Slashdot Mirror


Sony Decides Against Blu-Ray Downsampling

Paul Slocum writes "According to Ars Technica, Sony is now saying they will not use the Image Constraint Token and so movies will play on analog HDTV sets at full resolution. If HD-DVD does implement the analog downsampling, it's going to give Blu-ray a nice market advantage." From the article: "Sony's decision to not use the Image Constraint Token for the time being is meant to encourage the adoption of Blu-ray players. Launching a new product that would leave the thousands of analog HDTV owners out in the standard-definition cold could have proven to be a nightmare for Sony and the Blu-ray spec in general. Reports that 'Blu-ray discs don't look right on my HDTV' could result in consumers' switching allegiances to the competing HD DVD standard or postponing purchases of next-generation optical players altogether."

24 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Almost there.... by gasmonso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just get rid of the DRM and we might have a decent product.

    1. Re:Almost there.... by Jason+Earl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a job for the prosecutors. That's why I don't have a problem with the RIAA rounding up people that distribute their works illegally. We have laws to prevent people from distributing other people's copyrighted material. The laws are already ridiculously harsh. Use them, don't try and turn my home studio equipment against me.

      Here's a thought. The folks celebrating the pirating of copyrighted materials, they probably aren't going to buy your movie anyhow, but I will. Unless, of course, I can't play it on my equipment.

      Food for thought.

    2. Re:Almost there.... by Jason+Earl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then the content providers need to get into another business. I am not going to pay for media I can't use, and the pirates aren't going to pay even if they can use it.

      Somehow I think that market will work something out.

    3. Re:Almost there.... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your argument assumes that DRM works. It doesn't. The money is better spent producing more content, or increasing the quality of what you do make. Hell, maybe even kick a few dollars over to the musicians. Anything would be better than spending millions of dollars on technology that at best is mildly amusing to us "freeloaders" and at worst aggravating to paying customers.

      Reword your rhetoric to something reasonable or failing that, STFU.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    4. Re:Almost there.... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's a job for the prosecutors. That's why I don't have a problem with the RIAA rounding up people that distribute their works illegally.

      The key word you are missing is allegedly.

      The *AA's frequently go after people with almost no evidence, and it becomes a presumed guilty scenario. People who may or may not have done anything are then left to settle out of court, or face even costlier litigation to try and prove their innocence.

      If they gather evidence that can be supported in a court of law, and a real prosecutor actually does the follow up, it's one thing. If they get to simply say "we believe person X was making copyrighted content available" without any supporting evidence (which they do), then it's a complete circumvention of the legal system.

      There's a huge difference between claiming someone infringed, and actually having the information to be able to prove that it actually happened.

      How many little old ladies who don't even own computers have been hauled before court on these things? At that point, it's just a kangaroo court and has no business happening in the first place.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Almost there.... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, DRM really does prevent casual piracy, and studies have proven this. However, freeloaders have gotten much more proactive in breaking copy protection and distributing the content to as many other freeloaders as they can.

      Because they know that regular people can't/don't care to circumvent the pretection. This is not new. Did you ever hear of terms like "Commodore 64" and "BBS"? The old art form called "cracktros" got its name from the very fact that the stuff was put into the available free space on cracked game disks. Cracking-and-distributing is by no means a recent thing.


      There won't BE any money if nobody pays them.

      Unlikely. Yes, saled will diminish, because people now get stuff they don't really like for free. But a lot of people still go to the movies or buy that CD-like storeage medium or a DVD. Many people still pay for stuff if they really like it. Filesharing is not going to destroy the entertainment industry, the same as radio and cassette recorders didn't destroy it.


      Ah, the "RIAA abuses artists" tact. Except that artists willingly sign their contracts.

      Yup, 'cause that's the only way to get to the top. However, some artists are already using non-traditional means of distributing their stuff - and hey, even if the RIAA dies the independent artists will still get paid for their works. Seems like the death of entertainment becomes less and less likely. The Internet does take some of the incentive for a contract away, nowadays you can reach the whole world with nothing more than a website for twenty bucks a month.


      It does prevent casual piracy, and it makes sure there are dollars to begin with to pay those content creators. Pirates don't want to pay anybody as they consume other people's work. It's the antithesis of both capitalism and the Open Source philosophy.

      It also makes sure some people don't want to pay for what they consider otherwise a great product. When I consider buying a music CD I first take a look at whether it's from a major label or independent. If it's the former I check whether there is any kind of copy protection. If there is I just download the thing off the Internet. I don't want to destroy capitalism or the artist's careers. I merely won't buy a copy protected CD.
      I should take a look at iTMS, though. If there's some way of removing the DRM from AAC files without quality loss.


      This is a "vote with your bucks" thing. I don't have a problem with the quality of the product but with the way in which the product is presented. That's why I'm not boycotting the product but the medium on which it comes.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  2. But for how long? by cmowire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure.

    But if blu-ray takes off in the market, how long do you think downsampling will remain turned off? :)

    If this wasn't a publicity stunt, it would be removed from the spec.

    1. Re:But for how long? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, the old "printed press" argument, a red herring to distract from the immorality of making sure System of a Down doesn't get paid today.

      The "pirates" aren't a recent innovation since the creation of Napster, ok?

      And now we're inventing something I never said so you can attack it, called a strawman argument.

      Want to know what is a recent innovation compared to the past 500+ years? The Internet. That changes things. You can put a song in a shared folder and have a thousand people download it in a week. So no matter what weak argument you attempt to throw out to distract people, it won't change the fact you're purposely ignoring the new factor that is the Internet, which makes bit-for-bit copying easy and convenient for pirates, and connects them to millions of other people. That's what's different. That's why people are putting safeguards on their content in a net-connected world.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    2. Re:But for how long? by derF024 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If piracy skyrockets, you better believe it will be added back in. If you don't want content owners reacting to the thievery of their material, you should tell the pirates to stop taking stuff without paying for it. It's that simple.

      Except that it'll take the actual pirates all of 30 minutes to defeat every single copy protection system the content owners can put in place. Meanwhile, regular people who want to watch the latest movie they bought from best buy, only to find that the $10,000 entertainment system they bought a year ago is inadequate, will get screwed.

    3. Re:But for how long? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And that's why DRM is pointless. It only takes one single person anywhere in the world who's smart enough to get at the unencrypted bits (even if it takes connecting probes to the tube drivers in their TV set), and then the cat is out of the bag. That one copy will get conveniently replicated bit-for-bit all over the world.

      It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, or if the pirates are callously destroying the industry. It's a fact of life: people cheat, and it's going to happen regardless of how difficult the media industry makes it for their paying customers to connect a player to a TV.

  3. Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What they meant to say was "Sony Decides Against Blu-Ray Downsampling, for now..."

    From the company that brought you every other proprietary technology on the planet and likes to subvert their users' computers with rootkits. People aren't THAT stupid. No, they probably are...

    1. Re:Yeah right by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly.

      So they don't downsample "for now" to get their format established and to get their "foot in the door". There's nothing stopping them from changing their minds later-on once the format is established and the players are commonplace. Flip a bit on the media and it's re-enabled. No HD for you (on old HD sets).

      Say they were to release a new HD format and have absolutely no protection enabled on it whatsoever (at least for Sony titles). You do that for a few years and just eat the resulting (probably small) loss in piracy and such while your player crushes competing formats and puts them out of business. Once you've established yourself as the sole format out there, then you can re-enable the protection. What are people going to do? They already have players in their house, and there's no other format to migrate to even if they're pissed-off...

      Write the couple years of "no DRM" off to "marketing", and enjoy the heavily DRM'ed future...

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    2. Re:Yeah right by quokkapox · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Write the couple years of "no DRM" off to "marketing", and enjoy the heavily DRM'ed future...

      Until ONE copy of your HD content gets out unencumbered and the next-generation torrent is anonymously, invisibly,freely shared among anyone who wants it, because it's easier to grab just the torrent overnight, over your broadband connection than deal with stupid restrictions on your viewing capabilities.

      BTW offtopic, but can anyone point me to the Without a Trace episode that got fined by the FCC? December 31, 2004, I believe. I want to see what CBS got fined for and supposedly won't broadcast ever again.

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  4. Nothing to do w/Blu-ray vs HD-DVD by Keeper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sony has said that they do not intend to set the downsampling flag IN THE MOVIES THEY SELL. The capability still exists in the blu-ray standard.

  5. special promotional deal by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sony says that they are doing this to promote the BluRay standard. Presumably, once HD-DVD is defeated, they'll be turning down-rezzing back on in their releases. First good reason to hope for a long, nasty, format war...

    As for other content producers without a big vested interest in one format or the other, don't expect them to be so generous with their releases. If they set the flag, Sony's BluRay drives will obediently down-rez the analog output.

  6. Re:still boycotting sony* products by Bull999999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    doesn't matter what they do, I'm still not buying

    Unfortunately, most people complain about those evil corporations, yet still bend over and let them get screwed. Dispite Sony's rootkit deal, I'm willing to bet that PS3 will be sold out on the first day when it launches.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  7. Re:That's enough for me by trcooper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they were taking ICT out of the players, I might agree.

    They aren't.

    They are leaving the capability there, and offering only the promise that the first Sony movies released will not use it. Another studio or Sony after a change of heart can and will use it.

    Take it out of the damn player. There's no reason for it to exist unless they plan to use it.

  8. Oh Crap... by RexRhino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would not mind having a higher storage disk for storing computer files (but nowadays, one can just buy a USB hardrive for moving or backing up files), but having a locked restricted format that won't give me any benifits more than a standard DVD for movies or media (and is actually designed to degrade my eperience if I don't have the newest equipment)... man, I hope both these bastard fucking formats die a horrible death. I don't care which one is better! This isn't like VHS or Beta, because VHS and Beta weren't activly trying to restrict what I am able to do on machines I own with media that I own, or force me to purchase a new television to play movies.

  9. Duck and Cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This seems to be a interesting tactic by Sony. I can already see the class action lawsuit against the studios who implement the Token by users of older HDTVs. In fact there WILL be a lawsuit over this. Chances are also pretty good that this type of functionality will be ruled against in the US. Here is the scenario:

    I buy a new HD-DVD so I can watch King Kong in HD.
    I place the disc in my new Toshiba HD-DVD player.
    I try to play the HD movie on my slightly older Toshiba HD TV.
    I do not get to watch my HD movie that I paid for.

    Now if I am the consumer, am not told in VERY plain language that my TV will not play the movie in HD, I am now being misled.

    At this point there are all sorts of wonderful legal options to pursue. I can sue the maker of the Player for implementing the Token, which I will. I can also sue the studio for enabling the Token, which I will also do. A case for collusion could also be made (let's get everyone to buy new TVs again).

    Since Sony would make the player, the TV, and the movie, one stop shopping for a major lawsuit.

    Bring it on!

  10. complexity will kill the marke by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why has Sony died as an major consume electronics supplier? Becuase they are so into the technology they don't know how to make a cool product anymore. The walkman was a simple, elegent, device, not to mentions a pirates drem. No encrypted memory sticks, no need for a second device to specially encode the tapes.

    Now look at them. Some of the most pretty laptops on the market, burdened with all the extra cost of paying for proprietary formats and slots. They are pushing formats not to make the consumers life easier, but to insure that the executives can afford drugs and boys/girls.

    What mad the electronics market thrive was that one could plug an RCA cable from any decent device to any other decent device and get reasonable results. No need to hire an MSCE person to hook up the TV to the video player. No worry about if the disc was acually made for this region. DVD won on convinence, and the fact that VCR was getting complex, but why is it that I cannot just put a DVD in and watch a movie? Why can't I fast foward over the stuff I dont' want to see.

    Shoudn't design be for the sake of the person paying, or is it that consumers no longer are a source of profit on thier own? Is it that Dell makes money only becuase of MS and AOL/TW kickbacks? Is it that Sony does not expect to make any money of the players, but only on the content, which will be so chock full of advertisements that it will be just like watching a tv program? Why can't movie theatres make a profit on ticket sales and concesions? It is because the studios are so greedy that they each up all the sales, yet, because of the rational fear that the major releases are crap compared to the indepdent, won't fund digigtal distribution which might singnificantly increased profits, if only they would stop letting the likes of Michael Bay make films and tom cruise appear in them.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  11. Re:All this DRM.. by KingBraden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love comments like this. You are essentially saying "I hate how companies try to stop people from illegally distributing their copyrighted words, but it doesn't matter because I just download it anyway"

  12. Not black & white by LunaticTippy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't think the issue is simple. Many people think copyright is broken.

    Changing technology has been a real boon for studios. Now they can sell content that has already made its profit all over again. And again. Forever. Copyright is a deal between the public and the content creator - we give you a temporary monopoly in exchange for the creation. That has been perverted by a huge lobbying effort over the years.

    Changing technology has also been a boon for pirates. It is possible to make perfect copies for nearly no cost.

    It seems a bit hypocritical for studios to eagerly profit from new technology while complaining about piracy. Especially when copyright has been tilted more and more in their favor until now it is practically Forever.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  13. Why do we even need Blu-Ray right now? by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 3, Insightful

    DVD's been mainstream for what, 6-7 years at most? And still there are many many people who haven't adjusted. So in another year they're introducing something else? DVD is a flash in the pan compared to VHS, which is still in wide use today.

    The change in quality will be almost negligble. People will only feel cheated paying more and hardly being able to tell the difference.

    It would make much more sense to switch to DivX on normal capacity DVDs, which is higher quality and much smaller, that way you can fit more on a single DVD, which I think is one of the more important things we need with a new format.

    I don't see how anyone can be excited by Blu-Ray or HDDVD for movies, and you're kidding yourself if you are. More space isn't going to help movies that much at this stage. Yes, it will be in a higher resolution, yes, it will be crisper, but it will be at best half the difference between VHS and DVD. Many people may not even be able to tell the difference.

    Games and data storage, yes, but it's too soon as the PS3 is showing. It would be better to wait a little longer to make sure that it can be distributed more cost effectively, and maybe even improve it.

    DivX DVDs are a much better idea, in my opinion.

    --
    EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
  14. DRM is not for preventing piracy by Skapare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DRM is not for preventing piracy. Piracy is just being used as the whipping boy to try to justify DRM and the DMCA law. They know they can't defeat piracy because it takes a system that is locked absolutely 100% perfectly, and that just can't exist. Instead, the purpose of DRM is to provide the content industry with a means to restrict things in specific ways so you have to pay them more to get what you previously enjoyed for one price before. DRM doesn't do everything the content industry wants, just yet, but they will continue to use the existance of piracy to keep asking for more DRM (Digital Restriction Marketing, or Doubling Revenues Monthly, depending on which side you are on). Eventually you'll have to pay-per-view on the disks you actually buy. And then after that, they'll charge you for even doing things like rewinding to replay an interesting scene. You'll see more advertising that you can't skip, eventually even embedded in the middle of the movie. And later, that advertising will even require you to click "Buy now" or "Not interested" before the movie resumes. A small percentage of people might even find a way to defeat the DRM. But the DMCA storm troopers will be activated enough to maintain just enough terror level to keep that percentage small. But of DRM even fails to get any revenue at all from 10% of the population, it won't matter because it will have quadrupled the revenues from the other 90%.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars