MPAA chief exec Jack Valenti predicts movies online by 2005

I just posted the article MPAA chief exec Jack Valenti predicts movies online by 2005.

GristyMcFisty used our news submit to tell us that according to Motion
Picture Association of America chief executive Jack Valenti,
Americans could be watching newly released movies…

Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

If the movie is streaming, it is a complete joke. There will be buffers, and that is not worth anybody’s money, not even 1 cent. It would depend on the format for download. It would be weird for it to be in a divx format, simply due to lack of DRM, so it would probably be in WMV format. That sucks, it looks bad, especially when compared to our DVD standards. So, to get good quality, you need to be able to download something that is as good as DVD. Now thats a lot. Even in 2005, when the dual layer DVDs come out, 7.9GB (8.5GB would be formatted to 7.9GB) is still a download, even on high-speed connections. My cable is 1.5Mbps, even at that speed as a constant, that’s a 12 hour download. Right now, for $100/mo I can have 3Mbps, so thats a 6 hour download. To make it any valuable amount of time, I think that 1 hour is a good enough wait, you need an 18Mbps home connection. I cant picture that in 18 months (geez mid-2005 sounds farther away than that…). Lossy quality over purchased physical media quality is ridiculous. Even if the download was for a 2GB WMV file (2 hr movie) w/ Dolby 5.1 (or 6.1), and it was $3, thats a decent amount of quality, but it is only viewable on the PC. I cant stand watching movies on my PC. Whats the point of having a DVD player, a 47" TV, and a nice couch if I have to watch it on a 17" PC screen with an uncomfortable chair? I’d rather pay an extra $2, go to a video rental store, get the physical disc, utilize my DVD player, 47" TV, and nice couch tha save $2 and watch it on an uncomfortable lossy tiny screen. Its the same thing as the downloadable music. You can have 44.1khz 16-bit stereo uncompressed PCM for $15/disc, or you can download all the tracks in AAC lossy format for $0.99/song. Take your pick, I’ll choose the PCM. Lossy is only good if you want to give it away. When its free, you dont really care that theres some blocking or some funny compression erros in the audio, because you can rationalize and say, free isnt a bad price. But if you expect me to PAY YOU for a lossy product, you’re out of you mind. That’s like paying for 92 octane gas and getting 67 (not that it exists)…

A prime example on an oxymoron…mentioning “microsoft” and “secure system” in the same sentence…:X

Movies are already online and free of DRM and good quality too! :wink:

right… if there’s ANYTHING an 82 year old guy knows about, it’s computers and the internet… NOW, if he could just get that DAMN vcr to stop flashing “12:00” all the time…:g

Well, apparantly Mr Valenti expects us to pay to see their moves FOUR times. 1; At the movie-theatre 2; Online in a crappy format 3; Renting it on DVD in a GOOD quality and 4; Buying the DVD at the store… a couple years down the line they want you to buy the EXTENDED/SPECIAL/DIRECTORSCUT/ETC version so that makes it 5 times… on another note… IF they do get rid of all the online piracy they have got to be smoking something funny if they think i’m gonna be paying 60 dollars a month for a high-speed connection.

I totally agree. What is Jack Valenti talking about :slight_smile:

Yes the 60/month is fine as long as I get a few DVDs a day, and a zillion mp3s files. People who are paying 60/month and only go to web pages are stupid. I’ve got 2 cable modems going 24x7, and I buy 200 blank DVDs a month. Oh and netflix is cool too :slight_smile: