Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players
dmayle writes "According to ExtremeTech, the Blu-Ray Disc Association (which consists of many big names, like Sony, Philips, and Pioneer) has decided to mandate Microsoft's VC-1 video codec. With HD-DVD incorporating Microsoft's patented video codecs as well, what will happen to the state of media players on Open Source? (Here's an additional source for Blu-Ray info)."
I'd rather not watch something than have to depend on Micro$oft for the codec!
It'll be reverse engineered. it'll happen in some other country. it'll move "underground". they'll be a giant legal battle.
Either that or it'll fail as a format. I'm kinda guessing the latter.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
I wonder how long before the anti-trust lawsuits kick in this time round.
When all else fails, run.
"Cutting off the oxygen supply"
Orwell was right... First it starts with computers... Then to home appliances... Next to the very cable TV we watch... And who can forget the patent that MS put on watches commercials that ask you questions for a prize... The worst part about this, is what it does to open-source codecs... Things like ogg-vorbis and xvid... Will the world every get a clue?
I am 60% pleased, 30% worried, and 10% indifferent.
Pleased: Despite all the MS bashing that occurs here, MS does make some very nice A/V codecs.
Worried: MS has a history of hamstringing their good codecs with DRM and other crap too.
Indifferent: Nothing to see here folks, FOSS will reverse-engineer and/or come out with far better codecs.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Most of Microsoft's patent portfolio exists solely to protect MS from the lawsuits of other companies.
Now, if MS licenses this and plays nice (and yes, MS can play nice if it benefits them to do so, i.e. making money by licensing the use of their codecs), we won't have any problems and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. IMO, only if MS keeps it closed, secret and has no licensing options will this hurt OSS.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
This is tantamount to telling people what gasoline they have to put in their car.
The difference is, as long as the blue-ray players drop in price quickly, the average consumer really won't give a damn.
You'll only hear a true uproar once prices go beyond what the majority of the market can bear. So prepared to be screwed - because there isn't a damn thing you or I can do about it.
Yeah, I'm Free. Right.
All in all, I think this may be more of an annoyance than a real problem. But I'd be interested in the opinion of other
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
In this case, though, the two competing standards (Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD ... think back to DVD vs. DivX) are *both* using Microsoft's VC-1 compression. So as it stands now, next-generation DVDs will use Microsoft software regardless -- unless other manufacturers want to come up with a THIRD competing format. What are the odds of that?
The Ezine Directory
In the U.S. at least, MPEG2 and CSS used in current DVD players are not really "Open", although they have been reverse engineered and implemented in open source projects (Opened with a crowbar, in a sense.)
I suppose you could make an argument MPEG2 is somewhat more open, if not unencumbered, than Microsoft codex XXX, but CSS certainly isn't.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
also, the current dvd players have a system that's supposed to make any 3rd party players impossible as well.
they're going to hamper 3rd party unlicensed player development anyways... no matter which codec.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I think this is the problem they're going to face. There was a giant untapped market of people who wanted to buy movies/TV shows on a permant media, but the sound/image quality and physical size of video tapes didn't make it worth it for them.
While BD-ROM will appeal to the home cinema fanatics, who will have the kit to really appreciate the HD images and ungodly number of sound channels that can be put on these disks. For most people though, the jump in image and sound quality is trivial compared to that when going from cassette to DVD.
HD DVD supports MPEG-2, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and Microsoft VC-9.
Blu-Ray Disc (BD) already supported MPEG-2 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and now just added Microsoft VC-9. So what?
Time, money, connections, the usual stuff. Besides, it appears that the decision is all but set in stone.
Assuming blu ray becomes the dominant hi def format (it's not clear but the ps3 supporting it gives it an edge IMO), the same thing will happen that happened with dvd's.
Someone will reverse engineer it, you will be able to play these movies on a linux system but it won't be legal.
"Even if we have a much better Free codec, that codec is worthless if every single DVD/movie released *must* be encoded in Microsoft's codecs because the standard mandates it"
The support for Media Player 9 codec is mandated for the players, to ensure that they are capable of showing video files encoded in that format. They are also mandated to do good ol' Mpeg 2 (just like DVD) and Mpeg 4 as well.
Of course, Mpeg 2 has its patents as well, but that doesn't seem to be hugely bothering people when discussing what this does over DVD, just because "Microsoft = Bad".
I'm just happy because a more efficient video codec leaves more room for audio on the discs, and we might see some MLP-encoded films.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Why would Sony want a MS technology to go into the PS3 when they now compete with the Xbox?
It'll be the same history of DVD's, at first you will need a highend expensive player, and later you'll be able to purchase a fully functional chinese player for a fraction of the price. A guy will hack the codec, you will see a perl perl script in a TShirt, M$ will complain, RIIA will complain. And at the end nobody would care in the rest of the world except in the US.
I, for one, wish the MPAA, Microsoft, the RIAA, etc all the best in their attempts to protect and overcharge insane amounts for their content and media.
The more restricted the $40 DRM-enabled Brittney-Spears Clone that can only be played 3 times before triggering the $2/viewing per-use license becomes; the more opportunity there is for Creative-Commons-licensed music to become popular and mainstream.
As Sony/MPAA/Microsoft and nuts like Zaentz(the guy who sued Fogerty for sounding like Fogerty, and then brought us LotR) keep gettting greedier and greedier; they are in fact _creating_ the same kind of opportunity for reasonably licensed Arts that similar nutcases did for Open Source software when they thought they could charge $100 for commodities like OS's and Relational databases.
Let them kill themselves. Personally, I'll go see local bands that let me tape & publish MP3s of their shows and actually want people to hear their stuff.
Detail #1: "...I predict ...reverse engineered..."
That doesn't mean anything! It's not Copyright, it's Patents that is the problem here. Microsoft could give away the source without licensing the patent for use in any given software.
Detail #2: A patent in a legal monopoly by definition. Until patent law is changed, they can't be hit with anti-trust or monopoly abuse quite so easily.
I think "Open Source" should be organized into a religion... it's just about the ONLY way it will get government protection.
If you read the article you'd know that this isn't an issue of support, it's an issue of MANDATE. From the article: Blu-Ray, backed by companies like Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Philips and Matsushita will require the codec to be used in playback equipment. They're not announcing that they support the codec. They're announcing that they REQUIRE the codec. There's a BIG difference here. What we have is a collaborative standard MANDATING one company's codec over open, standard codecs.
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
In the worst case scenario, us OpenSource/GPL freaks won't be able to watch these wonderful hi-definition movies on our wonderful full-room TVs.
Instead will have to do something else with our time....like...
Go hiking.
Learn to play an instrument.
Drink beer with friends.
Read obscure books.
Learn a foreign language.
Play with children.
Cook good food.
Run.
Microsoft can keep it's crap for all I care.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
-
Most players are made in China.
-
The Chinese government wants to reduce dependencies on foreign technology that requires royalties.
-
With players selling for as little as $29.95, paying royalties to high-wage countries is no longer competitive.
-
The top-grossing movie this week is
Hero.
It's from China.
It no longer matters what Microsoft or Hollywood wants. EVD players will be in Wal-Mart.MPEG is also patented. Of course, the MPEG licensing association may not have had much interest in going after open source because there is little money in it. Microsoft may go after open source just in order to hurt open source. But, ultimately, the problem is patented codecs in general, not which particular patented codec gets put into hardware.
Most people simply don't have the level of equipment to hear the difference between CD and SACD and so won't care.
Will the blu-ray discs deliver like 2000 lines, though? That might do the trick.
Of course in ten years the networks might be big enough that you'll just pipe a movie in HD down the line.
...is the fact that many of the companies behind these formats are media giants.
If for instance Sony decides to only release Spiderman 4 on Blu-Ray, whatcha gonna do? It would only take one mega-hit for people to starting shelling out the cash. Hell, I've bought GAME SYSTEMS because I liked one game.
Just imagine how they will put us all on the rack with two competing formats.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Ok, I have to weigh in here in the interest of some objectivity. Most DVDs currently are in the $25 or less range. Most of the DVDs I've recently purchased have been $10 to $14. I don't see that as overcharging, particularly since a matinee ticket costs $5.00-$5.50 and as high as $9 for evening showings, and you have to schedule yourself to be at the theater at their showing time, not when best fits your schedule.
Some people apparently missed the Good Old Days when VHS tapes of movies were $30 up to $80 (one studio was always in the $70 to 80 range, while others were much lower) and if you adjust the dollars these would be considerably more in today's bucks.
Blank media may be pricey, but don't confuse that with what's on sale with content.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Remember like TV you are not the customer.
The studios are the customer, they are buying a distribution mechanism. They want a good standard so that this channel will work well when it is deployed to the movie customers.
People don't buy DVD players to have a DVD player, they buy a DVD player to gain access to the DVD entertainment channel.
Damn I sound like a management/marketing droid.
RTFA people.
They are mandating that the player have the *ability* to decode this codec not that all media use this codec. The vast majority of Blu-ray DVDs will still be mpeg 2.
I believe that this announcement is the result of Microsoft pressure to include the codec. MSFT announced a Windows native driver for HD-DVD but did not commit to doing one for Blu-ray. How long now before MSFT announces that yes indeed, they will now provide a native driver for Blu-ray too?
I think it's great when people cite Slashdot articles as proof for their points in other Slashdot articles.
Kind of a circular logic there, don't you think? Of course Slashdot is going to claim Hollywood is "afraid" of Microsoft. Of course this article is going to make it seem like Microsoft's codec is the only codec for Blu-Ray (it's not, there are plenty).
This isn't even news. It's been known for a long time that VC-1 was part of the Blu-Ray spec. But hey, we needed yet another bash-Microsoft article. I'm telling you, as I've been saying in prevoius posts, it's 3-4 a day now.
You know, it's not like MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 aren't patented codecs, either.
Oh dear. The good old times when copyrights served to protect the artist are really long, long gone.
IMO, only if MS keeps it closed, secret and has no licensing options will this hurt OSS.
Whether the codec will be closed or secret is irrelavent. If the spec is not published, someone will reverse-engineer it. Therefore, there will undoubtably be ways to technically play this media on Linux/BSD/etc.
Legally, however, is a totally different issue. Sure, there will be licensing options. How much do you want to bet that there will be no options compatible with FOSS (ie. free of cost and distribution restrictions)?
Eventually there will be a legal means to play these on Linux (just like TurboLinux allows you to pleay WMP9 and DVDs on their distro). However, it runs counter to the FOSS goals of restriction-free software, and therefore has no chance of widespread acceptance.
So, in a way, you're right in that this won't "hurt", since we're presently already in this situation with DVDs. However, the ones licensing DVD's technology are not convicted monopolists hell-bent for the destruction of FOSS.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
The RIAA/MPAA will complain, no matter what.
It's a given:
They bitched when CD burners let us copy their precious music, albums at a time.
They bitched when players were released to play that [mp3] music, from CD/Flash/HDD
They bitched when DVD recordables were released to allow people to shrink and burn their precious movies.
They're bitching about the dual-layer DVD formar becoming recordable and available to the puclic.
Guess what they're going to do when we can slap 4-8 of their precious DVDs onto one BluRay disc for 50c? [hint: bitch.]
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Does no-one read TFA?
In order to be used for next-gen media, VC-1 has to be OPEN SPEC. Therefore, no-one needs to do any reverse engineering in order to get it to play back, like with the MPEG1-4 family. The bitstream specs are available for anyone to look at. However, like MPEG, VC-1 will be haevily patented.
What is interesting is how MS will handle things when someone *does* write and open source encoder/decoder. While the MPEG patent holders (Fraunhofer and Thomson IIRC) don't seem to mind too much when people write MPEG codecs* without paying royalties, something strikes me that MS are going to be alot less liberal with their patent portfolio once it gets bundled into the version X of mPlayer and Xine. Expect them to get driven away from US and other shores to have their pages located in somewhere that doesn't give a crap about US patents.
*Most of you will note that in order to remain semi-immune to patents, all the popular open source MPEG codecs I know of (LAME, XviD) are distributed as source-only, and they leave it to third parties to (semi-illegally) build them into binaries.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Folks,
Everyone seems to be thinking that somehow VC-1 is more patent or license protected than MPEG-2. This simply isn't true. Now, maybe real-world enforcement of the MPEG-2 patents aren't particularly aggressive for OSS software decoders, but every DVD player, and EVERY DVD DISC STAMPED requires a payment to MPEG-LA. And VC-1 license payments will also be handled by MPEG-LA. MPEG-2 or VC-1, there still will be payments, and the checks go to the same company. The interesting differences here are technical, not licensing.
My video compression blog
Prediction: You won't be able to buy a non-HD set of more than 23" within a few years. It's not that much more expensive to build an HD set these days. And it's a feature people are willing to pay for.
See many new black and white sets anymore? This changeover will be quite a lot faster.
My video compression blog
I thought Apple had claimed that H.264, which they made a big deal out of as part of Tiger, and that was the "official" codec for HD-DVD.
So are there in fact 2 camps? DVD Forum and H.264 and Blu-Ray and this Microshaft drivel?
I hate it when that happens. I'm all for competition, but not when its from MS. They'll just FUD, lawyer, and beat you to death until you submit.
If it isn't, then why the hell did they use it? Don't all the other parties involved in the standard realize that even they would have to pay royalties to Microsoft that would be completely unnecessary?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz