Single-play DVDs a Hoax
psy writes "Ed Bott's blog states that in relation to a previously posted slashdot story "a hoax can spread just as fast as a genuine news story. That's the lesson from the bogus story published in an obscure UK business magazine yesterday that claimed Microsoft is about to unleash a new single-play DVD format.
Paul Thurrott reprinted the story without giving credit to the original source. Bink.nu picked up the story from Paul and reprinted it verbatim.
Techdirt commented on the original story, with attribution but without any fact-checking. So did John Walkenbach.
The funny part? There's no truth to the story. None whatsoever. In fact, the original story sparked a flurry of e-mails around Microsoft as people in different groups tried to figure out where on earth this story came from. After the head-scratching stopped, a spokesmen told me, they concluded that the story was not true. "It appears to be confusing an existing feature within Windows Media DRM that allows for single-play of promotional digital material. This has been an option for content owners to use for some time for the Windows Media format - it does not apply to MPEG2 content found on DVDs."
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I'm very glad that this was a hoax. It's a total waste to make disposable dvd's. Major environmental hazard, since no one would dispose correctly. Unless they also used the biodegradable (did I spell that right?) stuff I read about a while ago.
In Soviet Russia, hoax spread you!
I find it's difficult to trust any "journalist". Take the complete failure of the journalistic trade before and during the ongoing war in Iraq, for instance. That's proof enough that the vast majority of journalists aren't qualified to perform their job.
Unlike engineering or medicine, for instance, there is no penalty for those journalists who fail to do their job properly. The complete lack of accountability had resulted in most mainstream newspapers, magazines and television news programs being nothing but farcery.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
This multiple format business is a mess. Look at the problems with SACD and DVD-A. Nobody is buying them (and if the music industry stopped suing people and promoted those formats that are so much better than downloaded music they would actually make more money because there is new value there.) But back to the topic at hand: The industry would benefit more from having ONE SINGLE TRUE UNIFIED STANDARD as opposed to a couple of standards, which would confuse people. The public at large (Joe Sixpack) gets all confused with this 2-format thing. They want to buy a movie and play it, not worry about if this disc will play on their type of player. When we have one unified standard, confusion is reduced, people can just buy and make the industry happy. The the industry focus can be put on actually releasing content and worthwhile stuff, as opposed to teaching consumers that they need a different player for their Fox releases versus some other studio and then wondering why people don't buy any of these confusing and conflicting products.
Got it now.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Do you honestly think that Microsoft cares what Slashdot says?
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Single-play DVDs a hoax? Yeah, it doesn't sound too likely either. Most everyone I know have incredibly old DVD players, and how would one use DVDs work on those? It obviously wouldn't, because it wasn't a standard when everyone got them. In other words, it would be incredibly ineffective to develop such single-play DVDs, because older players wouldn't understand it.
Given that Slashdot was one of the "news" sites that perpetuated this myth, why aren't we seeing any kind of retraction or apology from the Slashdot editors that they screwed up in not fact-checking, especially on the original story? Would it be so hard for one of them to amend that story with a link to this one saying "sorry, this report isn't true"?
Only someone who reads slashdot every other day would say that. The rest of us know it's much more common than that.
Factual errors are always going to happen. Humans make mistakes. Thurott published a story as fact with no sources. This is just as bad as making up a story. The Times fires people for making up stories.
Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=
Yeah, it's called a trial balloon. Look it up. Let me make it easier for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_balloon
They send out a press release with plausible deniability to see how their PR would suffer or improve if they took a certain action. Now they know it's a bad idea, and they don't have to go through the trouble of sticking their necks out, too. Politicians do this all the time.
It's a shame really. The single-use DVD merely gives people an additional option. You can buy the DVD for $20, or buy it for a single use for $3. All those who would pay $3 for a single use but not $20 for the full DVD now suffer, and those who buy normal DVD's are unaffected.
Good job guys.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
"Story posted on /. is hoax!"
/. as real news better learn to get used to being taken advantage of. News stories are an indication that something may have taken place. But don't count on the actual details being anything close to correct. How many times do you need to let Times reporters and national news casters lie to you before you realize this? And now you can add /. to the list of information sources that must be suspect.
Why is this a surprse to anyone? All of the major news media got most of the facts wrong on the Superdome incident after the Katrina hurricane. And that was a story that really mattered!
And anyone that takes what is published on
Ask anyone that has direct first hand information on a news story that has been reported on just how many facts on their incident were reported correctly. I doubt that any story is ever reported 100% correctly.
And what is the deal with newscasters becoming part of the story instead of just reporting what is going on? News on TV has become nothing more than another entertainment show. "If it bleeds it leads!" The talking heads are full of themselves making important sounding noises, rolling their eyes, and making incredulous sounds on stories they obviously have strong opinions on. Add that to them only reporting the portions of a story they agree with or make people they don't like look bad, why do so many people believe them still? And they get to do this with no over sight. So Dan Rather retired a little early over that misunderstanding. The other talking heads have picked up the slack.
And while we are at it what the hell is the deal with Major League Baseball? Why they hell can't they set a no tolerance policy for steroid/drug use? One time and that player is banned. Why do they try these half measures giving they multiple times to try to get around the rules? [sorry, that last part just slipped out...]
The New York Times has had its problems, but their reporters are some of the best in the business, and while there is an editorial slant, it isn't extreme. The Atlantic provides good monthly material, and The Economist does so on a weekly basis. Those are my picks for daily, weekly, and monthly news, but there are other sources. The Christian Science Monitor is a great daily paper, for example. You may agree or disagree with my picks, but the profession of journalism isn't dead, and good sources of news are available.
I would also advance the notion that just because the editorial bias of a newspaper is disagreeable to you doesn't mean that the organization is corrupt. Newspapers are run by people, and people sometimes make mistakes. Note that during the runup to the Iraq invasion, The Atlantic provided excellent coverage and made many warnings that the Administration's plans were misguided. To me that is proof that following only one news source is a bad idea. You have to read from more than one source, whose biases you know, and make your own assessments from there.
I realize that it's de rigeur to bash on the news media, whether you're attacking from the Right or the Left, but the media is a business, and it gives people what they want. Americans need to take responsibility for at least some of the sorry state of our media. We have consistently voted in politicians who allowed the media conglomerates more and more power. We watch trash like Fox News. We read USA Today. That's not proof of a lack of credible journalism. It's proof that we're lazy.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Oh, it's "such a shame" that there's one fewer way to fill landfills with this crap, there's one fewer way to use polluting manufacturing processes to make this crap, when we can make stuff that isn't artificially limited?
Give me a break. Thumbs down to you.
i am a soviet space shuttle