<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Ultimate Movie Paradox ? RedBox vs Downloads</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/</link>
	<description>the mark cuban weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:14:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: danrimon</title>
		<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/#comment-66191</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[danrimon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:48:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogmaverick.com/?p=1344#comment-66191</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Redbox VS. Warner Brothers - Now at AllRise Community Court http://bit.ly/421q8d]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Redbox VS. Warner Brothers &#8211; Now at AllRise Community Court <a href="http://bit.ly/421q8d" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/421q8d</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jdbigelow</title>
		<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/#comment-65977</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jdbigelow]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:41:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogmaverick.com/?p=1344#comment-65977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Speaking of movies,Mark,if you still own Landmark Theatres (if i&#039;m not mistaken.) you REALLY need to talk to the woman who does the booking for the theatres in Seattle,especially the Midnight Movies at the Egyptian Theatre,up on Capitol Hill. For about the last 5 1/2 years now,it&#039;s been nothing but the same boring picks again and again. I can recall suprising picks like Wisconsin Death Trip,or a new print of Cannibal Holocaust,but for the longest time,it&#039;s just been Donnie Darko and a muppet movie.

You need to do something about this,put me in charge.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking of movies,Mark,if you still own Landmark Theatres (if i&#8217;m not mistaken.) you REALLY need to talk to the woman who does the booking for the theatres in Seattle,especially the Midnight Movies at the Egyptian Theatre,up on Capitol Hill. For about the last 5 1/2 years now,it&#8217;s been nothing but the same boring picks again and again. I can recall suprising picks like Wisconsin Death Trip,or a new print of Cannibal Holocaust,but for the longest time,it&#8217;s just been Donnie Darko and a muppet movie.</p>
<p>You need to do something about this,put me in charge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: maxkayden</title>
		<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/#comment-65930</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[maxkayden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogmaverick.com/?p=1344#comment-65930</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1) Only some of the distribution deals require destruction of the DVDs.  That&#039;s why Universal and Redbox are currently in a lawsuit.  Redbox released Universal&#039;s demand letter and it reeked of antitrust (blatant price fixing, agreements of non-competition, etc).

2) None of us software guys are going to put up money, because we&#039;re intelligent enough to know what Hollywood accounting is.  Every major studio has multiple lawsuits against it at any given time from directors, producers, and actors demanding proper royalties.  They&#039;re absolutely not trustworthy business partners, and when they hold the keys to the promotion of the content, we&#039;ll give them a substantial cut of profits, but it&#039;ll be a cold day in hell before we hand over a huge chunk of our VC up front.  It reeks of those sales pyramids typically seen with &quot;high end&quot; cosmetics.

3) Cost of distribution is something that also needs to be addressed.   Netflix says that after factoring in maintenance and initial capital, it currently costs them roughly 6 cents to deliver a movie (and that number is only shrinking).  Why should I pay a studio $10 per transaction that costs only 6 cents?  When you consider the fact that it&#039;s completely up to the studio to decide whether they&#039;ll promote the movie, the fee structure is laughable.  And unlike physical distribution, I only need a single copy for digital, so most of the expenses are in negotiating the deal.  I&#039;d be paying almost $10 of pure profit per transaction to studios who prey on partners that they actually need... imagine how they feel about partners like myself who are easily replaced.

4) You are correct in the disparity of pricing -- the studio deals for digital distribution are laughably non-competitive.  Historically, pay-per-title downloads (Amazon, iTunes, and all the failed startups) cost MORE than the current market value of the actual DVD. And, digital movie downloads are always DRM laden files that typically require calling home every so often (to key servers that historically have stayed up for only 2 or 3 years).  These aren&#039;t purchases -- they&#039;re rentals of probably about 2 or 3 years.  Every VC knows that to get a tech product out, you have to get the geeks to adopt it first, but no geek is going to pay MORE for a laughably shoddier product, especially when the best product is available elsewhere for free.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1) Only some of the distribution deals require destruction of the DVDs.  That&#8217;s why Universal and Redbox are currently in a lawsuit.  Redbox released Universal&#8217;s demand letter and it reeked of antitrust (blatant price fixing, agreements of non-competition, etc).</p>
<p>2) None of us software guys are going to put up money, because we&#8217;re intelligent enough to know what Hollywood accounting is.  Every major studio has multiple lawsuits against it at any given time from directors, producers, and actors demanding proper royalties.  They&#8217;re absolutely not trustworthy business partners, and when they hold the keys to the promotion of the content, we&#8217;ll give them a substantial cut of profits, but it&#8217;ll be a cold day in hell before we hand over a huge chunk of our VC up front.  It reeks of those sales pyramids typically seen with &#8220;high end&#8221; cosmetics.</p>
<p>3) Cost of distribution is something that also needs to be addressed.   Netflix says that after factoring in maintenance and initial capital, it currently costs them roughly 6 cents to deliver a movie (and that number is only shrinking).  Why should I pay a studio $10 per transaction that costs only 6 cents?  When you consider the fact that it&#8217;s completely up to the studio to decide whether they&#8217;ll promote the movie, the fee structure is laughable.  And unlike physical distribution, I only need a single copy for digital, so most of the expenses are in negotiating the deal.  I&#8217;d be paying almost $10 of pure profit per transaction to studios who prey on partners that they actually need&#8230; imagine how they feel about partners like myself who are easily replaced.</p>
<p>4) You are correct in the disparity of pricing &#8212; the studio deals for digital distribution are laughably non-competitive.  Historically, pay-per-title downloads (Amazon, iTunes, and all the failed startups) cost MORE than the current market value of the actual DVD. And, digital movie downloads are always DRM laden files that typically require calling home every so often (to key servers that historically have stayed up for only 2 or 3 years).  These aren&#8217;t purchases &#8212; they&#8217;re rentals of probably about 2 or 3 years.  Every VC knows that to get a tech product out, you have to get the geeks to adopt it first, but no geek is going to pay MORE for a laughably shoddier product, especially when the best product is available elsewhere for free.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kpurfield</title>
		<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/#comment-65892</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kpurfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:18:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogmaverick.com/?p=1344#comment-65892</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You going to put up the money? There are people living on the moon.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You going to put up the money? There are people living on the moon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thegallics</title>
		<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/#comment-65872</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[thegallics]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogmaverick.com/?p=1344#comment-65872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mr. Cuban,

There is another paradigm, short in coming, that will quickly overtake the current one. It is the completely wireless solution. It cuts all of this &quot;download vs offerings&quot; argument out because it essentially delivers everything, such as videos, documents, etc, to you whereever you are.

This now gives the power of distribution to the big content providers who are apt to take it and sell 100% of advertising for themselves. Imagine how big Viacom would be if they could collect 100% of advertising instead of sharing it with broadcasters and cable companies? They would instantly increase in size three-fold.

Services, like what Hang 10 Technologies (hang10tech.com) offers through their vuivision.com website, can be utilized to bring 100% content to individuals whereever they are. Hang 10 is also offering content providers HDTV through their new encoding and indexing system, over wireless networks, at very low bandwidths. No downloads, no aps, no iPhone required. How long before the content providers realize they hold all the cards? 

Why pay cable or TV broadcasters, or deal with them, when the content providers have an unlimited, widely distributed broadcast medium to distribute their content at a fraction of the cost that it is currently be offered at?

My guess is that the ESPNs and Viacoms of the world realize this and are just waiting for the right moment to pull the plug on broadcast/cable and start dealing with the future broadcasters, Verizon and AT&amp;T.

For this reason your blog, and today&#039;s current business offerings,  are suffering from an old paradigm or perhaps the one that is fading... quickly.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Cuban,</p>
<p>There is another paradigm, short in coming, that will quickly overtake the current one. It is the completely wireless solution. It cuts all of this &#8220;download vs offerings&#8221; argument out because it essentially delivers everything, such as videos, documents, etc, to you whereever you are.</p>
<p>This now gives the power of distribution to the big content providers who are apt to take it and sell 100% of advertising for themselves. Imagine how big Viacom would be if they could collect 100% of advertising instead of sharing it with broadcasters and cable companies? They would instantly increase in size three-fold.</p>
<p>Services, like what Hang 10 Technologies (hang10tech.com) offers through their vuivision.com website, can be utilized to bring 100% content to individuals whereever they are. Hang 10 is also offering content providers HDTV through their new encoding and indexing system, over wireless networks, at very low bandwidths. No downloads, no aps, no iPhone required. How long before the content providers realize they hold all the cards? </p>
<p>Why pay cable or TV broadcasters, or deal with them, when the content providers have an unlimited, widely distributed broadcast medium to distribute their content at a fraction of the cost that it is currently be offered at?</p>
<p>My guess is that the ESPNs and Viacoms of the world realize this and are just waiting for the right moment to pull the plug on broadcast/cable and start dealing with the future broadcasters, Verizon and AT&amp;T.</p>
<p>For this reason your blog, and today&#8217;s current business offerings,  are suffering from an old paradigm or perhaps the one that is fading&#8230; quickly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: amitil</title>
		<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/#comment-65871</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[amitil]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:04:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogmaverick.com/?p=1344#comment-65871</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hello,

Is&#039;nt this just an instance of the micro payments problem?

It&#039;s messier to pay 1$ through the net then it is to a redbox machine...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello,</p>
<p>Is&#8217;nt this just an instance of the micro payments problem?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s messier to pay 1$ through the net then it is to a redbox machine&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Web News Site &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Fox The Latest Studio To Declare War On Redbox</title>
		<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/#comment-65864</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Web News Site &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Fox The Latest Studio To Declare War On Redbox]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogmaverick.com/?p=1344#comment-65864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] was just a few days ago that Mark Cuban was singing the praises of Redbox as the perfect model for movie distribution, claiming that the movie studios loved it, because they [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] was just a few days ago that Mark Cuban was singing the praises of Redbox as the perfect model for movie distribution, claiming that the movie studios loved it, because they [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pghkid</title>
		<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/#comment-65861</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[pghkid]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogmaverick.com/?p=1344#comment-65861</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mr. Cuban, 
I am also from Pittsburgh and also am a Pirates fan.  I am hoping to reach you for some advice on what can be done to change what Bob Nutting is doing to our team.  Please help if you can. The local media is helpless and we need to gain some leverage somehow to change this for the better.  Thank so much...simonetti22@msn.com]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Cuban,<br />
I am also from Pittsburgh and also am a Pirates fan.  I am hoping to reach you for some advice on what can be done to change what Bob Nutting is doing to our team.  Please help if you can. The local media is helpless and we need to gain some leverage somehow to change this for the better.  Thank so <a href="mailto:much...simonetti22@msn.com">much&#8230;simonetti22@msn.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: techzn</title>
		<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/#comment-65858</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[techzn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:52:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogmaverick.com/?p=1344#comment-65858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A few reasons I can think of are the fact that a lot of ISPs are starting to or are threatening to limit bandwidth and implement other price gouging techniques.

Not to mention many big companies do not support net neutrality, so ISPs would be free to throttle ports used by said online video providers rendering their services useless.  Especially when it comes to 1080p or higher content.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few reasons I can think of are the fact that a lot of ISPs are starting to or are threatening to limit bandwidth and implement other price gouging techniques.</p>
<p>Not to mention many big companies do not support net neutrality, so ISPs would be free to throttle ports used by said online video providers rendering their services useless.  Especially when it comes to 1080p or higher content.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bbobley</title>
		<link>http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/05/the-ultimate-movie-paradox-redbox-vs-downloads/#comment-65857</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[bbobley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogmaverick.com/?p=1344#comment-65857</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you are someone interested in Netflix and the history of video rentals, you might want to check out this new site called The Story of Video Mailbox.  It describes a small company, way back in the 1980&#039;s, that pioneered many of the video rental processes that Netflix and others use today (e.g. using a rental queue, unlimited rentals for a flat fee, mailing movies in pre-paid shipping boxes, etc).  Check out:

http://sites.google.com/site/videomailbox/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you are someone interested in Netflix and the history of video rentals, you might want to check out this new site called The Story of Video Mailbox.  It describes a small company, way back in the 1980&#8242;s, that pioneered many of the video rental processes that Netflix and others use today (e.g. using a rental queue, unlimited rentals for a flat fee, mailing movies in pre-paid shipping boxes, etc).  Check out:</p>
<p><a href="http://sites.google.com/site/videomailbox/" rel="nofollow">http://sites.google.com/site/videomailbox/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

