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."

Comments

Almost there....

[gasmonso]

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

Re:Almost there....

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously never owned an electronic device manufactured by Sony's consumer division!

Re:Almost there....

[Midnight Thunder]

As long as the DRM is inconvenient rather than 'unbreakable by the terms of the DMCA', then I am kind of ok. What I mean by this is that if I can play it on my computer with an open source player then I am happy.

What matters most for is whether it will have a region flag on it. The region flag is fine if you speak English, but becomes a huge pain if you buy non-English language films, unless you have something that ignores the region encoding.

Re:Almost there....

[Jason Earl]

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.

Re:Almost there....

[Overly Critical Guy]

That's a job for the prosecutors.

If the content owners find that they're unable to prosecute infringers (due to the measures of pirates to protect their freeloading brethren through anonymous pirating), or that prosecution isn't moving fast enough to get all the pirates, they'll secure their material so that they stop getting ripped off.

Re:Almost there....

[Jason Earl]

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.

Re:Almost there....

[sqrt(2)]

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.

Re:Almost there....

[Overly Critical Guy]

Well, if pirating freeloaders keep ripping them off, they will have to get into another business. And that will effectively kill off all the content. Pirates don't give a shit about this; it has absolutely no prominence in their minds that they're making sure someone doesn't get paid for work they did. To them, artists are apparently slaves who must toil in expensive studios for free so that pirates just "might" decide to support them through the purchase of a t-shirt or concert ticket, though usually pirates assume someone else will do it.

Re:Almost there....

[Overly Critical Guy]

Your argument assumes that DRM works. It doesn't.

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.

The money is better spent producing more content, or increasing the quality of what you do make.

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

Hell, maybe even kick a few dollars over to the musicians.

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

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.

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.

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

Ah, the perfect response to something you disagree with--calling it "rhetoric" or telling them to "STFU."

Re:Almost there....

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Almost there....

[networkBoy]

One thing to note (IMHO) is that while a large number of (c) infringers are willful and really Don'tGiveAShit(tm) there is a fairly large minority that pirate because they perceive the whole deal as a rip-off all the way around. If the content creators (writers and artists) got the lions share of the proceeds rather than the ??AA you would have less pirates.

I personally use AllOfMP3 because the artist sees just about the same ammount of money and I am *technically* legal. If someone were to open up shop and say: Our pricing model is the same (1c /meg) but we add 5c to each song of which 4.75c goes to the artist (aggragated however), I would buy from them, and the artist would see more money per track than they currently see from an entire CD! I know I am not alone in this way of thought.
-nB

Re:Almost there....

[Stormwatch]

DRM is here to stay and necessary to at least make an attempt to protect the rights of content creators from getting stomped all over.

I see you have a strange definition of "content creators"...

Re:Almost there....

[Belial6]

Ok, saying that all content will be killed off by piracy is silly. While some of them don't care that other people aren't making as much, it is also silly to say that they think they should be 'slaves'. There are many reasons people commit copyright infringment. Trying to bundle them all into one group is, as I have said before, silly.

Two issues come to mind for me. 1) I have never met a single person over the age of about 10 that has not commited one copyright violation or another. This makes most anti-piracy arguments hypocritical. 2) There is a price point where most people would just rather buy the product out of convinence. I would never copy a $5 movie. It isn't worth the trouble. I would be very unlikely to copy a $10 movie. I will not, however, buy a $30 movie.

I think the movie industry made a HUGE mistake in their pricing. If the new/avarage/old movie prices were $15/$10/$5, I would have never subscribed to Netflix. I would have just bought what movies I wanted to see. Unfortunaly, they waited too long to lower prices, and are still just a tad too high. Now that I have Netflix, I don't buy any movies. I rent what I want to see, and if I want to watch it again, I just re-rent it.

Re:Almost there....

[Jason Earl]

In civil cases it is not "innocent until proven guilty." The folks that the RIAA targets should be grateful that the RIAA isn't pressing criminal charges. The penalties for distribution of copyrighted works were set up for the days when it took organized crime to bootleg a record.

There's a perfectly good reason that most people simply settle, and that is that the RIAA has basically got the goods on them. It's much better to pay a few thousand dollars than face the prospect of hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties and time in prison. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that the RIAA requires some sort of an admission of wrongdoing. Remember, ignorance isn't a defense.

Cheers.

Re:Almost there....

[Jesus_666]

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.

Re:Almost there....

[tolkienfan]

Yeah.

Because "those people" aren't allowed to have opinions.

Re:Almost there....

[rubycodez]

The RIAA is nothing more than just another thug cartel, using intimidation and worse to bully people. As for as "ignorance is no excuse", with 10,000x more laws than any human could possibly learn it most certainly is a valid thing to claim ignorance, I'm getting tired of that vindictive self-righteous bullshit saying: what the law is mostly is to ensure power and money to the powerful and wealthy.

Re:Almost there....

[TClevenger]

The folks that the RIAA targets should be grateful that the RIAA isn't pressing criminal charges.

They aren't pressing criminal charges because they would never win. Their evidence is always circumstantial at best, and they could never convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime took place.

Re:Almost there....

[Jason Earl]

Yes, but concentrating on the hardcore pirates is a waste of time. They aren't going to pay Hollywood money no matter what happens. I, on the other hand, am more than willing to pay Hollywood. I am *not* going to pay for media that I can't use. If Hollywood concentrates its efforts on trying to get the hardcore pirates to pay money they will fail to get money from the pirates and from me.

I mean, let's be serious. No amount of DRM is going to stop the truly criminal element. These are the same people that smuggle cameras into movie theaters despite the very real possibility of getting caught. I, on the other hand, have always respected other people's copyrights.

I think that in the long run what's going to happen is that Hollywood is going to be profoundly changed. Currently the economics in Hollywood are based around works that are expensive to create, produce, and distribute, but that's becoming less true all of the time. These days nearly anyone can afford the equipment necessary to produce and distribute music, and video isn't really all that far behind. If it isn't expensive to produce, market, and distribute the works of art then we don't really need Hollywood. I personally think that Napolean Dynamite was one of the better movies I saw last year, and it didn't get Hollywood's attention until it was already a fairly big hit.

No one is forcing these artists to do what they do, and I am sure that in the end they will make enough to make it worth their while.

Re:Almost there....

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> If the content creators (writers and artists) got the lions share of the proceeds rather than the ??AA you would have less pirates.

Allow me to role-play that particular scenario for a moment.

Ahem...

FUCK [successful_musician_X]! WHY SHOULD I PAY $20 FOR AN ALBUM WHEN SHE ALREADY HAS ALL THAT MONEY?!

It's just interesting how many people draw such a broad line in the ethical sand when it comes to the RIAA "ripping off artists," but how few of those people will choose to stand on the side of the line that includes *going without* all that blood-tainted music.

And why on earth would you support allofmp3.com? You might be "technically" legal, but ethically... well, I don't want this to turn into a personal attack. I'll just offer my opinion, which is that I'd much rather steal my music and be honest about it than give money to the Russian mob so that I can feel better about myself for "paying" for my music.

Re:Almost there....

[ShimmyShimmy]

DRM really does prevent casual piracy, and studies have proven this.

What studies? Could you be a little more specific? Are these studies done by the **IA? Do they exist?

Re:Almost there....

[Jason Earl]

I agree with you that it's impossible to be cogniscant of every law. However, except in one or two cases that have been widely publicized that hasn't been the case at all. The RIAA is in a precarious situation, people should respect its copyrights and they aren't. The RIAA has a right to protect its property and I would much rather that they went after people that were breaking the law than subvert my computer.

All things consider the RIAA could certainly be more heavy handed. Distributing copyrighted material on the scale that the RIAA generally prosecutes is the sort of crime that could land you in prison for years. A couple of grand in fines is a high price to pay for ignorance, but at this point if you are still distributing music I really have a hard time feeling sorry for you.

Re:Almost there....

[Jason Earl]

Says you... However, if one of these targets thought that they had a good case they could countersue for harrassment and whatnot. If they had a good case it would almost certainly be worth a good deal of money. Enough money where getting a lawyer wouldn't be a problem, the RIAA is well bankrolled, and you can't just accuse people of felonies with no proof.

The reason that the people aren't doing that is because the evidence is good enough. These people are distributing RIAA's property illegally. Sure, they could get up in court and try and argue that someone broke into their house and used their computer, but juries don't buy that. My father's a judge, and before that he was a public defender. I used to work for him in the summers. I lost track of the times that I heard someone tell my father that they didn't know how that marijuana got in their backpack. It was always the same story. Some people that they met at the A) concert, B) grocery store, C) bar, but that they didn't know, had carried the backpack for a while, and they must have put the pot in there. Either there is a massive conspiracy of criminals adept at framing people they just met, or most people are horrible liars. In the end they would plea out the charges and justic would get done.

That's how our system works. Heck, the best defense that someone has tried so far is that the RIAA charged the mother instead of the daughter. You can keep convincing yourself that the RIAA would never win in criminal court, but if the defense lawyers thought they could beat the charges they wouldn't counsel their clients to roll over.

Re:Almost there....

[networkBoy]

No personal attack taken, I understand the counterargument perfectally well.
My real reason, rather than stealing it (since we both know the ethics are not all that different), is that allofmp3 does make payments on the music they sell, I feel it's akin to leaving an absurdly low tip to prove a point.

I realise that I may be a tard in some people's opinion, but that's the way *I* feel about it.
-nB

Re:Almost there....

[Mateito]

The problem is the RIAA round up people and hit them with a fine without that person ever facing court. They are prosecutor, judge and jury. Sure, if you are guilty, you should wear the crime, but everybody is entitled to due process.

Re:Almost there....

[cskrat]

Think of all the friends, relatives, work accquaintances, etc. that have asked you "Could you show me how to burn a CD?"

Think of all the people that just bought a brand new Dell off of QVC, a large portion of this group lack the knowledge and the desire to gain the knowledge to decrypt a DVD in order to copy it. Basically if they throw something at whatever burning software came with their computer and it doesn't work, then they'll give up. Some of the more intrepid ones will muck with the settings a bit and make a few more coasters but they'll eventually give up too.

Protections that are just strong enough to withstand simple attacks like that are strong enough to prevent several thousand copies from being made.

The unfortunate part is that companies are constantly trying to push the boundries of how strong they can make the protections with the belief that it will help them recover sales from more determined crackers. Looking at protections used on PC software will show us that these protections will either be cracked and the cracks will be distributed or the protection will be so brutal that it causes issues for legitimate users. (i.e. most flavors of SafeDisc can be defeated while the cracker is blindfolded with both hands bound behind his back whereas Starforce has been reported to cause very difficult to repair damage to the system that it infects.)

The protection for DVD content is fairly easy to break in large part because it relies on methods that were availible when the first players hit the market. If DVD makers wanted to roll out a new protection they would have to first introduce it to the companies that manufacture the players and wait for the new machines to hit the level of market saturation where the number of lost sales caused by obsolete machines unable to play the content would be less than the number of sales that would be lost to piracy.

With the new HD protections rolling out, you can see that the companies involved are really trying to push the limits of what consumers will tolerate in terms of lost functionality and convenience if they do not have a 100% trusted digital path from the disk to the screen.

I have trouble believing that anyone is going to be prepared for the backlash that will happen when consumers that upgrade to HDTV and then a few months later add a new HD media player (whatever format) discover that their sets are indistinguishable from current models when playing unprotected content but yet they are noticably worse on protected content. And we know this will happen because the commision salesperson at BestBuy isn't going to say "Hold on to your money, the new models will be out in about six months and they'll work with future movie formats."; instead he's going to tell them that since they're making a long term investment by buying such high quality equipment, that they should really consider getting the extended service plan to protect that investment.

To sum up: Weak protection will prevent casual sharing, while strong DRM is like a little piece of satan in your TV.

Re:Almost there....

[Jason Earl]

The problem with this is, of course, is that if the RIAA presses criminal charges, they can't "take them back." Once it becomes a criminal matter then the government steps in and prosecutes according the the laws on the books which are ridiculously harsh. The RIAA doesn't really want to see these people end up in prison. It is happy with a few thousand dollars and a promise not to do it again.

Basically it is like this. Let's imagine that you catch your neighbors kid climbing over your fence to steal some of your apples, and let's further imagine that you live in some crazy country where the penalty for theft (even petty theft) is to lose one of your hands. That's basically the situation that the RIAA is in. If it presses criminal charges then the people accused stand to go to prison and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Unless you really hated your neighbor's kid you probably wouldn't get the police involved over some apples. Instead you would work something out with your neighbor privately and leave the government out of it. Depending on how you felt about your neighbor you might require a great deal from him in exchange for not pressing charges, but compared to what *should* have happened he is still getting off very lightly.

Now, people that don't understand how the system really works might complain about "due process of law" and how the kid never got his day in court, but that's primarily because their only experience with how the justice system works is what they see on TV. Only a fool wants his "day in court." Most criminals plea to a lesser charge in exchange for the government not having to go through the expense of actually bringing in jurors and holding a trial. They have the right to pull twelve people out of their normal lives for a few days and patiently explain that they don't know how the marijuana got in their backpack, but, for the most part, that ends up being a poor choice. So instead they plead guilty in return for a reduced sentence and justice is done.

It really is the same thing in the case of the RIAA and these file sharers. The RIAA could simply bring their evidence to the government and allow the government to build a case. The government wouldn't have any of the problems that the RIAA has faced getting access to the identities of the individuals involved either. Agents would come into the ISP with a search warrant signed by a judge for a felony case of distributing copyrighted works illegally and the ISP would fall all over itself to hand over the information necessary to convict its client. The suspect's computer would be confiscated and gone over for evidence, parents, neighbors, and friends would get questioned, and a case would be built that would basically guarantee that someone was going to prison (possibly several people).

The only reason that ISPs resisted turning over identities to the RIAA when it tries to deal with these issues through the civil courts is that the ISPs know that filesharing is pretty much the primary reason why most people get broadband. The ISPs knew that if people couldn't share large files over the Internet there is much less reason to pay extra for broadband. The ISPs knew that the RIAA didn't want to prosecute the filesharers as criminals and so they dragged their heels on sharing information in the civil courts because they knew they could. Fortunately for all of us this tactic has pretty much fallen through.

Don't let your distaste for the RIAA fool you. No one is being robbed of their right to due process. People are giving up that right voluntarily because they know that they'll get a far better deal from the RIAA than they would if the RIAA turned the case into a criminal matter and let the government deal with it. The RIAA has evidence linking these people to a crime that would put them in jail for several years, take away their right to vote, and cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the crime in question became a criminal matter the government could almost c

Re:Almost there....

[Alsee]

As long as the DRM is inconvenient rather than 'unbreakable by the terms of the DMCA', then I am kind of ok. What I mean by this is that if I can play it on my computer with an open source player then I am happy.

Well then, neither you nor I nor many other people will be buying this Sony Blu-Ray nor the HD-DVD nor the Intel Viiv.

They are all 'unbreakable by the terms of the DMCA' and all unplayable on an open source player. Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are region locked, and Viiv will probably support region locking as well.

They can take their DRM and shove it. I won't give them one damn cent for crippled crap.

-

Re:Almost there....

[MikeFM]

Get rid of the DRM and I'll likely buy thousands of their movies. Keep it and I'll buy none until such time as it's broken anyway. Keeps me from investing money in their tech when it's a new release which is when they most need the money.

Re:Almost there....

[Mateito]

So instead they plead guilty in return for a reduced sentence and justice is done.

We have different criteria for "justice". In my books, if you have to say you are guilty for a crime you did not commit in order to avoid the process to defend yourself against a different crime, then that is not justice.

Justice is when you are not penalised for committing a crime, either by way of penalty, costs to defend yourself nor public "outing", until its been proved to an appropriate level, that you actually did it. On the other hand, if you are a victim of crime, you shouldn't have to invest huge amounts of money in discovery before being able to accuse.

QED: The legal system needs to be a public service, funded in the same way that police force are, or some form of "equity" requirement needs to be introduced to prevent those with greater capital aquiring an advantage over others in the eyes of the law.

Re:Almost there....

[Jason Earl]

We have different criteria for "justice". In my books, if you have to say you are guilty for a crime you did not commit in order to avoid the process to defend yourself against a different crime, then that is not justice.

Generally speaking they confess to being guilty of a similar crime, or are guaranteed a lighter sense in return for not dragging the case through the courts. In criminal cases this is generally a win for both the prosecution (who doesn't have to go to the expense of trying a case) and for the defense (who doesn't have to pay as large a fine or spend as much time in prison). In the cases where the person is actually guilty this works very well with the possible issue that some victims might feel that the accused is getting off easy.

Justice is when you are not penalised for committing a crime, either by way of penalty, costs to defend yourself nor public "outing", until its been proved to an appropriate level, that you actually did it.

If the person isn't guilty, then there are problems. That goes without saying :). The U.S. system of justice goes out of its way to mitigate those problems in criminal cases. Defendents are provided an attorney free of charge and efforts are made to safeguard your rights. However, those rights *have* to be weighed against the rights of the rest of us in society. For example, if you are accused of murder you can't hardly expect society to not penalize you until after you are convicted. At the very least you are going to need to be incarcerated so that you can't flee. We try and balance this by making laws that make it illegal to falsely accuse someone, but it does happen. There's no question that our justice system has some problems, but you would be hard pressed to find a system that works better.

On the other hand, if you are a victim of crime, you shouldn't have to invest huge amounts of money in discovery before being able to accuse.

Generally speaking, you don't have to invest in discovery for criminal cases. I don't have to do anything but call the police to get them to investigate a robbery. They just show up when you ask them too and start dusting for prints. The disconnect is that the RIAA doesn't really want to accuse these people of a crime, despite the fact that it thinks that they are guilty and probably has enough evidence to convict them in a court of law. Like the example I used earlier of a neighbor boy stealing your apples in a country where the penalty for stealing apples was to lose a hand the RIAA doesn't really want the law to get involved. They don't want the neighbor boys hand, they just want to deter future apple stealing and to be paid for the apples. The RIAA doesn't want to put people in prison and so they forgo some of the rights they have as accusers, assuming of course, that the defendent is willing to also forgo some of his or her rights. It really is a special case, and what makes the case special has more to do with the fact that the RIAA doesn't want to press charges, not that it has a lot of cash.

If the shoe was on the other foot and the RIAA was distributing your copyrighted material illegally you could simply bring your initial evidence to the police and let them do the rest.

For the most part the fact that the RIAA is well funded actually works against them. Let's say that I was completely innocent of ever distributing someone else's copyrighted material and the RIAA accused me of being a major filesharer. If I refused to confess, was drug before a jury, and found not guilty I would have an excellent chances of getting damages from the RIAA in a civil suit. With enough of the right evidence I could probably even interest the government into launching a criminal investigation. Because the RIAA is rich finding a lawyer to help would be easy as there is the possibility of receiving a very large settlement.

Once again, it's not perfect, but it's as good as anything anyone else does.

Re:Almost there....

[dangitman]

I lost track of the times that I heard someone tell my father that they didn't know how that marijuana got in their backpack.

That actually happens a lot - smugglers use unknowing "mules" to transposrt drugs. but, of course, you assume they are guilty. Why don't you even challenge the idea that marijuana should be illegal? it's not a valid law in the first place.

But for how long?

[cmowire]

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.

Re:But for how long?

[KarmaMB84]

The thing is it's only Sony that's not going to use the flag. Other studios are free to do as they wish.

Re:But for how long?

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

Re:But for how long?

[firellama]

You mean they will add it back in if the **AA puts out a study saying that piracy has skyrocketed. This is bound to happen any time now and I won't believe it because of the source, but the manufacturers will.

Re:But for how long?

[westlake]

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

It will remain off until the first generation of HD sets edges towards retirement.

Downsampling for the american market still delivers a significantly better picture than standard DVDs.

By this summer, or fall, your big screen HDCP set will break the $1000 price-point at Walmart, after that, no one that matters will give a damn about the token.

Re:But for how long?

[anonicon]

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.

That's a really good idea. How far back should we go to "tell the pirates to stop taking stuff without paying for it." Maybe the 15th century, when Gutenberg started the whole printed word thing for Europe? Or perhaps more recently in the 16th and 17th centuries when composers guarded their original compositions from thieving competitors and people who illegally snuck in to performances for free?

Reality check, Overly Critical Guy. The "pirates" aren't a recent innovation since the creation of Napster, ok? It's been happening for at least 500+ years, and will continue for another 500+ years. I'd suggest re-examining your attitudes towards artistic theft given its long-standing embrace by our communities.

Re:But for how long?

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

Re:But for how long?

[derF024]

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.

Re:But for how long?

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

Exactly, which is why DRM is becoming much more restrictive to protect the rights of content creators from getting shit on by idealistic freeloaders who think they deserve to download anything and everything. Copy protection is becoming much more sophisticated, which should help artists to actually get paid for their hard work. You and others have yet to explain why pirates have the right to be doing this in the first 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.

Cite a case where this happens, and you've got a point. Until then, nothing.

Re:But for how long?

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:But for how long?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The funny thing is, is that my HD set from *2* years ago isn't a top of the line model and it -does- include HDMI and HDCP support.

Re:But for how long?

[magicchex]

And mine from 2 years ago DOESN'T include them.

Re:But for how long?

[iminplaya]

It sure is funny to see you constantly rant on the falsehood that we don't want artists to get paid. What's it called? Red herring? Strawman? You seem to be an expert at applying them. I'll have to assume that your little red herring is well understood by most everyone that responds to your posts and feels no need to mention it. Honestly, I shouldn't take you seriously at all. I don't think that you actually believe what you post either. You might even be a script... a bot...well, in our state, motorized trolling is prohibited.

Re:But for how long?

[Methuseus]

I'd like to see a thousand people download a song from me in a week! with this crap-ass bandwidth I'll be lucky to get a hundred....

Re:But for how long?

[SnowZero]

Exactly, which is why DRM is becoming much more restrictive to protect the rights of content creators from getting shit on by idealistic freeloaders who think they deserve to download anything and everything.

Did you even read the parent post? DRM won't stop thieves. It only gets in the way of legitimate consumers. One thief will find a way around the DRM, and then all the thieves can share it. In fact, DRM will encourage thieves, since Joe User will not be able to play a movie he owns on his laptop unless he steals it. This is not morality; It's economics. The tighter the DRM restriction, the less the value of the DRM'ed media that is being rented (can't buy it since you can't own it), while the pirated copy is still the same value as before.

Copy protection is becoming much more sophisticated, which should help artists to actually get paid for their hard work.

DRM fundamentally revolves around the idea of maintaining a shared secret. That has never worked in the realm of security, and never will. Just because something is seen as morally right doesn't make it possible or practical. I think it would be great if it was impossible to for one person to murder another, but there's no practical way to enforce that without totally ruining the lives of non-criminals. Moral!=Practical

You and others have yet to explain why pirates have the right to be doing this in the first place.

The parent didn't claim there was a right, nor do I. There is no right, just the simple fact that it will happen. Nobody has a right to exceed the speed limit, yet lots of people do. At least that can be enforced however, if we were willing to pay for total enforcement. DRM however, falls into the area of fundamental unenforcability. You can not stop everyone in the world from breaking it; If one person breaks it it's broken for good. Thus it simply won't work for its intended purpose.

iTunes took a more effective approach. They made it much easier to not break the law, and the convenience of it pulled many people away from who would otherwise be pirates. I think moving away from downsampling will have a similar effect. People will not have to break any laws to play HD content on their existing HD sets, which is as it should be.

Cite a case where this happens, and you've got a point. Until then, nothing.

TFA is an example, but I guess you didn't bother to learn about it. Lots of deviced that claim to be HD compliant do not support the keys necessary for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback. This includes many HD sets sold up to this point. More than an HDMI connecter is needed, as there are license fees that have to be paid to get the needed keys. Manufacturers have been very quiet in many cases, improperly letting people assume that things would work. Look at the recent ATI/NVidia fiasco (the expensive cards had HDMI connectors, but would not actually output the next generation DVD content).

I'm sure you'll find something wrong with this example though, since you seem to have a good ability to ignore reality. The world doesn't always work the way we wish it would.

Re:But for how long?

[dr.badass]

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.

Not only is this not true, but it wouldn't matter if it were.

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.

1) This has not happened.
2) The story is about how this won't be happening in the future.
3) If your HD set doesn't have a digital input, you bought it much more than one year ago.
4) If you spent $10,000 on an entertainment system, you're a goddamn idiot.

Re:But for how long?

[Peter La Casse]

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.

Exactly. Thanks to the internet, copyright as currently implemented actually hurts society more than it helps. Instead of helping people access content, copyright impedes access.

Re:But for how long?

[Waffle Iron]

What's your point? Almost every single song on iTunes is also available unencrypted on a plain-old CD, and is probably already traded on illegal file trading networks. Moreover, circumventing their DRM is as easy as burning it onto a standard CD. The DRM in iTunes has zero effect on piracy.

Just because some people put up with Apple's DRM doesn't mean that their DRM is effective at stopping piracy. In fact, the only reason so many people accept it is because it is so loose that a 10-year-old can avoid it by burning a CD. It's nothing more than a token gesture to appease clueless record industry executives.

Any DRM scheme that were tight enough to claim to *actually* prevent piracy would be annoying enough to be a total market failure (on top of being as just as technically ineffective as any other DRM).

Re:But for how long?

[imdx80]

I remember a time, a few years back, when there was a technology called dvd. There were many shops specialist to local grocery stores that sold them. What dvd did was allow you to watch a film / tv show in a higher quality than previously. Everybody was happy.
Then some guy for norway came along and broke the protection, then the market disappeared, it started with the kids, the 'tech savy' then people from other demographics found out that any film was available almost immediately after cinema release. And obviously the market dried up. Now only a few hard to find specialist retailers and ebay sell old films now.
So now 'super drm' is the coming and people will be able to buy movies to view at home once again.

Or the majority of people don't pirate things because of the same reason the majority of people dont murder people, because its wrong on their moral compass. Unless your advocating being kept under 24 hour armed guard to prevent you doing anything illegal, because thats what drm is.

Re:But for how long?

[SanityInAnarchy]

That's exactly why we don't try to make it impossible. We only attempt to make it more difficult or unattractive, by making it illegal and by controlling access to firearms and explosives.

Which is also a bad idea.

Look, I'm not saying give every kid a gun and detailed instructions for ripping a DVD straight to the Pirate Bay.

But if you really want to kill someone, there are several very easy ways to do it.

If they aren't trained in self-defense, a kitchen knife can go a long way. You could also use a car, your own "self-defense" training, a ballpoint pen, a credit card, rat poison, freezer chemicals, a lighter and hairspray (probably backed up by a knife, unless you've got a LOT of hairspray)...

Really, need I go on? And these are just the things in my house, plenty of people own guns and explosives and don't kill people.

We don't ban all these things. We simply make the penalty frightening enough, and we create a culture/society in which everyone knows murder isn't tolerated.

And, believe it or not, most people don't kill most other people most of the time, even though some people do kill some other people sometimes.

Could iTunes have sold a billion songs without DRM? I think so. The only reason they DRM'd it was to make the artists happy, so they could get the popular songs.

The point here is that the pirates don't use iTunes, or rather, one pirate uses iTunes, cracks the DRM, and uploads it back onto Kazaa. That one pirate may have spent hours to get his system right, but once he's got it, his entire iTunes library is up there. And so you see the problem.

The problem is, once it's cracked, every Kazaa user can download the file just as easily as if iTunes sold mp3s.

If you want to create a serious impact on piracy, here's what you have to do, in three easy steps:

Step 1: Make it more convenient to legitimately buy something than it is to pirate it. By this, I mean for me to download, not for some guy from Norway to crack. HD will do this simply by creating insanely huge files, and by the time the bandwidth catches up, the encryption will be broken.

And by the way, games fail this test spectacularly. Most serious gamers, even if they have the conscience to buy a legitimate copy of the game, always download cracks. Many will buy the game and then download it. This is because most games make it significantly harder to buy the game legitimately than to pirate it. Steam is about the only exception I can think of in mainstream gaming, and indie games only win because they're so unknown that no one has a crack.

Step 2: Make content that is actually worth buying. I will pay to see a movie in the theater, if it's a good one. But so many movies suck so much that I simply don't watch movies anymore. So, make something that's actually worth spending $20 for a copy, $2-5 to rent, $5-10 to see in a theater. If that's too hard, lower your prices. Otherwise, I've got no problem pirating it, watching it once, and then refusing to buy it because it was crap. And sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised, and I actually do buy it.

Step 3: Don't assume your users are pirates. There will always be pirates, you can't do a damn thing about it. But about the worst thing you can do is to lecture and sue and slap DRM on and generally treat your legitimate customers as if they are suspects. Design your DRM schemes, if indeed you use one, with your legitimate users in mind. Don't design them with the pirates in mind. The pirates will laugh at them all anyway, don't create more pirates by alienating your actual customers.

So, to summarize: Make it easier to buy than to pirate, make content that's worth buying, and don't piss off your customers.

Re:But for how long?

[hkmwbz]

"thievery"

"taking"

Obviously, you know as well as everyone else that it's called "copyright infringement" and not "theft", and that you can't take digital data away from someone by copying it. That's why copyright infringement requires separate laws from theft.

But you cannot resist the chance to do a bit of trolling, so you lie.

Re:But for how long?

[hkmwbz]

"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."

It might be old, but it is certainly valid. And instead of trying to come up with valid counter arguments, you decided to pretend that the printed press argument is invalid, which it isn't. You hoped to get away with it, but obviously your "arguments" were later demolished by others.

You fail. Again.

Re:But for how long?

[hkmwbz]

"You and others have yet to explain why pirates have the right to be doing this in the first place."

Strawmen and red herrings from you. As always.

Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Yeah right

[Nogami_Saeko]

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.

Re:Yeah right

[quokkapox]

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.

Re:Yeah right

[sqrt(2)]

They'll be "[eating] the resulting...loss in piracy(sic)" no matter what they do. No amount of DRM will keep full resolution HD media out of the wild. The only constraint this time is bandwidth to transfer those huge files.

My DVD drive is region free, all my foreign DVDs work in my domestic player, and I have copies of most of them on my computer. DVD drm was thoroughly raped, and whatever measures they include in Blu-Ray will be equally ravaged.

DRM is irrelevant.

Re:Yeah right

[wanorris]

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

Actually, I think this is great. By the time that they start re-enabling this flag, there will have been plenty of time to crack the underlying DRM, just as happened with DVDs.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

... And here's how !

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=12115

Re:Yeah right

[Castar]

As far as your request goes, the Parents' Television Council has thoughtfully provided a clip of the scene in question! (A teenage orgy). How nice of them ;-)

http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace/ content.htm

I haven't watched it, since I'm at work, so I don't know how long it is or if it's censored. Enjoy!

Re:Yeah right

[SaturdayNight]

I saw this tidbit this morning, and was also greatly amused. It is of good quality, and a few minutes long, seemingly showing the entire segment in question...

Now does CBS get to sue Parents TV Council for freely distributing their copyrighted data?

Re:Yeah right

[vertinox]

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

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever." - O'Brien (George Orwell's 1984)

Re:Yeah right

[thatguywhoiam]

http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace/ content.htm [parentstv.org]

I haven't watched it, since I'm at work, so I don't know how long it is or if it's censored. Enjoy!

Wow, what a great job that ParentsTV worker has. You get to be a supposedly-pious churchy Righteous One, who Thinks of the Children, while meticulously watching, documenting and digitizing all the very best smut we've got. Nice work if you can get it.

Re:Yeah right

[raoul666]

I just watched the clip, and I'm absolutely and completely shocked at what people in the US get absolutely and completely shocked about.

How people can justify the censorship of kids getting to second base but allow showing gruesome war movies, I will never know. Because violence is natural and sex is an abomination, right? Sheesh.

Re:Yeah right

[OnlineAlias]

DVD drm was thoroughly raped, and whatever measures they include in Blu-Ray will be equally ravaged. DRM is irrelevant.

That is the most insightful comment I have seen on /. in weeks.

Nothing to do w/Blu-ray vs HD-DVD

[Keeper]

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.

Re:Nothing to do w/Blu-ray vs HD-DVD

[hackstraw]

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.

So, only Sony movies won't play on my Sony HDTV?

Makes sense.

I just bought a new head unit for my car that was Sonyfied. It has a memory stick in it, and I can record CDs onto the memory stick. Its in ATRAC3 format, DRMed to hell, and I cannot do anything with the DRMed copy except play it back onto my head unit.

Guess which other feature I won't use?

I'll rip my (non-Sony) CDs the old fashioned way, OK?

This only affects their movies, not players

[pjcreath]

According to the article, use of the "Image Constraint Token" is up to the studios. This announcement is only that Sony movies won't force down-sampling "for the foreseeable future". Other studios' movies could, since the players will still support it.

Welcome to consumer confusion.

Re:This only affects their movies, not players

[SetupWeasel]

Sort of like Sony's stand on region-locking for PSP games. Of course, since they don't have the lead, they won't be able to implement that, but damn, they would have liked to.

Re:This only affects their movies, not players

[pete-classic]

This seems like a tacit admission that "Image Constraint Token" is a mis-feature.

-Peter

Re:This only affects their movies, not players

[westlake]

Welcome to consumer confusion.

There were two bits of news this past week on the HD front:

Disney will release on HD-DVD. The worst possible news for the Blu-Ray camp. The Disney logo pretty much guarantees you'll make the top 10 in video sales and rentals.

Warner seems the only hold-out on downsampling. You won't see the token invoked on HD releases from Disney, For, Paramount or Sony. Whatever the media.

Re:This only affects their movies, not players

[Dahamma]

Disney will release on HD-DVD. The worst possible news for the Blu-Ray camp. The Disney logo pretty much guarantees you'll make the top 10 in video sales and rentals.

Seems to me the worst possible news would have been that Sony is giving up on Blu-Ray for the PS3... people have to remember that the PS3 is going to push adoption of The Blu-Ray format SO fast. Even with the recent delay, they'll have 5+M Blu-Ray players in the market by mid '07. People are going to have to consciously go out and plop down $400-$500 for a single-purpose HD-DVD player, but they will be getting one almost as a "bonus" (sure, it does add to the price a bit...) with their $400-$500 PS3.

The masses are not going buy HD-DVD players (and hence any Disney titles on HD-DVD) until they have HDTVs *and* HD-DVD players get down to ~$200... but they will pay a LOT more for a PS3 ($300-400 XBox360 w/out HD-DVD - not to mention they are hard to get without spending much more on a questionable bundle - have sold over 2.5M already), whether they have an HDTV or not.

Re:This only affects their movies, not players

[thatguywhoiam]

Disney will release on HD-DVD. The worst possible news for the Blu-Ray camp. The Disney logo pretty much guarantees you'll make the top 10 in video sales and rentals.

Apple also recently added HD-DVD support to iDVD and iMovie. [cue law & order noise]

Re:This only affects their movies, not players

[Jonny_eh]

But how many of those PS3 owners will have an HDTV? They won't give a crap about blu-ray.

I bet most people that want HD gaming already have a 360, or will get one soon. For them, they'll wait and see which format wins out, or just buy the 360 HD-DVD addon.

Re:This only affects their movies, not players

[westlake]

The masses are not going buy HD-DVD players (and hence any Disney titles on HD-DVD) until they have HDTVs *and* HD-DVD players get down to ~$200...

When Walmart puts HD rear-screen projection and the X-Box 360 on the front page of its four-color inserts, I think the train has left the station.

The Disney studio product sells a lot of video hardware. Always has.

Disneyland on ABC and The Wonderful World of Color on NBC are two very significant landmarks in the history of broadcast television.

Disney on laserdisc is collectable, Disney dominated VHS sales and rentals from their first release. Disney is more important to the success of any video distribution system than pornography.

The PS3 market is more or less defined as the young adult male. Home Theater is family entertainment with a much broader reach and deeper pockets. More money to spend.

Hey Kids!

[Quirk]

The first taste is always free

Re:Hey Kids!

[TubeSteak]

You only pay for the stuff once.
The flashbacks are free.

Let's hope other studios follow suit.

[timbob_com]

Let's hope that the other studios all follow suit for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.

If not they will save me a bunch of money.

Sony Blu Ray Downsampling

HD-DVD Locks out old HDTVs

Sony releases only, not all Blu-Ray releases

[calibanDNS]

From the article:
According to Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Senior VP Don Eklund, none of Sony's Blu-ray releases for the "foreseeable future" will use ICT to force downsampling.

This is only applies to Blu-Ray discs released by Sony, not other studios. Blu-Ray players will still support down-sampling, other studios will make this decision independently of Sony, and Sony isn't promising to continue the practice with its own releases indefinately.

Actually yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to do w/Blu-ray vs HD-DVD

To be more precise, it doesn't affect the standards. However it does affect their markets, and really that's the point, moreso than the standards.

Hurray for capitalism

[muckdog]

Nice to see it working as it should for the consumer

That's enough for me

[ChePibe]

Sony's been bad about controlling access to media in the past and things like this, but I rather like this move. I guess now, I'm rooting for Sony in this. I imagine many who got a TV without an HDMI/DVI or other port will think the same way I do. Maybe this won't be another "beta" after all?

Re:That's enough for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm rooting for Sony

But in Soviet Russia (and elsewhere), Sony roots you!

Re:That's enough for me

[trcooper]

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.

Re:That's enough for me

[pla]

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.

Which explains fully why I will buy a "hirtachi" or "soni" or "Toyshiba", aside from the price. I don't so much care about price - Under $500, I will buy the "best" prcoduct in its generation.

I do not, however, define "best" quite the same way as the big boys want me to. I define it as "least restrictive" balanced with "highest quality".

For the previous gen players, I've found Toshiba and Panasonic protected my rights fairly well while trying to produce a good quality image (for progressive Hollywood pics, any Wallyword(tm) player will do; If you want to view out-of-region content with a strange interlacing scheme, you can either pray to your favorite imaginary friend, or do your homework).

For Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, it looks like everyone you've heard of has a stake in it, thus none of them will deliberately allow you to use "diagnostic" codes to disable the key DRM features. So, if they really want me to go with generics and knock-offs, I won't complain...

Re:That's enough for me

[00Dan]

Got a TV with DVI. Unfortunatly, if the studios get their way, my DVI port won't do me any good. They are only planning on supporting HDMI.

Re:That's enough for me

[Alsee]

Why would you be rooting for Sony here? This has got to be their evilest sleeziest move yet.

You buy one of these players and hook it up to your TV and everything *seems* to work fine in high definition. And then six months later or so... when you can NO LONGER RETURN the defective incompatible player... you discover that you are suddently LOCKED OUT OF HIGH DEFINITION and can only get the crippled low resolution outputs on any of the new movies that DO turn the ICT flag on. So now you're stuck with a system that can't play high definition, you can't return the Blu-Ray player and you can't return your TV. If you want to get it working that are forcing you to go out and buy a new DRM enforcement TV. You can then take your current umpteen-hundred dollar high definition TV and use it as a snack table, or just throw it out in the trash.

-

special promotional deal

[tgibbs]

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.

Re:special promotional deal

[zippthorne]

except, for it to work they're going to have to disable the "feature" in their players as well. If they don't, all that an enterprising member of HD-DVD has to do is join blue-ray, stamp some blu-ray disks with the "downgrade me please" bit, and release them on the unsuspecting public. It's not like people with sony players are only going to buy movies produced by sony studios.

Re:special promotional deal

[tgibbs]

except, for it to work they're going to have to disable the "feature" in their players as well. If they don't, all that an enterprising member of HD-DVD has to do is join blue-ray, stamp some blu-ray disks with the "downgrade me please" bit, and release them on the unsuspecting public. It's not like people with sony players are only going to buy movies produced by sony studios.

You don't see Microsoft releasing a poor port of Halo for the PS2. Releasing an intentionally crippled title would just make for bad press. If they really want to undermine the competing format, it would make more sense for them not to release the title at all on that system--which they could easily justify on the grounds that they couldn't afford the expense of producing titles for a losing format.

And the producers with no major investment in either format will likely turn the downrez flag on for both.

Re:special promotional deal

[zippthorne]

but that's the point. the only way for sony to ensure that no content is downgraded on their boxes is to make the boxes ignore the "please downgrade the signal" for EVERYBODY. precisely because third parties will be peppering their movies with it. Especially third parties that have been given a licensing incentive on HD-DVD to make sure they do so.

Sony decides not to shoot itself in the foot

[bigpat]

Funny that Sony decides not to shoot itself in the foot and it gets a headline.

It is amazing that any company ever considered downgrading the signal for non HDCP enabled devices. Talk about arbitrarily limiting your market just when you are trying to grow it.

Re:Sony decides not to shoot itself in the foot

[Darth Maul]

Also, you'd figure that the market that will actually buy HD DVDs (blu ray, HD-DVD, whatever) is most likely an educated consumer. They'll see exactly every constraint the "industry" is trying to force on this technology.

I figure that the average Joe won't be buying these discs because 1) the "new" tech looks just like the old tech (same size disc, "digital", no rewinding, etc), and 2) they already think that playing DVDs on their HD is "high-def".

The average consumer is so confused already that you would think the producers of the new high-def DVDs would go out of their way to make the early adoption crowd very happy. As it is, there is no way I'm buying any of these new discs because I have a HDTV without that HDCP junk in it, and I don't want my product arbitrarily crippled by The Man.

I'm a customer, not a consumer, darn it.

Re:Sony decides not to shoot itself in the foot

[bigpat]

As it is, there is no way I'm buying any of these new discs because I have a HDTV without that HDCP junk in it, and I don't want my product arbitrarily crippled by The Man.

Well, we should expect the same level of labeling as was forced on music cds when they had copy prevention technology built in which crippled playback on some cd players making the CDs useless. HDCP makes a disc less valuable to the consumer, so they should be labeled accordingly.

Firmware Flash

[slashbob22]

My largest concern with this concession is that Sony will one day mandate that all Discs released after a certain time contain a firmware flash that forces down sampling, not to mention any other DRM tricks they have up their sleeves. Something like what TIVO is doing.

Re:Firmware Flash

[wanorris]

It's not a firmware issue -- it's an issue determined on a per-title basis. The player has the capability to force downsampling, but these titles will not activate that capability.

Any future titles (or rereleases of the same titles) could have this flag enabled, and they would be downsampled. However, this wouldn't change your ability to watch any previously purchased discs at the higher resolution over analog.

Re:Firmware Flash

[TerryMathews]

Frankly, you don't know that. Sony has been bundling and requiring higher firmware versions for PSPs on newer games and movies.

There are any number of identification fields on the disc that could be used for a 'force downsampling' command - date, title number, even a media code.

Re:Firmware Flash

[wanorris]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. In the future, Sony is going to produce Blu-Ray discs that contain firmware flashes that will somehow retroactively hack a variety of hardware they didn't even manufacture and work seamlessly with hundreds of different models of player made by dozens of different manufacturers?

Please take off the tinfoil hat.

Good little competition beastie...

[beemishboy]

Good little competition beastie...nice competition. Make for us better products.
Now go forth and devour remaining anti-consumer monopolies.

Re:still boycotting sony* products

[Bull999999]

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.

Re:Aside from all the Sony bashing

[gardyloo]

Bashing aside, this is still the smartest move Sony has made all YEAR.

    Oh, good. Because where I am, there's still more than 75% of the year left.

and that's why I don't own a DVD player..

[Lord Bitman]

Why would I buy a player that's so broken it listens to a "output worse image quality lol kthx bi" bit? I already won't buy a player that listens to a "don't play me because I'm only for germany lol kthx bi" bit or a "don't skip me because I'm really important lol kthx bi" bit.

Sacred Bits are even worse than encrypted discs.

Re:and that's why I don't own a DVD player..

[thatguywhoiam]

Why would I buy a player that's so broken it listens to a "output worse image quality lol kthx bi" bit? I already won't buy a player that listens to a "don't play me because I'm only for germany lol kthx bi" bit or a "don't skip me because I'm really important lol kthx bi" bit.

The real Lord Bitman fears no bits. Imposter!

Re:and that's why I don't own a DVD player..

[LordVader717]

I already won't buy a player that listens to a "don't play me because I'm only for germany lol kthx bi" bit

Although it is a very frustrating limitation, what alternatives are you using? It wasn't any different with analog because of the different Video signals.
Even worse, there were signal incompatabilities within Europe.

Many DVD-players nowadays however are multi-region capable.

Re:and that's why I don't own a DVD player..

[Lord Bitman]

There is a sharp difference between "not being compatable with something" and "adding extra code to check a bit which says whether or not I should pretend to be incompatable with something"

Re:and that's why I don't own a DVD player..

[LordVader717]

Maybe, but as I said, there are no alternatives.

Aswell, region-free compatability isn't automatically given with DVD either. Granted, many european TVs do support some kind of NTSC-functionality, but unless the Player manufacturer specifically integrates framerate and resolution converters, you have the same problem as with VHS.
Many manufacturers simply ignore the region codes now anyway.

"Postpone" is right

[chiph]

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."

Until this announcement, any purchase I might have made of Blu-Ray was definitely in the "postpone for a long-damn time" category. With this, they're at least in the running vs. HD-DVD.

Chip H.

hopeless anyway

[penguin-collective]

If HD DVDs come with all sorts of restrictions, people might as well just subscribe to flat-fee video-on-demand services. I know I will. DVDs will likely increasingly be used for special content (like pr0n), but even that will probably be played back through the computer, not a DVD player.

The way companies could make HD DVD a success at this point would be to get rid of all region coding and all DRM and lower prices a little; that way, people might be tempted to replace their current DVD libraries. But as it is, I'm not going to replace any of the DVDs I have with HD ones.

The evil bit returns

[acomj]

Is that flag just a bit? Is it the "evil bit"?

Oh Crap...

[RexRhino]

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.

Re:Oh Crap...

[PRMan]

Oh YES they were. It's called MacroVision!

How long can you buy analog HDTVs?

[jfengel]

Is there a government regulation at some point in the future getting rid of the analog HDTVs and recorders?

If the point is to close the analog hole, you can leverage the existing analog TVs by supporting them, but preventing future TVs (and, more to the point, recorders) from supporting that signal. As those wear out and people replace their TVs with (mandated) digital DRM ones, the studios get their dream of DRM all the way through without breaking compatibility with existing set. At some point they all turn on the token for future releases, and the DRM is total.

Yeah, I know it's stupid; as long as one analog recorder exists it'll leak out into the P2P nets and thence into everybody's hard disk. And people will make new ones. I'm just trying to follow their thinking.

So is there some sort of legislation mandating the digital DRM TVs, or am I making that up?

Re:How long can you buy analog HDTVs?

[PJC1]

I know the government is mandating that broadcasters switch to digital transmission over the air, and all HDTV broadcast in US is digital anyway (there are analog HDTV broadcast standards, but they aren't used in the US). Also, they now require TVs 36" and over to support digital signals without a digital to analog converter, but I don't think they require any DRM. The main initiative for mandatory DRM that I'm aware of was the Broadcast Flag, which was luckily struck down (but may not be gone for good).

The issue here is more with the connection between the recorder and the monitor. Although digital connections are becoming more common, AFAIK, analog component cables are currently the most common way to hook up DVD players and set top boxes to an HD Television. In order to close the analog hole, sending HD content over component cables or VGA cables would need to be banned. As far as I know, no legislation exists mandating this yet, but wouldn't be surprised if someone is trying.

Duck and Cover

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Duck and Cover

[westlake]

I do not get to watch my HD movie that I paid for.

What you get in North America is an analog video output about 50% better than a standard DVD. That is probably going to look pretty good on your Toshiba.

Re:Duck and Cover

[alienw]

Well, you'll get to watch it, just not in the maximum resolution. It will still be better than standard DVD quality, but not by much. In any case, I think regular low-definition TV is good enough for 90% of the people out there, and that this won't be an issue.

Re:Duck and Cover

[HiThere]

This is one reason among many why the government has taken steps to make consumer class action suits more difficult. I don't expect any of these suits to succeed given the current law. I'm not *certain* that they *should* succeed, but the laws have been changed so that even claims much more reasonable than this will not be eligible for class action suits.

complexity will kill the marke

[fermion]

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.

Re:complexity will kill the marke

[SpryGuy]

Man I wish I had mod points.

Very well said.

Bravo.

Re:complexity will kill the marke

[ScottLindner]

That really isn't the problem with Sony. Sony's real problem is they are more anti-competitive than Microsoft and they do so at the very risk of loosing huge dollars and every single thing they sell. You know what? There are a lot of morons that think Sony shit is superior to all other consumer electronics makers. I've had so many problems with Sony products that I refuse to ever buy another one again. That's all this is. Another attempt by Sony to own us. We should be treating this no different than our reaction to DIVX that Circuit Shity tried pushing on us. Thankfully we were smart enough to win that one. Let's hope we are smart enough to not let Sony strong arm their way into our living rooms.

Re:All this DRM..

[KingBraden]

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"

Yay?!

[HellYeahAutomaton]

C'mon now. I want nothing less than 1080p support in my next generation DVD format! Anything less than 1080i is a complete waste of bits.

If they are smart it will last until...

[cemaco]

If they are smart it will last until most of the analog Sets have died off and been replaced by digital ones. That would depend on the expected lifetime of the analog sets. You don't have to wait till they are all dead, just until the Digital sets have hit a critical mass. Then the people with the old analog sets will be told that their old movies will play just fine, but anything new requires a fully digital set and compatible player. With fewer analog players still in the field, there will be fewer people to complain.

Re:All this DRM..

[traveller604]

Maybe I would buy some if they would you know.. work. Okay I probably wouldn't. Downloading is awesome :)

The Analog Hole

[Umuri]

here's the problem with this. The analog hole will always exist. Because humans have eyes and ears. Even if it's reduced to good recording equipment and a microphone, it can still be pirated. And that's running under the assumption that no one will ever crack the HD cables and make it jack into a recorder anyway. Locks keep an honest man honest, but a thief will break in anyway. They're shooting themselves in the foot with overcomplicating a simple thing. Old folks can barely use VCRs, what makes the corporations think that they will be more interested in getting a $2000 TV, and $4000 worth of connectors and additional equipment + liscencing fees to play a single movie.

Re:The Analog Hole

[westlake]

Old folks can barely use VCRs, what makes the corporations think that they will be more interested in getting a $2000 TV, and $4000 worth of connectors and additional equipment + liscencing fees to play a single movie.

HD at Walmart starts at $1600 US for large screen RCA rear projection. These prices are far less in real terms than your father or grandfather paid for his first 21" color tv set.

Vacuum tube technology. Never Twice The Same Color.

The old folks BTW thought nothing of high ladder work on the roof to erect an antenna capable of receiving perhaps three suburban VHF channels.

Re:All this DRM..

[sqrt(2)]

When I can buy movies without any DRM I will. Until then I have no objections to getting as much content as I can for free.

Not black & white

[LunaticTippy]

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.

Re:Not black & white

[Kjella]

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.

Well, studios as obviously in it for the profit. If "consumers" were one entity, they might be hypocritical. But you have to make up some pretty twisted logic that is right for a pirate to get it for $0, because a paying consumer is paying $$$.

People here on slashdot talk about how buying it doesn't give the artist much of anything, that it doesn't "set things right". Well, nothing is "set right" by pirates shafting the studios because the studios are shafting the customers. All that happens is that the paying customers get doubly shafted with DRM on top.

Re:Not black & white

[tricorn]

The artist doesn't LOSE money because someone makes an infringing copy - the artist, the studio, etc. only "lose" money if someone who WOULD have paid money for an authorized copy chooses to not do so because they already have a copy (they don't actually lose money, they fail to MAKE money - the only way they could lose money is if they have some sort of contractual obligation to pay someone per copy made, authorized or not, paid for or not).

Re:Not black & white

[LunaticTippy]

I guess I wasn't clear. I don't think that piracy is justified because copyright is abused. I think since copyright is abused studios don't have the right to complain about piracy.

It is hypocrisy in this example case of the original star trek series. It made nearly all the profit it was going to make in about 10 years. Then VHS came along, despite the studios protests. They sold VHS tapes of the episodes, but it cost about $5 per episode to make. Now that they can make a DVD with 4 episodes for $1. So a fan of the series paid for it once, by watching ads. Again by buying VHS. Again by buying DVD. The show already made its profit. The consumer has to keep paying for it. Forever. What reason is there to respect copyright when it is abused like this? What does society get out of such a copyright system? The public domain is not growing from works falling into it anymore. Society pays for copyright enforcement through courts and police. If this is what we get for it we should stop. At least we should renegotiate the whole deal.

OT: Fined Without a Trace episode info

[MojoStan]

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.

The episode is titled "Our Sons and Daughters" and originally aired on November 6, 2003 (Season 2, Episode 6).

A great plot summary and video preview of the "offensive" part (wmv) is available from (I'm not kidding) the Parents Television Council:

Parents Television Council Presents: Worst TV Show of the Week

Don't miss PTC's "explicit" and "EXTREMELY offensive" description of each controversial scene from that episode:

Content from the December 31, 2004 Episode of CBS's "Without a Trace"

For more laughs, check out their online FTC Complaint Form which probably contributed to the fine and ban.

Re:OT: Fined Without a Trace episode info

[endernet]

Now that's quality television.

Re:OT: Fined Without a Trace episode info

[imdx80]

where is the line drawn? you may be happy with the what you describe in your posting, but people are offended by women on tv, do we cater for them?

Sony, Disney, Fox, Paramount say 'No' to ICT

[tony.damato]

I was going to post this earlier, but couldn't find anywhere to confirm it. According to Anime On DVD (sorry, this is their news archive page), Consumer Electronics Digest have polled various studios, and the four studios above (Sony, Disney, Fox, Paramount) have all stated that they "have no intention of using the ICT flag on their releases.". The Sony executive is quoted as saying "(t)he perception...that we're withholding something from consumers, and we're sensitive to that fact." The Fox executive is quoted "Fox is always in favor of options for intellectual property rights holders, though it has no intention of employing the ICT. The security afforded by AACS enhanced with BD+ is the best of all possible solutions for content protection as we enter the Blu-ray era."

If someone's got access to Consumer Electronics Digest and can confirm this, that would be great...

Re:still boycotting sony* products

[mysterystevenson]

Sorry Bull, the way it was set up, I thought you were the originator of this Still Boycotting Sony Products. I must retract my agreeing with you and go with Anonymously posted startup of this thread.I've had enough new coding every 5 seconds, filled with flaws and errors and updates, all Emperor's new clothes.Technology needs perfected before it's introduction.This is all money,money,money, and you end up with junk that just doesn't work.

Useless token gesture.

[stuartkahler]

50 First Dates, The Fifth Element, Hitch, House of Flying Daggers, A Knight's Tale, The Last Waltz (MGM), Resident Evil Apocalypse and XXX [initial HD-DVD titles]

[sarcasm]Wow, it's a pirate's dream come true! I've always wanted to download a 30gig HD copy of Resident Evil Apocalypse.[/sarcasm]

Idiots. The overwhelming majority of pirated content isn't even up to SD-DVD quality because most people don't want to (or can't) spend enough time downloading it. The idea that someone who can't afford to buy the $20 movie is actually going to download (and re-upload) a 30gig movie is ludicrous. They're going to stick to the 1 gig highly compressed SD version.

Sure, eventually broadband speeds will catch up to HDDVD size, but by then the MPAA will probably have a 150GB movie format to (re)sell to us.

Re:Useless token gesture.

[loraksus]

Umm... Sorry to break this to you bud, the majority of pirated content (if you're talking about tv shows and movies, you'd probably be right if you factored porn into the equation) is equal or better to the quality of DVD, especially when you're talking about stuff that was aired in HD.
A pretty common format is 1080 hd content reduced to half its original size and compressed with xvid. The resulting file is superior to the quality of dvd. Output file size is 700mb, which isn't exactly a problem to transfer nowadays and, in case you're wondering, includes AC3 sound.
Your point does hold true about huge file sizes - but even with enormous file sizes, 720p and 1080i (and some 1080p) content in mpeg 2 format is being traded on a fairly common basis. TV episodes are about 5.5 gigs each and movies are about double that, depending on runtime, which is a bit excessive, but not if you have something like fios or an oc3 ;)
Quite a bit of stuff is being released in 720p, but encoded as an mpeg 4 stream, not mpeg 2. File size is ~1.5 gigs for a tv episode and the quality is quite acceptable - with some of this content, you can see where the cameraman screwed up and the focus was a bit off, etc, so I don't think increasing the resolution is of any more benefit. Hell, if you can see the pores in someone's face at the same time you see her breasts, do you really need more resolution?
Movies encoded this way are about 4.5 gigs, which takes exactly the same amount of time to transfer as a single layer mpeg 2 dvd. Unreasonable? Might be, but people do download that stuff (regular dvds) on a fairly regular basis.
I'm sort of sidestepping 1080i content, but I personally (and apparently many others) feel it looks like shit. The 1080p content does look nice and pretty though, but again, sometimes the additional resolution doesn't help. I'd rather not be able to notice out of focus cameras, crap on an actress's nose, an actress that looks like crap in HD because of the 5 pounds of makeup on her face, etc. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
To say nothing of the fact that codecs and encoding is evolving - although it isn't near the quality of a dvd, I've said on a few occasions something like "Holy fucking shit, that can't be the quality of a tv episode that is only 80 megs", and yet it is. Perfectly acceptable for a pocketpc or a standard tv. I fully expect this to keep up and keep file sizes down to a reasonable level.

Why do we even need Blu-Ray right now?

[Kittie Rose]

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.

Re:Why do we even need Blu-Ray right now?

[PRMan]

You haven't seen good HD, have you?

Re:Why do we even need Blu-Ray right now?

[magicchex]

I really don't think VHS is still in wide use anywhere. I don't remember the last time I saw a VHS movie in a store or rental place.

The other day my friend wanted a bandana I had lying around. He offered me his VCR for it... I declined and just gave him the bandana. What would I want a VCR for?

Re:Why do we even need Blu-Ray right now?

[Zobeid]

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

Do most people you know suffer from severe cataracts?

The difference between DVD and HD quality is quite distinct to me.

Re:Why do we even need Blu-Ray right now?

[Maxo-Texas]

My vision is 20/20 and the difference between dvd and hd is tiny- worth maybe 50 to 60 bucks- not 500 bucks plus 20 dollars for every movie I buy. a lot of hd just let's you see the film grain better.

Re:Why do we even need Blu-Ray right now?

[nmg196]

> DVD is a flash in the pan compared to VHS, which is still in wide use today.

Perhaps in your country, but in many western countries it's difficult to even buy a VHS recorder now. In the UK, many high street chains such as Dixons don't even sell VHS equipment anymore - only DVD players and recorders.

Introducing the "duh" statement of the month!

[kimvette]

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."

How much did it cost Sony for that marketing analysis? They were stupid to even consider this "protection" algorithm in the first place. Why alienate PAYING customers when professional content pirates will not be deterred in the least? All you will end up doing is locking yourselves out of the majority of the market of existing HDTV owners, and locking yourself out of the market of people who rip legally-purchased media to iPod and PocketPC devices.

Will Microsoft follow?

[yeremein]

This situtation is very similar to Microsoft's forced downsampling of HD content on non-HDCP-compliant monitors (read: basically every monitor on the market today). So will Microsoft relax the HDCP requirement for Vista? Will Hollywood even let them?

My guess is no, because DVI without HDCP is digital, and Hollywood is obsessed with the lack of generational loss when copying digital data. "Oh noes, the pirates will be able to get an unencumbered HD signal!" As if that's materially worsse than getting an unencumbered SD signal, what with all the camcorder jobs floating around the net...

Re:Will Microsoft follow?

[Keeper]

Sony just announced that they don't plan on selling any of their movies with the bit flipped on. The capability is still present in the format.

Fact of that matter is that Microsoft is required to implement the downsampling logic in order to obtain a liscense to play HD content off of blu-ray/hd-dvd devices.

Sony, Disney, Fox, and Paramount are together

[tepples]

it's only Sony that's not going to use the flag. Other studios are free to do as they wish.

Disney, Fox, and Paramount are apparently going along with Sony in not using the downsampling flag on BD-Video launch titles. Among MPAA member studios, this leaves Warner and Universal.

Re:Sony, Disney, Fox, and Paramount are together

[DrXym]

Just the launch titles. What about a few months down the line?

Re:still boycotting sony* products

[Bull999999]

Like it or not a person producing Music, Movies and Software has a right to try and prevent theft.

That's a very valid point. While I believe that a starving man stealing a loaf of bread may be justified. However, music, movies, and software are wants, not needs and some people confuse one with the other. Of course, this still doesn't justify Sony and others from treating its customers like thieves.

Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[The-Bus]

The proposed Blu-Ray region codes are as follows:

Region 1: North America, South America, Japan and East Asia (excluding China)
Region 2: Europe and Africa
Region 3: India, China, Russia, and all other countries.

Note how they put China and Russia, two countries with lax copyright controls, in the same region.

This means that PS3s, at least as Blu-Ray players, will be the same in Japan as they are in the US, making them much more inviting as imports if they were to launch earlier in Japan as opposed to everywhere else.

Ultimate AV magazine also got to see a preview of Blu-Ray. Here are the important points:

• All first titles are expected to be limited to a single layer.
• There are two Blu-ray modes: Movie Mode (used for high definition films) and BD-J Mode (a fully programmable mode that includes interactive features, like games and Internet connectivity). Both modes can be used on the same disc.
• Sony and MGM titles will be encoded on the discs at 1080/24p. The user will set the player to convert this native resolution as required to match the capability of his or her display.
• At this time Sony has no immediate plans to implement the Image Constraint Token (ICT). (
  That is, they can always turn it on in the future on a per-title basis.)
• All of the Sony and MGM titles will initially be encoded using MPEG-2, at a variable bit rate, but up to a maximum of 30Mb/sec.
• When other codecs exceed MPEG-2 at all data rates, Sony will begin using them.
• On the audio side, all Sony and MGM titles will include both conventional Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks. Dolby data rate is still unconfirmed. DTS data rate will be 1.5Mb/sec. Additionally all Sony/MGM releases will include a 5.1 uncompressed PCM audio track. (To make sense of these audio formats, Todd B. has written a nice summary here).
• The first Sony and MGM titles will each have a hidden Easter Egg containing several setup test patterns-- a sweep, a standard SMPTE pattern including, among other things, a PLUGE, color bars, and a resolution monoscope.

The Blu-Ray group also summarized what they announced at CeBit in this PDF.

Highlights:

• Two types of Blu-ray Disc video players will be available: a "BD Player" type and an Internet connected player. The most fundamental feature difference is that one supports Internet connections and the other does not. Either player type can be produced and marketed from day one. The internet connections may be used for firmware upgrades. Toshiba has said in their HD-DVD players you can simply burn an image onto a CD-ROM to do the same thing.
• From the beginning, all models of either player type support playback of interactive BD-Java
  content. (This had been something that was supposed to be delayed in the hardware).

A source at a studio has said that current "Special Edition" content for Blu-Ray discs is being ported over to a High Def signal. It won't be only the movies that are in HD.

Netflix will be carrying both Blu-Ray and Hd-DVD discs at launch.

If you have a video card that says it will support HDCP, you may be disappointed. It looks like no current video cards on the market will really support HDCP. From Ars: "With regards to shipping cards, they are correct: no matter what a box's feature list may say, no video card supports HDCP fully at this time. Why? They have not been completely programmed. Until the specifications for the access control system are completely finished, implementing pro

Re:Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[TubeSteak]

When other codecs exceed MPEG-2 at all data rates, Sony will begin using them.

What does that mean?

Are hardware Blu-Ray players going to be able to play with codecs other than MPEG-1 & MPEG-2?

Re:Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[miro f]

Region 1: North America, South America, Japan and East Asia (excluding China)
Region 2: Europe and Africa
Region 3: India, China, Russia, and all other countries.

This region listing is pretty annoying. Isn't Australia a proper country anymore? are we part of East Asia? or are we in the "all other countries"?

Why does no one care about Australia?

Re:Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[Firehed]

And IIRC, HD-DVD's region coding:

Region 1: HD-DVD players. You know, region-free. I like that one better.

However I'm still confident, or at least desperately hoping, that the crap and HDCP and all that other not-so-fun stuff will irritate consumers to the point of forcing the producers into removing said irritations. While not downsamping over analog is a step in the right direction (does this indicate non-HDCP compliant digital connections will be downsampled?), especially as I'll be making use of component inputs seeing that my monitor doesn't have a pair of DVI-in's, you can rest assured that the instant that they've won (if they do, of course), they'll flick the magic switch on all the new titles. They had damn well better make it obvious that the downsampling over analog (and/or digital) is going to occur on a noncompliant device. Meaning more obvious than the fact that movies have security devices enclosed. It's not as if anyone cares about the security device... OTOH, porting your twice-the-price-high-def content back to standard defintion might yank a few chains.

Re:Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[Mr_Tone]

As I understand it, we're in with China and Russia, the "pirate countries".

Re:Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[suyashs]

Yea, but if you import a Japanese PS3, you won't be able to play your (legacy) DVD movies that are Region 1 coded...

Re:Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[miro f]

excellent! this means we can get cheap pirate movies without having to get a multi-region dvd player!

Re:Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[montyzooooma]

New Zealand cares about Australia. You just haven't noticed.

Re:Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[Sandor at the Zoo]

Blu-ray and HD-DVD both are spec'd to use H.264 and some flavor of WMV, if I recall correctly.

I think that the quoted sentence means something like "when other codecs can beat the quality or bitrate of MPEG-2, then..." That is, when H.264 can do really clean HD video at 12 Mbps and MPEG-2 takes 19 Mbps, they'll start using H.264.

Now, I thought this was already true. But then, I only thought that from reading H.264 press releases. :-)

Re:Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[olman]

Note how they put China and Russia, two countries with lax copyright controls, in the same region.

Yeah. And how those 2 territories are probably among the least impacted by any silly region coding anyone cares to put into movie disks!

You have to go out of your way to actually buy approved and crippled disk in St Petersburg..

Re:Regions on Blu-Ray plus a roundup of news

[miro f]

Who Zealand? =)

What about DVI?

[fupeg]

Does anyone know if discs using ICT will play through DVI? I've always heard it as "maybe." The article on Sony only talks about how analog will be allowed, since it is of little concern in the piracy arena. DVI is digital, not analog. Of course if analog works, then you can just use that, but it would be nice to know if my DVI equipped (but not HDMI equipped) TV will work with ICT.

Re:What about DVI?

[toejam13]

It depends on your DVI monitor.

The HDCP standard was designed for both DVI and HDMI. However, where HDCP is a required feature for HDMI interfaces, it is an optional feature for DVI.

If your DVI monitor supports HDCP, then you are fine. You can even use a HDMI-to-DVI.D cable. The HD-DVD or BluRay player will detect that your monitor has copy protection management and will display at full HD resolution.

If your DVI monitor does not support HDCP, then the HD-DVD or BluRay player will down-rez the video if the disc has the ICT bit enabled.

Re:What about DVI?

[tricorn]

Uh, hthe question asked was if a non-down-rezzed video would be sent over non-HDCP DVI if the ICT bit is NOT enabled.

The honorable rootkit company

[HiThere]

Sony assures us that, at least for now, it won't discriminate against us. So we should trust them and give them our money.

You do as you choose, Sony has yet to prove to me that it's anything better than a script kiddie. One that steals your wallet as well as riffling your computer.

People love to bring up Spatz-Tech

[tepples]

The HDCP spec discloses a way to revoke the ability of devices with a given manufacturer ID to play encrypted video. The DVI decoder chip used in the Spatz-Tech converter box might be the first HDCP product revoked.

There are other MPAA studios

[tepples]

Warner seems the only hold-out on downsampling. You won't see the token invoked on HD releases from Disney, [Twentieth Century Fox], Paramount or Sony. Whatever the media.

So what does Universal have to say about this? What about Lions Gate, which is not one of the six MPAA studios but still distributes a lot of movies in the United States?

Re:All this DRM..

[LunaticTippy]

But here's the crazy thing-- Sony is rewarding him for it. By just pirating everything, he's getting a quantifiably better media experience than those of us who are law-abiding consumers.

Hmm...Sony rewarded pirates with the whole rootkit clusterfuck, too.
If it weren't clearly crazy I'd suspect Sony is trying to encourage pirates.

Upconverting

[HTH NE1]

It amazes me that the current standard DVD players that are capable of upconversion to HD resolutions still refuse to do so on their analog outputs, only supporting it on the HDMI output. It isn't as if people couldn't rip SD-DVDs to their computers and perform their own upconversions to HD resolution; there just doesn't seem to be a demand for software that can do it. So where's the anti-piracy rationale for restricting the SD-DVD players from upconverting?

Re:Upconverting

[mh101]

DVD players that are capable of upconversion to HD resolutions still refuse to do

I don't really understand much about HDTVs and how they handle all the various type of video, so I'm wondering why this is a big deal, whether or not DVD video gets upscaled? Do you have to go through menus to change resolution or something whenever you want to play a lower resolution signal?

Re:Upconverting

[toejam13]

Are you amazed that they won't upconvert to their component video analog output, or are you amazed that they won't upconvert to any of their analog interfaces (composite and S-Video, too)?

If you are talking about the former, then it is a new shortcoming. Most mid-level DVD players offer resolution upscaling across their component video or RGBHV interfaces. However, I can see how some lower end players would leave out this feature to keep the cost of their HD analog interface circuitry down.

However, if you are wondering why they don't also upconvert across the other two interfaces, a small bit of information about all of the interfaces:

Composite video, S-Video (Y-C) and SCART (Y-C/RGB) interfaces only support standard NTSC/PAL frequencies, or around 500-600 lines of real resolution (interlaced). You can't upconvert the resolution with these connections because they can't handle anything better.

Component video (Y-Cb-Cr) and RGBHV video interfaces are both analog connections that support 720p and 1080i video. Since they both can handle HD resolutions, your DVD can upconvert the signal and properly display it across these connections.

Re:Upconverting

[HTH NE1]

Yeah, I was talking about component output in the plural (three connectors).

it is a new shortcoming. Most mid-level DVD players offer resolution upscaling across their component video or RGBHV interfaces. However, I can see how some lower end players would leave out this feature to keep the cost of their HD analog interface circuitry down.

Well, good to know that my 400-disc changer is considered a lower-end player. And yes, it is a Sony, the model that includes HDMI output.

The point though is why bother restricting upconverted video when the standard video is rippable and can be upconverted independently of the player? What do they think they're protecting?

Are they afraid of being seen as contributory infringers if they put upconverted-to-HD SD-source material on component outputs in a market where there are no devices that can record HD from component out?

The only reason I can see is that HDMI patent licensing terms demand that component video be barred from outputting any resolution greater than 480p in order to drive adoption of HDMI-compliant devices (which IMO would be anti-competitive). But that would mean Sony would need to negotiate an exemption for their Blu-Ray players.

Re:Upconverting

[toejam13]

I don't think it has anything to do with piracy.

Anyone with a video encoding program can freely upscale the resolution of their video stream from 720x480 to 1920x1080. However, what is the point of increasing the resolution when there is no gain in clarity? The detail doesn't just magically appear when you run the video through a +200% resize filter.

If anything, 720p or 1080i analog video is harder to pirate since capture devices for that resolution of component video are so rare.

Personally, I think the lack of analog upscaling in your player it has everything to do with need. Most upper-end digital television sets come with excellent resolution scalers, de-interlacers and inverse-telecine filters. No need to duplicate that circuitry in the DVD player.

The resolution scaler is most likely in there for HDMI so that people who connect the player up to an LCD monitor won't have to rely on the built-in scaler since those built-ins tend to result in a "soft" picture.

That's been done

[tepples]

It would make much more sense to switch to DivX on normal capacity DVDs, which is higher quality and much smaller

I seem to remember that one of the two standards has provisions for a red-laser disc using the new codecs. (It might just be the new file structure on a DVD-9.) Given that most DivX files are MPEG-4 Simple video (or Advanced Simple if you pay for Pro), and the H.264 used in both standards is an improvement over even Advanced Simple, I think the electronics companies have already thought of your idea.

Re:So Slow

[slowbad]

this story is already days old. The linked article was published 2 days ago.

It bears pointing out -- although replying to (-1) Offtopic -- that one of the five tags on this story actually is "dupe"
Ya shoulda been modded (-1) Redundant!

Please demonstrate this.

[Kittie Rose]

The difference between composite and HD-TV is obvious, but the higher resolution that will be on Blu-Ray/HD-DVD movies won't look any better past added "crispness", not from anything I've seen. If you have any short video clips demonstrating it, I'd love to see them, they should be very noticable on a PC Monitor.

Re:Please demonstrate this.

[Zobeid]

I really don't understand your argument there. First you say the difference is "obvious" and then in the same sentence you say that ". . .movies won't look any better past added 'crispness'. . ."

If by "crispness" you mean higher resolution, then yes. . . That is exactly what Blu-Ray is supposed to offer over DVD. If there's anything else, of any significance, I haven't heard about it yet. And yes, it is "obvious" to most people. Why you need some kind of demonstration to prove something you already admitted is obvious, I can't fathom.

Re:My $

[HiThere]

Pay the extortionist if you want to. I'd need a much better reason that a promise to not cripple my purchase for a little while.

This is why my old TV is the last I will ever buy

[spagthorpe]

The future I'm being shown is not to my liking. I refuse to play this game anymore. Over the years, I bought LPs, tapes, CDs, VHS tapes, Beta tapes, and ultimately DVDs. I won't do it anymore. I will hopefully get years out of my existing hardware, but when it breaks, I'm done. When the cable providers no longer transmit analog TV signals, my set will likely go to the dumpster. I refuse to deal with media that requires me to play their game. There are too many other ways for me to spend my time. As it is, I'm down to two TV shows anyway. Giving it up for good won't be difficult.

I stopped going to the movie theater two years ago, and quit buying DVDs about the same time. I stopped buying CDs four. It's easy to quit. I wish more people would back up their feelings with actions. If more did, the media producers would have no choice but to listen. As it is, the sheep will continue to play the no-win game the media producers graciously allow you to spend money to play. Have fun.

Switch to HD-DVD.

[SeaFox]

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.

What would switching to HD-DVD accomplish? They're doing the same thing with analog signals.

I think consumers will be postponing purchases anyway because they'd rather wait for the format war to end.

Re:still boycotting sony* products

[LainTouko]

If you had a point worth making, you would be able to make it honestly, instead of using words like "theft".

Re:My $

[WhiteWolf666]

I misunderstood.

I thought there were taking it out of the standard, not their first set of titles.

My bad. Not buying either ;-)

Because...

[Kittie Rose]

Higher resolutions do not immediately mean a massive increase in quality.

Most people think of resolutions in terms of 3D Polygonal games, where higher resolutions means less "jaggies" or blurry anti-aliased edges.

Everything on DVD is "Pre-blended" as such in a much more efficent way than polygons ever will be. I don't know if you've ever notived how even analog television can pull off much more convincing "edges" than any pre-render has done.

Higher resolutions mean it will be a little less blurred. But in practice, DVD is already high quality. There is a point for which resolutions become difficult for an untrained eye to distinguish. HD lies within that spectrum, but at the end of it.

On most TVs, it will be difficult to tell the resolution. On very large screen TVs, it most certainly is a benefit. But for most of us, it's a small performance increase as opposed to the relatively large one DVDs offered, and even that had it's critics.

Re:Because...

[Zobeid]

Higher resolution did immediately mean a very significant increase in quality, for me. Maybe not "massive", I'm not sure that's possible. After all, once you've presented the movie in a form very close to how it appeared in theaters, there's nowhere else to go with it. To me, that's what I find compelling about HD.

DVD is not already high quality. It's basically NTSC quality. It's NTSC pushed to the limits, but it's still based on specs that came out of the 1950s. And it's blurry. The human eye has amazing ability to distinguish fine detail, an ability wasted on DVD. We shouldn't be stuck with blurry video right through the 21st Century just because of a standard set in the 1950s.

As for the quality of TV sets. . . TVs have improved massively in my memory. In the 1980s VHS quality was about all the majority of TV sets could handle. (Which may be one reason why LaserDisc didn't make a big splash, not to mention S-VHS.) After 20 years of making computer monitors to ever higher resolutions, the industry is now easily turning out TV sets that can show off everything HD video has to offer. And big. . . 25 inches was as big as they came in the old days, but it's been years now since I've had one smaller than 32 inches, and they go way up from there, for those with the money and the room for it.

You do have to adjust them. For a long time TV makers have shipped sets with the contrast turned way up (torch mode), sharpness turned way up, and red color over-emphasized (red push) because that's how you make your set stand out in a showroom. I think some of them may start backing off that practice with their HD sets. I hope so anyhow.

Correction...

[Kittie Rose]

I meant "Small screen TVs" on that bit where you probably went "WTF?!", and I meant "quality" instead of performance. Damn homophobes making me angry and careless.

Re:In fact

[wanorris]

And Sony Pictures could release a movie today on a nonstandard DVD that only works on a Sony Model ZX-87 DVD player (or whatever), and not on any other player.

As a rule, this doesn't happen, because it leads to (a) customer service nightmares (b) lower sales?

What changes with a new format?

"for the time being"

[DaveJay]

"For the time being"? Seriously? With the stated goal of driving adoption? What a transparent charade. Gee, I guess I'll buy Sony's product now, and as soon as they are the market leader, I'm sure they won't suddenly start using the token.

Who is foolish enough to be suckered in by this?

Aah, at last

[Kanasta]

After the beta, minidisc.net, memorystick, memorystick pro, atrac, rootkit failures/debacles, Sony realises it cannot force crap onto consumers for very long.

About bloody time.

Re:Aah, at last

[Alsee]

You missunderstood the story. In fact Sony is being more evil than ever.

They are stil imposing their worst DRM scheme ever, but now with the added evilness that they are *hiding* the crappy DRM enforced reduced resolution system on all of the early movies. That way people wil buy the players and buythe bovies and everything will seem fine for the first months or a year or so, and THEN they turn on the resolution destroying system and a million people suddenly discover that they are stuck with the hardware and they are locked out of high definition mode. That after a year or whatever, if they want to get the high definition mode back they will be FORCED TO BUY NEW DRM COMPLIANT TVs. Surprise!

Bait and switch. This has got to be at least as evil as their rootkit fiasco.

-

Self Defeating Business Practices

[themadplasterer]

I just bought a Toshiba SD-DVD Upconverting DVD player that upconverts to 720p and 1080i (via HDMI or DVI only mind you) and it looks phenomanal. All of this for a mere $150 Canadian.

I'm quite happy to wait up to ten years for the prices for a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player to come into this price range, as I'm sure the quality increase from the upconverting player is probably only negligable comparatively.

In the meantime I save $850 by waiting and already enjoy my current DVD collection in near HD quality. That's $850 that can go towards more SD-DVD's or other frivolous purchases.

You gotta wonder about their business plan sometimes, especially since the format war is still very undecided. Does this help you decide?

Re:Self Defeating Business Practices

[toejam13]

In the meantime I ... enjoy my current DVD collection in near HD quality.

Most DVD discs here in the States are encoded in Standard Definition resolutions of 480x480i or 720x480i. High Definition resolutions can be as high as 1920x1080p. Even 1280x720p is a huge jump above SD.

Upscaling in DVD players doesn't increase resolution. It is useful when your HD monitor has a poor quality up-sampler or a poor quality de-interlacer. The former may cause poor color or soft images. The later can cause "zebra" effects in fast motion or "jumping" with very high contrast lines.

Re:Self Defeating Business Practices

[themadplasterer]

Did I say it was as good as HDTV? No but its damn close. I have a true HD (720p or 1080i) satellite system and this upconverting DVD player sure does bring this very close to the satellite quality.

Upconversion adds pixels without artifacts and that does provide a sharper image. I was merely trying to point out the option of not jumping on the HD-DVD Blu-ray bandwagon until pricing comes down. Here is an article on a piece of upconverting equipment that explains upconversion briefly. http://www.dvd-gear.com/hdtv-upconverter-faq.htm

Open-ended DRM is Unconstitutional

[GodWasAnAlien]

The point of copyright and patent law was to allow an author to have monopoly rights on some invention/information for a _Limited amount of Time_ to encourage art and science.

DRM, by it's nature is attempting to circumvent any legal end to the information/invention monopoly.

There is no built-in expiration of DRM control, so it conflicts with the intent of the constitution.

DRM does not encourage the advancement of art and science. It encourages information hoarding, and exploitation.

Subject

[nutt98]

What a brilliant scam. Put a big smile on their face, take their money then fuck them over. And some of you will eat it up like cherry cheesecake.

DRM is not for preventing piracy

[Skapare]

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%.

Re:DRM is not for preventing piracy

[mikek3332002]

DRM is not for preventing piracy
Exactly it is a tool to prevent competition eg Intel Macs have drm so they force you to buy their inflated hardware and not by cheaper or better products.
iTunes/ipod drm prevents people from usuing other music formats,
css gives software dvd players a very large market share (how many legal dvd players are there?)
Also it forces people to pay for replacements instead of getting it from their backups.

It's pretty hard to record an analog HD signal

[obiwan2u]

Does anybody here have an analog HD recorder? If you look carefully, most HD recorders only record an already encoded mpeg2 video data stream.

Also, you have to be specific here, most HD quality analog recorders are recording an analog input onto an analog tape. It's hard to do HD quality analog to digital conversion and mpeg encoding on in realtime and at high bit rates. There are recorders that do it, but they're professional level.

The studios are worried about someone making mpeg2 copies from an analog signal? I think it'll be easier for someone just to setup a HD video camera (under $1000 now) pointing at an HD plasma screen, and make the recording that way. I wonder how much lower quality that would be than low end HD A/D converters feeding mpeg encoders?

Yeah, hold on while I find my wallet

[beeblebrox]

...these guys want some of my disposable income? From TFA:

According to Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Senior VP Don Eklund, none of Sony's Blu-ray releases for the "foreseeable future" will use ICT to force downsampling.

Riiiight. Give them money now, for a "promise" they can break any time they feel like it.

Maybe, just maybe, if you sign a contract to buy back any equipment I buy - adjusting for inflation but not depreciation - if you choose to use ICT, then I'll think about considering looking into the possibility of wondering aloud whether paying real money for Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD for that matter) could potentially enter my hypothetical to-do list.

Fuck Off, Mister Vee Pee.

Re:This is why my old TV is the last I will ever b

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you're insightful, man. The impact of all of this screwing of the customer has already long been here.

I'm an example. I have two TVs in my house, from 1984 and 1985. Yep, they're analog, yep, they're old and lack even some of the most basic features (one of them won't mute, for example). But you know what? They work. And they work in the unencumbered way that I want.

Meanwhile, all I hear about new TVs is how they will be laden down with this DRM shit over here and that broadcast flag over there. It's confusing, it takes functionality away from the hardware, so I don't want anything to do with it.

More example? I still use VCRs to copy programs off the air. I bought them pre-Macrovision, and they still work great. Yes, I know all about Tivo etcetera, but why even get caught up in the possibility of restriction nonsense when my current hardware is fully functional.

More examples? I switched to Linux when Microsoft switched to Product Activation, and I have never looked back. I'll switch to something else again if Linux ever becomes encumbered.

Do you see a pattern here? Many "consumers," like me, demand hardware which is completely unencumbered, period. (And OSs, which from a hardware perspective, are basically another piece of hardware). To us, any kind of DRM is immoral and works against our interests. Meanwhile, we don't care if the content, or, as Microsoft likes to call it (in a passive, sheeple type manner) if our "experience" is not full-featured. Analog instead of digital? So what, the quality is good enough. Close the analog hole on us? Then saynoara, I'll go read a book.

We want, and demand, pristine hardware from the hardware manufacturers. We don't care if the quality of the CONTENT is crap - we want good hardware. But the hardware manufacturers stopped listening to their customers at the time they first caved in and inserted the Macrovision infection into VCRs. It's been 20 years now of this stupid DRM-infection of hardware, and it is cutting severely into hardware sales.

(Yes, yes, I know DVD players sold well, etc bla bla. But they would have sold more quickly, and in greater quantities, if they weren't encumbered. As it is now, the only reason many of us ever bought into that hardware is because it started being sold unencumbered).

Opting out is a perfectly legitimate response, and it is one that has been going on for a long long time.

The executives who make decisions to impose this DRM crap are even more clueless than most Slashdotters have presumed them to be.

Hey hardware manufacturers, don't you care that the 1980s passed by, and the 1990s, and now the 2000s are almost gone, and you STILL haven't been able to persuade me to buy a new TV or two? Think of the lost sales in my household alone, if you had provided unencumbered TVs with new, buyer-friendly features every five years or so. Instead of my last two TV purchases having occurred more than twenty years ago (two TVs), I probably would have been buying new ones every few years (that's maybe six or eight TVs by now, that I have never bought).

And Hi-Def? Don't get me started. Why would I even CONSIDER it, since I know that somewhere, somehow in the process, those pieces of hardware are infected with restrictions?

Give us useful hardware, or go away. Lost profits, movie and record industries? Um, dontcha think those losses pale in comparison to lost hardware profits (caused by your DRM)?

Happens to me all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cite a case where this happens, and you've got a point. Until then, nothing."

Well, not with movies, but certainly with software.

At school, we use very expensive video software. Altogether, the packages have cost the school tens of thousands of dollars.

The licensing schemes used to control these packages regularly fail. They depend on IPs, which get reassigned, or writing to bits of the hard-drive that aren't backed up, or whatever.

The result is that at school I'm often unable to use the software packages my tuition money legitimately paid to put on the lab machines, whereas at home my cracked versions of this software have never given me a lick of trouble.

A friend of mine has rendering software on his computer that requires a re-authentication when you change resolutions or something. I don't know what, because I've always used the cracked version. I just remember him sitting there, Windows PC in hand, futzing around trying to connect to a wireless hub just so he could show me a torso he'd modeled.

IF movie studios were more lenient

[Nazmun]

If movie studios and the mpaa would agree to allow a new disc standard not have such drm features I'd disagree. I hightly doubt it's either hardware companies that even want such forms of copy protection.

It's the movie studios trying to force it down.

Sony PICTURES, that is

[MStiles]

How many times is this going to be misreported? This is Sony Pictures saying that they won't use the Image Constraint token. It is not Sony Consumer Electronics saying that the ICT won't exist in Blu-Ray. Other movie studios are welcome to use the ICT on Blu-ray, or even use it or not on disc-by-disc basis. Fox has made a similar announcement about HD-DVD: they won't use the ICT on their HD-DVD movies. Again: blu-ray still has the Image Constraint Token, and every movie studio is welcome to enable it or not on any disc they choose.

Blu-ray DRM renders discs useless after upgrade?

[nmg196]

Can somebody please confirm the rumour that if you buy a collection of blu-ray discs, and then upgrade or replace your player, that none of your discs will work? This seems madness to me but I've read it in at least three different places now. Does this mean that if I upgrade my player (or if it breaks) I will have the right to get them exchanged at the shop because they no longer work? If this is right, all I can say is, keep your receipts!

Like I said...

[Kittie Rose]

DiVX compression would be a better way to solve that. You could have it at higher resolution and still take up less space. And you're not going to notice the resolution increase on small televisions, and it's not going to be too significant on medium sized televisions, either. I don't think we should be stuck with DVD forever. I just think it's a few years too early for HD DVD and we're likely to have ANOTHER "Next Big Thing" in 5 years time. There's too much new technology being created to take a format that's already technically a couple of years old, that the market isn't fully ready for.

Re:This is why my old TV is the last I will ever b

[rjstanford]

(Yes, yes, I know DVD players sold well, etc bla bla. But they would have sold more quickly, and in greater quantities, if they weren't encumbered. As it is now, the only reason many of us ever bought into that hardware is because it started being sold unencumbered).

Nah, mate, I'm going to have to call you on this one. Most people don't know that DVDs are encumbered. Heck, I'm a pretty geeky guy myself - ran an ISP back in '95, like to get down and play with my soldering iron, whatever. You know what?

I have a commercial DVD player - Toshiba SD9100 or something. Not a grey-market anything, I picked it up off the shelf. Every DVD I've ever tried to play in it plays fine. I have DVD players in my laptop and desktop. Every DVD I've ever tried to play in them plays fine. The fact that the technology is, to an extent, encumbered, means diddly squat to me.

Now, HD-DVDs not outputting onto Component video? That would annoy me, or rather it would if I wasn't already planning to replace my old big-box RP HDTV with a wall-mounted unit (for decor reasons, not technical ones). But I can pretty much guarantee you that Joe Average Consumer, the guy buying 99.99% of DVDs and DVD Players, neither knows nor cares about your issues.

And Hi-Def? Don't get me started. Why would I even CONSIDER it, since I know that somewhere, somehow in the process, those pieces of hardware are infected with restrictions?

Because it looks fantastic, even at 65"? Just a thought. That is, after all, why most people (geeks or non-geeks alike) consider it.

The blur bit

[tepples]

What about a few months down the line?

I don't know about the other studios, but according to the PC World story, Sony's "Blu-Ray releases won't use this feature for the forseeable[sic] future". I would hope that Sony can foresee more than "a few months down the line".

More importantly, the story states that all Blu-ray discs that use the blur bit will be conspicuously labeled as such. So if you see someone looking at a disc with ICT, tell him or her: "See the ICT notice? That tells you that this disc isn't Blu-ray; it's Blur-ray. If your HDTV isn't one of the newest, the picture will be blurred almost as bad as DVD."

Blu-ray vs. blurry

[RDFozz]

Interestingly enough, when looking at the list of tags below this article, I misread the "bluray" tag as "blurry".

Admittedly, with the hyphen in place, i'd never made the connection. But when one of your selling points is sharper images, is it really smart to have your product name be one letter (and on epunctuation mark) off from "blurry"?