BitTorrent Movies: Meh

Here’s the bottom line. I’m still waiting for the entertainment industry to give me what I want as a customer. And if I have to start using this blog as my meek cry for change, I’ll do it. I’m sitting here, waiting with itchy fingers to watch more entertainment than I have time for, but nobody’s serving up any legitimate options. And until that day comes, I’ll stick with my NetFlix DVD rentals and Apple’s iTunes Store, while many others resort to illegal torrent downloads or watching streaming, copyrighted material on YouTube (or other video sharing sites).

The BitTorrent store, I had hopes for, because I like BitTorrent. But what immediately kills this service for me is that Apple users need not apply, as there’s DRM that relies on Windows Media Player 11. Just read all these comments on digg to see where I’m coming from.

As Mathew Ingram points out, this doesn’t seem to be the fault of the engineer brains at BitTorrent. It’s not a technical issue; there are many BitTorrent clients on the Mac. It’s because Hollywood still doesn’t want to release the content without DRM.

I mean, here’s a hint. Four bucks for a movie rental is too high, since through NetFlix or even Blockbuster, I can get all-you-can-eat DVD rentals for a monthly fee, for not much more than twice that. And I certainly watch much more than two movies a month through NetFlix - that’s why it’s such a good deal. Then, when I get the DVD, it’s rip-o-rama (for personal use, of course).

Second, out of all the movies I watch, the vast majority are rentals. I don’t want to own them. So why exactly would I want to pay BitTorrent more money than NetFlix to download a movie I just want to watch once?

The movies that I do want to own, I want at least DVD quality, which as a download means gigabytes. I can just buy the darned DVD through Amazon, which I can play on any TV, or use NetFlix model and rip-o-rama (for personal use, of course).

I’m basically saying this: Top 10 Reasons Why Movie Downloads Suck at Gizmodo.

I’ll only get on board with video distributed over the Internet if these are the options:

1. A monthly service / subscription model, no more than $10 a month for unlimited streaming movies or downloads with relatively unobtrusive DRM. In this case, expiration and annoying DRM would be okay since the price is so low.

2. Pay-per-download for $3 a movie with no or relatively unobtrusive DRM. With pay-per-download, expiration is a deal breaker.

(Because the BitTorrent model is priced too high with expiration and DRM, it’s out.)

Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. Neither will never happen - epsecially knowing the entertainment industry’s addiction to DRM.

I’m looking forward to the NetFlix streaming movie service since because I’m already paying a monthly fee, it will seem like free. It satisfies my criteria #1.

Meanwhile, the iTunes store is good enough. I’m already buying episodes of Battlestar Galactica for $2 a pop. I’m just sitting here, waiting for more television shows and movies to make their way on there. The movie prices are too high, so I’ve never bought any. It satisfies my criteria #2, and maybe the movie download prices will fall in the future.

Steve Jobs knows that “good enough” means opportunity, and he’ll be making money hand over fist while everyone else in the entertainment industry tries (and fails) to sell me something I don’t even want. NetFlix is also pretty well-positioned in my mind.

This customer has moved on. The entertainment industry has to get on board or lose more money every day that goes by.