with some pretty appealing design and a decent OS. Unfortunately, when you're not totally RDF'ed, you tend to look at Apple products and see the artificial limitations that Apple tries to trap it's users in.
By not working with anything 3rd party, Apple tries to get you totally locked into their ecosystem. iPod + AppleTV + iTunes + Quicktime + Mac. It's not the worst box to be trapped in, but you are trapped.
Historically, people have liked having choice when it comes to hardware and software. That's why Apple's never really had significant PC market share, even in the '80s when they were ahead of the game. They've had a bit of success recently, but if they continue to insist on a totally closed system, they will find that the majority of people will keep opting out as they always have.
I honestly don't think that Steve even cares. He's fine with taking whatever market share he can get, and squeezing as much money out of them as possible.
@ Mike Cerm:
Yes, you're "trapped" in the Apple ecosystem.
The key point that everyone forgets to discuss, though, is that in that ecosystem, everything works for everyone.
The "trapping" is intentional...it is the only way to guarantee user experience is the same for everyone whether they are technically savvy or not.
You can choose not to be in the Apple ecosystem, sure. But when you are, you're left wondering: what does this mean? Can I do this with that? Will my widget work with that gadget? Will this product work with that one? If so, how, what do I have to do to make it happen, and how much money do I have to spend on extra stuff? I happen to use both Apple and Microsoft products, but I wish I didn't have to. For example, I bought a Windows-based laptop for a family member and I've done nothing but provide free support for the past year because they aren't technically savvy. If I had gotten them a Macbook, I wouldn't have had to do that.
Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is getting closed, too. With Vista, they're locking everything down into one ecosystem just like Apple. DRM is everywhere in Vista. They're just not telling you that's what they're doing. Sure, you can maybe choose between 10 different graphics cards instead of getting the one included with a Mac mini or iMac, but all ten of those graphics cards choices have to meet Microsoft's restrictions or they won't work, or at least won't work as promised. When Microsoft is telling you whether your hardware choice will work or not, is that really choice?
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
And this, in turn, raises costs for everyone. So much for Microsoft being "good" by being "open" and Apple being "bad" for being "closed", I guess. The point: at least in the Apple ecosystem, everything works and people get an opportunity to enjoy things and be immediately productive and creative without worrying about mechanicals.
transferring to non-apple products is due to DRM lameness... so why is it in red?
At this point, isn't it a given anyway? Why is this still such a shocker to people? DRM sucks.. we get it... it's not going anywhere anytime soon!
I don't think proprietary = monopoly. Unlike with the Microsoft deal, Apple isn't FORCING you to use their rental service when you buy a Mac, and if you hate iTunes that much, you can just drag it to the trash and click Empty Trash. The whole MS antitrust thing was much more complicated than simply IE's non-compatibility.
While the proprietary-ness of the setup sucks, it's not grounds for a lawsuit as I understand the law (but IANAL). Of course, I'm sure some idiot will class-action this in a heartbeat. I'm sure the paperwork is being filled as I type...
Apple is not increasingly proprietary. The only proprietary thing here is DRM, and yes: DRM sucks. But they've already ported it to a different platform (while MS still keeps OS X users away from WMV DRM'd content). However "open" and "DRM" are to opposite sides of the spectrum, and there is *no way* to rent a digital file without DRM.
Other than that they're pretty open and interoperable. AAC is an open format, official successor to MP3. Quicktime format has been basis of MPEG-4 standard and Apple supports MPEG4+H.264 as a first-class citizen. They've dropped their "not invented here" complex long time ago.
@Ghen:
http://www.windizupdate.com/
@Evan: The difference between game consoles and a PC is huge. You bought the game console to play games (and maybe other media), but PCs are much more multi-purposed than that.
Proprietary as MS? Check your facts. WMV, WMA, Windows media player, Office formats, DRM lockdown on the OS, Direct X the list goes on & on. With MS's ecosystem you get the illusion of choice. If the software sucks the hardware really doesn't matter. Then there of course is the Zune & Zune marketplace that are even more closed than theiPod & iTunes (NOT CROSSPLATFORM). Then of course there is MS's Play-for-sure DRM initiative which came before The Zune. If you bought music with plays-for-sure DRM attached they will not play on MS's own Zune. Talk about screwing not only customers but, also screwing your hardware partners. There seem to be a lot of PC centric people here who have no clue about anything on the other side of the fence. They also seem to have no clue as to the history of events (in digital music & tech). Jobs has said from the start that DRM's music makes no sense. The only reason Amazon has DRM Free music is because the Music moguls are trying to leverage there power againts Apple. Apple was one of the first companies to sign a major music label to DRM free music (EMI). MS makes money from licensing there DRM schemes. Apple does not own the content it sells. AAC is a standard that anyone can license (MPeg4). Apple does not own it. It is a better quality standard than MP3. Why isn't Amazone selling it? Because most of the devices that are MS based don't support Mpeg4. That will probably change in the future. Stick a fork in it WMA is done. We will all be better off in the future if this is the case.
If you transfer a rental to your curr-gen iPod/iPhone, can you start your 24 hour period at different times on your computer and on your iPod?
To explain via example: I rent Die Hard. I transfer the rental onto my iPhone. But rather than watching it on my iPhone I watch it on my computer. 24 hours pass, the rental disappears off of my computer. Do I still have 30 days to watch it on my iPhone (assuming I don't sync back to my computer?)
Or, once it's transfered does it immediately disappear off of my computer and the copy solely exists on my iPhone?
I think when you transfer the rental to your iPhone, it gets removed from your iTunes rentals list... effectively making it impossible to have your movie in two different places.
yeah this part is confusing to me the most. I still don't really get how this works and seems like something that might piss me off. But I'm sticking with my Netflix and not even going to both with a movie rental from iTunes.
yeah this part is confusing to me the most. I still don't really get how this works and seems like something that might piss me off. But I'm sticking with my Netflix and not even going to bother with a movie rental from iTunes.
Is the 5G iPod considered "current-gen"? I know that the hardware is basically the same as the Classic, but given Apple's trend lately (like the iPod Touch screw-job), it seems pretty likely that Apple would leave it's 5G owners out in the cold.
It's so confusing he posted twice.
I'm still confused. The chart helps, but (through no fault of your own) there's so many categories it's just mind boggling.
Good work sorting this out. Lots of confusion (and subsequent disappointment by Mac Mini-owners like me) early on about "iTunes HD rentals" - which, as seems to be the case, isn't happening at least for now.
it's called file sharing,anybody who wants tv shows or movies can just download from there.
When will Canada get it?
We'll get it when/if Canada's proposed draconian U.S.-style copyright law reforms pass.
Actually, all the items in red are a result of onerous and inherently lame DRM issues.
Remove the DRM, and all of those limitations go away.
If you remove the DRM, how will Apple lock you into their ecosystem? Mr Jobs may publicly complain about DRM, but notice he is NOT in the forefront of actually removing it off the files they sell. I can buy DRM-free songs on Amazon that are still DRM-encumbered on iTunes.
Apple's business model is based on lock-in. Proprietary DRM enforces lock-in. Which is why the appleTV will not play WMV and why non-Apple devices will not handle Apple DRM.
As long as Jobs can blame the content providers, he's free to publicly anguish over DRM and then snicker for every $1 premium he makes off of it.
i HATE DRM but its simply not a case of mr jobs locking you in. Its a movie rental. if you get it DRM-free its not going to delete itself when the times up is it? and that means that you can get a to-keep movie for a fraction of the cost of a purchased one.
i use isohunt annd utorrent to get all sorts of video, but i only do this because its convenient for me and not because im stingy. ill always use bittorrent to get my tv because i have a right to that for free (i have sky with all the channels so pretty much anything that has ever been on i would have had the right to watch), but with movies im fine with paying a little less than a dvd for a drm-free xvid in hd.
but of course that could be uploaded to file sharing networks, which were made by satan himself. they dont understand how dvd rips work do they? its just as easy.
anyway in conclusion this is a great service for rentals, because it does what needs to be done conviniently, but i wouldnt want to buy a movie this way
Check the NY Times, they just ran an article about this. The labels are not providing Apple with DRM-less tracks but *are* supplying them to Amazon, because they want to lessen Apple's dominance in the market. Case in point, this year the Pepsi promotion will be with AmazonMP3, not iTunes.
Check the NY Times, they just ran an article about this. The labels are not providing Apple with DRM-less tracks but *are* supplying them to Amazon, because they want to lessen Apple's dominance in the market. Case in point, this year the Pepsi promotion will be with AmazonMP3, not iTunes.
Just to be clear, can I watch rentals multiple times? I can't believe they're not making this clearer.
Yes they made that clear, in Job's keynote yesterday he stated that. After renting a movie you have 30 days to watch it, once you start watching it you have 24 hours to finish the movie and you can watch it as many times as you'd like.
You can watch as many times in that 24 hour period
You can watch the rental as many times as you want in the 24-hour period that begins after you start watching. I tested this with "Changing Lanes" last night.
What I'm not sure about yet is this: I transferred to my iPod, but I'm not sure if I can still watch it on my desktop.
I'm also curious what happens if I'm watching the movie on my iPod as time expires. I'm hoping there's some grace period or at least a warning that I won't be able to finish the movie in the time remaining.
I'm also not sure if I can watch the rental on another computer if my iPod is connected (i.e. watching the movie on the computer with iPod as source).
Oh, i guess yeah. The whole 24 hours to "start and finish watching" the movie phrasing just made it sound like it could only happen once. to me.
Is the rental service coming out with movies faster like pay-per-view or is it going to come out on itunes when it's released on DVD?
The movies will be released on iTunes thirty days after they are released on DVD.
30 days after it's released on DVDs
Wow - that seriously kills my temporary fanboism. So - no playing those HD home videos after pulling them into iTunes? I have to downsample to SD? The only way to use HD content is even MORE restricted than the HD format d'oujour - BluRay at least can play on both a PC and BD player. Plus, you can always wrench it away from the DRM kicking and screaming to allow transfer to your device of choice. No thanks - no ATV for me until they allow HD movie playback from a PC.
This is only movie rentals... Your own HD stuff, HD podcasts etc will all work fine, of course.
BluRay at least can play on both a PC and BD player. Plus, you can always wrench it away from the DRM kicking and screaming to allow transfer to your device of choice.
How? I wasn't aware that was possible yet.
You can rip Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs and encode them in x264 .mkv containers at a manageable size. I'm guessing Doom9.org would be a good place to find out how.
The usenet column is all green baby!
Yes, because stealing is the same thing as not stealing! Glad we got that cleared up.
Zak,
It's a form of protest as well. After all, no matter what "laws" they implement, it's the will of the people. That's why they've mostly stopped with the drm-garbage for music.
I call it the free market. When there's a format war going on, people are not inclined to buy a high definition player that might become obsolete (though it's looking like Blu-ray won). When the companies that stream HD content or rent HD content apply horrible compression and sub-1080i/p resolutions, to buy their products is to re-inforce their belief that they can sell a lower quality product than is available for free. The point is, anyone with a high speed connection can access higher quality content than any of these providers is willing to cowboy up and provide, for free, from their homes, faster than Apple/Amazon/etc. can provide it. That is their competition. The legality of it is really just an irrelevant technicality.
Or maybe I've been reading too much Cory Doctorow...
Oh, please.
Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it no longer applies to you. And this delusion that unauthorized downloading constitutes a form of protest against the copyright holders is, quite frankly, bullshit.
The protest stops when you refuse to purchase the content through one of the established channels. The added step of then obtaining the content elsewhere is self-gratification and nothing more.
If you really want to protest, take your message to Congress. Now I'm sure someone will respond saying that the system is corrupt and that our elected officials have been bought off by the very companies that are the targets of the protest. To this I respond: organize community support and overhaul the system.
My point is this: If we're going to continue to obtain unauthorized digital copies of copyrighted works from torrents, usenet, etc., let's not fabricate some great crusade to explain away why we're doing it. The least we could do is "be real" and admit the truth that we're doing it simply because we want the content but don't want to have to pay.
Despite whether it's because we don't believe the works are high enough caliber to justify the price, or because we don't like the restrictions placed up their usage, what remains is that we apparently still want the content, but we just don't want to have to pay.
If it's not a form of protest then explain to me why Apple removed all DRM from some music sold on iTunes and started to sell high-bitrate media after years of only selling 128kbps-encoded, DRM-infected media? Why did Amazon start doing the same thing? Because consumers demanded higher-quality music that was portable to various operating systems, media players, and in the case of Amazon, various portable players as well. That demand persuaded Apple and Amazon to realize that it was in their best interest to convince the record industry to allow them to provide non-DRM protected content on iTunes. And voila, there became a popular, legal alternative to the previously exclusively illegal activity of acquiring high quality, DRM-free music without leaving the comfort of your desk chair or waiting for a CD to be shipped to you. Apple and Amazon did not do this out of the kindness of their hearts, nor did they do it because the government told them to. They did it because there was a demand for it, and people were getting the product from someone other than them (also known as a "competitor.") The internet.
Let's be clear about something - millions and millions of music fans did not write a fucking chain letter and mail it to the United States Congress to get them to pursuade Apple to offer non-DRM-infused high quality music. Market forces did that. One force is illegal, and there were a handful of legal indie MP3 selling sites as well.
Pointing at downloaders and yelling "Thief!" is not a counterpoint to the simple fact that in the market of high quality home theater, there is NO download-based alternative to services like Usenet and Bittorrent in terms of media quality. There is currently NO WAY WHATSOEVER to sit down at your computer, think up a movie you want to watch, and download it in 1080p with 6.1, legally. There ARE individuals out there who will not compromise video/audio quality for the sake of obeying the law. These are would-be consumers to a legal HD streaming / download service that currently DOES NOT EXIST.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically you're saying that in order to influence companies to provide intelligently-priced, downloadable HD media, I should purchase their lesser quality media, and then write Congress a letter. I should pay more and get less rather than pay nothing (effectively the same as buying a product from a competitor from the standpoint of Apple/Amazon) and get more. That, or I should not watch the media at all.
So in one way, you're right. I don't want to pay [for services that are of lesser quality than free services]. My form of protest isn't good enough for you simply because I can access the content, of a quality unavailable at any other online venue, for free? Well, I guess you got me there!
Ty,
In his or her comment, fastolfe suggests that using usenet is a form of protest. While it is admittedly somewhat unclear who fastolfe depicts as the target of this protest, one can surmise based on his or her second sentence that the target is the people who implemented the laws making the circumvention of copyright protections illegal (i.e. the government).
To this I replied that downloading unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted works should be an unacceptable form of protest as (a) it is still illegal, and (b) a means to petition the government for redress of grievances already exists (e.g. through Congress).
Still, even if fastolfe had been referring to a protest against content owners and distributors, downloading unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted works should still be an unacceptable form of protest as (a) it is still illegal, and (b) a means to "petition" businesses to respond to consumers' grievances already exists. You correctly identified this as "market forces" in your reply.
The power that consumers have to enact change in the business community is to refuse to buy its products. In that regard, I shall correct you, because you are indeed wrong: what I'm saying is that in order to influence companies to provide content at the price you want in the quality you want, you should continue to do exactly what you're doing right now by declining to pay for the inferior product that they're offering. Obviously, any business hoping to stay afloat will have to bend to its potential customers' demands if the alternative means a considerable lack of sales income.
That is where the protest ends.
After the pressures of community involvement against government and financial boycott against business, what exactly does proceeding to download an unauthorized work accomplish? As I suggested in my first comment, it accomplishes nothing but self-gratification.
My intent is not to make some judgement for or against personal gain as a motive for illegal activity; rather, I simply believe one should admit it as such, instead of trying to hide behind some lofty ideal of "fighting the power."
This was the point of my previous comment --most clearly illustrated by the phrase "my point is this."
As an aside, the suggestion that those individuals who've purchased expensive audiovisual equipment but are too lazy to utilize a legal, established channel for obtaining high-definition content should therefore be entitled to these works is laughable. If these individuals choose to still download unauthorized material, it is still for self-gratification, and not because anyone cheated them by not (yet) offering a streaming service that is acceptable. Surely careful research on the availability of high-definition content before their purchases should have provided ample forewarning.
How many times can the movie be watched in the 24 hour period it is available?
Depends how long the movie is =)
It appears to be "once" although you can start, stop, and resume as often as you like within that timeframe. It's effectively the same restriction you get with a standard disc rental that comes with late fees.
If you only rent a few movies a month, this could be a good value. However, if you're like me and get most of your television entertainment via rentals (I watch an average of 8 discs a month, some of it multi-episode TV shows like Lost) AppleTV will increase your spending by around 1/3 for the same quantity of content. Especially where episodic TV is concerned.
As many times as you want.
(xiv) Movie Rentals:
(aa) Movies are viewable only on your Mac or Windows computer (using iTunes 7.6 or later), iPhone, video-enabled iPod (iPod touch, iPod nano (3rd generation), or iPod classic), or on TVs using your Apple TV. Movies in high definition resolution (HD) are viewable only on TVs using your Apple TV and must be downloaded directly to your Apple TV. Movies are viewable only on one device at a time.
(bb) You must be connected to the Service when moving or streaming movies. Once a movie is moved, it is no longer viewable on the sending device. You may only move movies to another device from your Mac or Windows computer. Movies downloaded directly to your Apple TV may not be moved.
(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.
(dd) If you move a movie to an iPod or iPhone and then use the Service to restore the iPod or iPhone before you finish watching it, the movie will be deleted and will not be recoverable. This also applies to choosing Settings > Reset > Erase all content and settings on iPod touch and iPhone.
(ee) Broadband Internet connection required.
This is an unusually convoluted way of doing things for Apple. They usually try to keep things simple. I'm sure for most people it will be. Surely they will attempt to remove the confusion in the future. Seems to me the iTunes experience should be seamless and if I'm on my mac I should be able to rent HD on either machine or give me the option to start a download to my ATV from a remote computer/location.
How about the watch rented movie while recording with DVR feature? Would that work? Does it get a Red or Green label?
Which DVR?
Sorry - that reply hadn't refreshed when I entered my question.
Can I rent a movie on one mac (macbook, iTunes) and watch it on another mac on my network (mac mini @ TV, iTunes or Front Row)?
Here's one I tried. I rented a movie to my macbook. I watched it for 10 seconds, just to see that it worked. But, I actually want to watch it on a PC that I have hooked up to a projector. That PC is authorized for iTunes. So, I go to rent it again (it says I have already rented), so it lets me download for free. But, when I go to play it on my PC, it tells me that it can't because the movie is authorized for playback on a different computer? So, the 5 machine authorization doesn't work for movie rentals?
when will any of this be possible... when can i update my apple tv??
You missed how you actually rent the movies. I downloaded 7.6 and looked and looked and couldn't find a rent button anywhere yesterday, just buy. Has anyone been able to rent anything?
Robin, not all movies have the "RENT" button activated yet. Try 300, I think thats active.
iTunes is wicked bad about this. On the main page of iTS, in the top right, click on "Power Search". On that page, select "Movies" and check the box that says "Search movies that are available for Rental." Results show 150 items.
I see that the main page also has a button for rentals now available, then cover-flow presentation of some of those.
Thanks. I noticed there was a Top Rentals list on the right, but whenever I clicked on those movies there still wasn't a rent button. I was thinking how in the heck did anyone rent them!?
This covers nicely on how you can "move" the movies/rentals between devices, but what about limitations on viewing? The whole 30/24 thingy? What if I rent a movie on my PC, sync it to iPhone... can I watch it once on my PC and once on my iPhone? Once it's on the iPhone will it not play on the PC?
Some clarification on viewing limitations are more helpful than device shifting limitations (I could have assumed most of that already).
Thanks.
Sorry rob, replied in wrong thread due to engadget's messy comment system.
I wonder what happens when you transfer a rental to an iPod/iPhone. Can you still play it on iTunes AND the iPod/iPhone?
Because 720p is a perfectly fine resolution? Yeah, in the midst of all this 1080p mania, people seem to forget that 720p still produces a damn good picture.
One sec,
If I rent out the BluRay disc they showed yesterday at the Keynote (Family Guy was it?) and copy the file to iTunes (the dude said it has an iTunes ready format on it), does that have DRM, or can I keep it for as long as I want?
Anyone can see where I'm going with this.
Good question. I also had a hard time understanding if it was BluRay, DVD, or both.
The process is explained here: http://www.foxdigitalcopy.com
Digital Copy needs you to enter a serial number that's printed on an insert in the DVD case. DVD rental stores or services usually don't provide the original packaging, so you won't get the serial number.
I'd like to add a third or fourth product category, and compare itunes/atv to netflix and other similar services.
Engadget guys, also can you check if you can import the downloaded rented movie into iMovie, or any other video editing software please?
I think the reason the chart even exists is "inherent lameness due to DRM"
Netflix/Lovefilm + AnyDVD ftw
cool