Apple seizes 90% of paid video downloads

The best action they can take against piracy is to allow people to PAY for them legally! Which they seem unable to understand. The music and movie industries are filled with the most out-of-touch management I have ever seen.

I have 9800 songs in my iTunes of which about 450 songs are illegal becuase I could not buy them ANYWHERE. (most came from my 20 year old 750-CD collection, the rest from itunes).

We are a society of instant gratification - if you give someone the option of doing the right thing AND letting them do it NOW your changes improve greatly of slowing piracy. If you contiune to look at the Betamax thinking you will forever be fighting a loosing battle. Give the people what they want!

I love the industry pundits who claim staggering lost revenues based on total download figures - how many of these downloads actually constitute lost sales is still to me a valid question as I assume many are by those who couldn't or wouldn't spend to buy the real thing even if it was available...

I assume download quality may also be an issue for video, especially as 1080p & blueray are trickled down to us this year after we've all bought 1080i technology...

Some cheap or free downloads may actually help generate 'buzz' which could arguably expand the lucrative product syndication market...

In my case for music I still buy CDs still because: - downloaded music quality isn't high fidelity - I avoid DRM - iPod invisible files exasperate legal music management

Do those with huge record collections have the paid right to listen to that music in the form of their choice ? In such a case the artists & 'suits' would seem to have been compensated already...?

Peter Drucker is an amazing man. The guy was writing business books back in 1942 that the Army used to organize itself better -- and he only recently died in 2005. I read a book by him which was frankly a lot of felgercarb, nothing that we hadn't all internalized, however one thing he said was that a market with only one major player isn't really a market and won't grow into a healthy business to be in. Something about, it's far better for a company to own half of a $5 million market than 100% (or 90%) of a stagnating one without actual innovation from at least two strong companies. So I am actually worried that Apple being too much of a 100 lb gorilla in the markets they're in might not be good. And I'm starting to think that the French idea of requiring some way of a leader with a closed system (FairPlay) to license his works to other companies might be better for everyone, including the company in question (Apple).

Just imagine how many sales Apple would have gotten if they allowed us to burn Video Store downloads to DVD format. Personally, I won't buy any videos that I can't convert to use how I want. If I buy a DVD, then I can rip it, and use the content on an iPod, or a Creative or Archos player, or a cell phone, or PSP, or any device of my choosing. With iTunes Video downloads, though, I'm completely locked down to a few Apple products for playback. That is clearly unacceptable.

What the NEVER take into consideration is that most people who download stuff illegally wouldnt buy the stuff to begin with. If they cant steal it they do without it.

I have downloaded programs from the iTunes store that I watch on a regular basis when for some reason or another I miss a program and don't record it. Then it is watch it/delete it. Unfortunately, some of the programs I usually watch are no longer carried by iTunes. Recently, a sale was missed by the TV producers because I was out of the country on business and missed 2 programs. I never watch TV programs a second time, so buying DVD collections to pick up a single missed episode to watch later out of sequence doesn't make sense for me.

just imagine how many sales Apple would have gotten if they allowed us to burn Video Store downloads to DVD format.

Or imagine how much they would sell if they actually had a decent resolution!

Of course, I can't believe there's been 6 comments on this article and not one mentioning the fact that Apple is seizing 90% of the videos out there. What gives them the right???

...Apple isn't "seizing" anything. People are buying from them, because there is little else on the internet that is as simple and as relevant. Sure resolution is a problem, and it is a problem for everyone, including YouTube.

Unless someone can make a profit from higher res downloads, they can't afford to improve the tech and infrastructure for better resolutions. And with the battle between cable and telephony companies taking place more in Washington DC than in your own neighborhood, it will be a while before anyone steps up to the plate in any significant way. Those big companies want to ensure economic victory, before they are willing to change ... just like the music labels and studios. No guts no glory.

So your typical anti-Apple position doesn't hold much water this time. Apple is filling a niche that no one else really can yet.

The Capitalist economy is what gives them the right. Although giving them the right sounds vaguely socialistic. I would state that they have earned the right.

...Apple isn't "seizing" anything. People are buying from them, because there is little else on the internet that is as simple and as relevant.

Man, don't see the play on words, huh? The headline for this article says they're seizing 90% of paid video downloads. Last I checked, seizing meant to take by force.

Sure resolution is a problem, and it is a problem for everyone, including YouTube.

Well, (a) who cares about YouTube (aw, man, that film of the kids dancing is low-res, that blows!), and (b) YouTube is free, so, not really the same as discussing against a $10 movie.

Unless someone can make a profit from higher res downloads, they can't afford to improve the tech and infrastructure for better resolutions. And with the battle between cable and telephony companies taking place more in Washington DC than in your own neighborhood, it will be a while before anyone steps up to the plate in any significant way. Those big companies want to ensure economic victory, before they are willing to change ... just like the music labels and studios. No guts no glory.

Oh, so people should just accept the crappy video quality because 'no one can do better'? No thanks. And when everyone talks music, no one talks infrastructure or bandwith, its all about how much money is being saved by skipping the packaging. Doesn't that apply to movies, even if they are larger downloads?

So your typical anti-Apple position doesn't hold much water this time. Apple is filling a niche that no one else really can yet.

Well, you should keep in mind that this covers just 'downloads'. There's many sites, like YouTube, or innerTube, or AOL Video, that don't do downloads, but also let you view for free.

Then again, the pricing structure on Apple is just nonsensical. TV Shows are basically priced at $1.99 per episode, regardless of whether its a lame 5 minute Tonight Show recap or a 42 minute episode of Lost. Unless, of course, its a little longer then that, when its way up there in price (Battlestar Galactica mini-series, constituting 3 whole hours, or what could make up 4 TV shows, costs $16). But then films cost $10 (unless you were 'lucky' enough to get High School Musical for $1.99).