Seagate and Paramount Pictures partner for a new deal

Bobby Miller 13 Apr, 2010 at 3:30pm ET Article published in Tech

Seagate has announced a partnership with Paramount Pictures to distribute Freeagent Go Ultra-Portable 500GB external hard drives preloaded with JJ Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek remake, along with 20 other films from Paramount.

The promotion will be available for one month only with the Freeagent Go drive being sold at $100, which is about $40 off of the drive’s MSRP. The movie-loaded HDD can be obtained on Seagate’s online store, or any other online retailer that offers the specially marked 500GB Freeagent Go model. Paramount and Seagate are calling this move “an industry first”, and are using the promotion to explore innovative new means for legitimate digital distribution methods for films.

As you might expect with such a deal, there are strings attached. Despite the drive coming preloaded with 20 films, such as The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, G.I.Joe, Nacho Libre, and The Hunt for Red October, JJ Abrams’ Star Trek is the only film that is free to watch with the purchase of the drive. The other films must be purchased separately at $10-$15 each. Regardless of whether or not the end user purchases these additional films, they will still populate 50GB of the drive’s total 500GB.

Even JJ Abram’s Star Trek requires some work before the user can watch the film. The purchased Freeagent Go drive must be registered online with Seagate before the user will recieve the key that unlocks the digital content. All of the films on the drive contain Windows-based DRM that protects the content and prevents duplication and sharing.

This promotion is an interesting new take on film distribution methods. It is part of countless new methods to combat online piracy that is damaging profit in the film industry. Some will see it as an excellent deal, to buy a portable HDD at a reduced price and carry the option to have mobile films on hand. However, with the DRM and necessary additional purchases, some users may be turned off to the prospects.

Comments

13 Apr 2010 ~ 4:27pm Cliff_Forster Chart a course towards the fail system, full impulse power!

But sir, I'm giving it all she's got, but the torrents wont stop coming!

Damn it Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a Pirate...

I could keep going?
13 Apr 2010 ~ 5:08pm Thrax Companies still don't get it.
13 Apr 2010 ~ 7:15pm UPSLynx but guys, it's almost like you're really buying 20 films!
13 Apr 2010 ~ 9:13pm Cliff_Forster Okay, here is a hard drive, pre loaded with some cool content you might want for no extra charge, thats great marketing. Want it, keep it, if not, delete it.

Hey, we took up 10% of the drive with shit you may never want to buy? Fail....
14 Apr 2010 ~ 12:11am RyanMM I swear to god the movie studios are completely detached from reality. You know when I buy DVDs? Unless it's some awesome special edition for a really killer movie (which are rarities), I wait till they're like $5. So I sure as hell am not going to pay a premium on that for any non-boxed, non-HD, non-special-feature-laden product.
14 Apr 2010 ~ 2:39am UPSLynx That was something I found especially surprising - they didn't go into any details about what kind of quality the films would be at. Are the compressed, or are they HD?
14 Apr 2010 ~ 2:43am Thrax They can't be HD. Twenty HD-quality movies would consume about 130GB on that drive, assuming a reasonable bitrate. I can only assume they're one and change gigs a piece, or a little better than DVD quality.
14 Apr 2010 ~ 10:43am Cliff_Forster I think long term, this is why systems like netflix streaming are going to get such a solid push from the studios. It puts them in some reasonable level of control over the flow and distribution of digital content. Ten years from now, physical media will be dead. Everything will be subscription on demand content, and people will wonder how they lived without it.

So, I guess, what I am saying is that if content providers really want to do something about controlling the flow of digital content, they should invest in the internet, rather than fight it.
14 Apr 2010 ~ 11:35am UPSLynx

Cliff_Forster wrote:

So, I guess, what I am saying is that if content providers really want to do something about controlling the flow of digital content, they should invest in the internet, rather than fight it.

hah! hahahaha! oh, that's rich. I mean, you're right, but it'll be a cold day in hell before they get that picture.

"But... but the internet is where the pirates come from! We can't possibly support that platform!"

Also... physical media 4 life!
14 Apr 2010 ~ 3:35pm Tim A hard drive loaded with movies? Isn't this what DVDs are for?
14 Apr 2010 ~ 4:03pm mertesn

Tim wrote:

A hard drive loaded with movies? Isn't this what DVDs are for?

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
- Abraham Lincoln
14 Apr 2010 ~ 4:05pm Cliff_Forster

UPSLynx wrote:

hah! hahahaha! oh, that's rich. I mean, you're right, but it'll be a cold day in hell before they get that picture.

"But... but the internet is where the pirates come from! We can't possibly support that platform!"

Also... physical media 4 life!

Apple embraced it, and they are rolling in cash because of it.

Maybe the future of the film distribution business is not any of the current players, maybe its a more forward looking company like Google, or Apple, or even Microsoft.

Some of what netflix is doing with the streaming service is very exciting, they are really starting to solve that problem of the last 50 feet to your TV. Boxee box is another example of a devise that really gets that done.

Film content delivered over the internet is the future, its going to happen, and there is a boat load of cash to be made in it for the company that plays their cards right.

It all starts with investing in infrastructure, getting the bandwidth up and available to more citizens more cheaply.

Honestly, if I were a betting man, I would say Google is going to have the chops for this, and long term, I would not be surprised to see them get into this business.

Many speculated that the YouTube buy was simply to position themselves with the legal departments of the traditional content providers to walk in and say, hey, we are Google, we have a boat load of cash like you do, guess who is calling some of the shots now.... Plus we know they are investing in new infrastructure projects. How are they going to pay off all these investments? Content delivery. It will happen, and then company's like Paramount and 20th Century Fox won't be able to join the revolution fast enough.

Apple did it with music, but music was less ambitious on some levels. My bet, Google will heavy into content distribution over the internet in the next few years. They did not make investments into a money pit like You Tube, and infrastructure building for nothing. They have a long term plan for ROI.
14 Apr 2010 ~ 4:08pm Thrax Did someone say Boxee Box?

/me airhumps.
14 Apr 2010 ~ 6:16pm Snarkasm I would still rather own my media, thanks.