Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Problems with Blu-ray and HD-DVD
bart_scriv writes "Business Week looks at the upcoming Blu-ray and HD-DVD product launches and predicts problems and confusion for consumers. In addition to anticipated difficulties in distinguishing between the two formats, some studios will be using copy protection that will intentionally down grade the picture. When combined with Sony's plans to upconvert based on hardware configuration and the fact that most HD TVs aren't capable of displaying either format at full resolution, early adopters may be getting a lot less than they bargained for. As the article suggests, it may be that 'the best bet for either format to gain acceptance now lies with next-generation game consoles.'"
Which DRM is easier to crack?
Simple as that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Could this be any less surprising? I've been following it closely and I have a hard time keeping everything straight. As I work at a video store, I can safely say that average consumers are nothing less than completely screwed.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Neither of these formats will be accepted as easily as, historically, other formats have.
1. Cassetes --> CDs: CDs are thinner and higher quality that does not degrade. Even still, it took *almost* 10 years before cassetes were completely and fully replaced. Even to this day, unless you count, say, iTunes, CDs reign supreme and music on DVD is still a joke.
2. ?? --> Beta/VHS: No fromat existed for viewing movies at home... except maybe an 8mm projector!! But I can't remember video stores that had 8mm rentals... is it just me?
3. VHS --> DVD: DVD is smaller, thinner, and holds more at a better quality. Plus, like every previous post has pointed out, many people have invested in buying DVDs and, like me, see no reason to "upgrade" the quality of their movies... for... $30+??
The Mass-Media-Powers-That-Be have succeeded in royally fucking themselves by taking a perfectly simple concept (watch videos at higher resolution) and turned it into a crippled, convoluted mess.
Ball's in your court, online video distributors (namely Apple).
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
In order for a new format to be adopted, people need to buy it. Early adopters are typically technically minded people, and are generally "informed" about what it is they're purchasing.
...
The content produces are doing everything in their power to make the format unattractive to technically minded people. Meaning they're scaring away all of the early adopters. Which means that the format will never be adopted.
For me, degrading the signal over analog connections was the thing that pushed me over into the "not gonna buy it" category
Solution 1: Wait two years after product mass introduction to buy the same technology with all the bugs worked out, for one-third the price.
Solution 2: Don't buy DRM and other invasive products.
Either solution will work, the former assumes you're just a cog in the machine and you don't need this technology absolutely today but can wait until 50 percent of the population has switched over, the latter assumes you think a non-DRM OpenSource-friendly version will be adopted at some point.
Choose your poison.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Because they suck at what they do.
I mean, HDTV is what a late 90s thing? And we still don't have hidef content. They only hidef that I can get is from cable, satellite, or OTA TV. CDs are late 70s technology (maybe early 80s). The oldest digital recording I own is from 1978.
Why can't these people flood us with content at a reasonable price that we simply do not have the time or need to pirate the stuff?
My HD DVR has firewire output that I can copy the stuff to my computer. Supposedly some of the channels are encrypted, and it takes realtime to make a copy. But I never have made a copy, but I always have 80 gigs of fresh content on my DVR that I can watch anytime. I love it. Oh, and someone is getting the $70 a month or so that I pay for content, right? I mean, sometimes I even watch or listen to the commercials because I'm busy doing something else and don't feel like fiddling with the remote control.
What I don't understand is that the content "providers" dabble in all aspects of the modern era, but they insist on putting stuff on plastic disks and sell them at a brick and mortar store. I mean, Sony makes electronics, but they are talking about making the PS3 so that it does not play Sony movies. Huh??? Time/Warner owns a cable TV outfit and internet, but won't let you download their movies or with little streaming capabilities.
The movie industry lets TV channels broadcast their stuff. The music industry lets radio broadcast their stuff. When are they just going to get with the times and deliver modern day technology?
Oh, the funny thing is that I would assume most people would prefer the lower quality DVDs via DRM. Look how popular iTunes and AACs and MP3s are. Can't figure that one out.
I'm surprised it hasn't come up more, but "pornography" has driven adoption of virtually all modern forms of media. Tin-types, 8mm movie film, VHS, DVD, DSL... you name it, and naked people (or their images) has been behind it. I'm gonna go on a limb and say whatever format is generally adopted by the adult industry is what will win out. Sony and the rest will quickly fall in line. imgunby
If this is as stillborn as DIVX, then we'll get to keep using DVDs and ripping them to our hearts' content.
What's the best way to put your Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movie on your iPod? Oh, yeah. Right. Eat a dick, MPAA.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
The problem I have with this is the plain and simple fact that film lacks the quality and detail that actual high definition video captures. Simply, blowing a film picture up to 1920x1080, even from the original negatives, will not produce the same quality as HD video. The argument about enhanced definition (1280x720p) which most HDTV's can currently only do, vs. full HD (1080p) is a dead-end when talking about HD-DVD's. I for one am not waiting to see a film movie in full HD as the film grain and other artifacts will be more noticable than ever, versus the actual quality of the picture going up. I AM, however, waiting for full-HD produced movies such as Once Upon a Time in Mexico by Robert Rodriguez to come out in the full HD format. And I know a lot of slashdot readers would love to see those Lucas films that were shot in HD above the inferior 480p threshold they currently claim.
No problems at all ...
Consumers hear the DVDs won't work with the HDTV they already have.
Consumers don't buy new HD DVD formats.
Media companies find themselves holding onto a billion dollar albatross they've made unpopular with people.
No problem.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I believe this is incorrect.
For their first generation of media they will not be enabling the flag. Their hardware players will still support it.
The flag is an optional feature which they will not use, initially.
The criminals at the RIAA and MPAA must be removed at all costs before they completely decimate all consumer rights. When I buy a recording of a movie or an album, I expect to have reasonable rights to copy it for use on various devices that I own. If I'm not going out and selling these copies, then I am not depriving them of any profit that they are entitled to. This is simple common sense. Whatever happened to the day when I could easily tape a selection of songs from various albums and play those songs in my car, on a walkman or a boom box? If anything, today's digital media should make these activities easier. And you know what? They DO. It's not the technology getting in the way, it's the lawyers and the artificial restrictions being assigned to playback devices and recordings devices by organizations like the MPAA and the RIAA. Those organizations are holding the artists, the distributors and customers for ransom. And why? Simply to keep their old, failing business model alive. Truth be told, MOST people would do the "right thing" and buy a legit copy of a song if the songs were reasonably priced (a few cents per track) and non-DRM. As long as there is DRM and unreasonable pricing there will be, otherwise honest people, trying to find a way to get "free" or "cheap" music. But as soon as some company offers high quality, direct from the artist to your ears, along with value added media (like liner notes in PDF and album art in JPG) full movie and music packages that are universally playable on all platforms, the DRMed crap will dry up. Kill off the dinosaurs. Show the RIAA and the MPAA that they are largely irrelevant to digital media. If you are an artist, work together with the P2P geeks to find a better distribution method that presents one file for a complete album or a television program or movie that you produced. If you are a user, spend some time exploring the alternatives that exist to big media. The quality is improving daily. Screw the fossils that are trying to control music, movies and television. Rescue YOUR media. Do it NOW!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
This format war is turning into a twisted modern day version of the parable of King Solomon. In that parable, two women both claim that a baby is theirs. Solomon guilefully says the only way to resolve the issue is by cutting the baby in half and giving a half to each woman. The first woman agrees, but the second woman pleads with the King to spare the baby's life and let the other woman have the child. Solomon knew the second woman was the real mother.
Today, that baby is high definition DVDs, and unfortunately for us, both women would rather see that baby slaughtered than give up potentially lucrative royalties from it. The HD-DVD and Blu-ray camps are trying to compete with each other for money, and their greed is about to kill what could be the successor of the DVD. So what happens now? Well, as other people have pointed out, most will wait for one format to beat out the other. Or wait for players that play both formats, assuming such a thing would be made. I don't see it happening. After this whole battle, why would you license a player if it will decode the competition?
In a way, we are Solomon. I think the only smart thing to do is to keep the baby ourselves and leave them both empty handed, by not buying the players or the discs. If the two camps could just get past their greed and see that their actions mean both of them will lose revenue, they might rethink their strategies.
*blinking cursor*
HDTV is over 10 years behind where the "experts" claimed it would be. It has been extremely slow to go mainstream becuase the consumer did not care about it or want it. The only reason I have one is because of the other features that the digital TV had that were handy. I don't even watch HD.
For movies, HD-DVD and BlueRay won't sell very fast becuase the studios have to still make the releases on standard DVD to make any money. The consumer won't care. Only the game machines will pick up the players and that is only for the kids and young adults that waste thier time doint that.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
As my relatively new 2 year old HDTV only has DVI and component and no HDMI I suppose I'll be in the "screwed early-adopter" category so I'll be buying a few HD-DVD units and returning them when, "Ooops, I just found out it doesn't actually do HD unless you have HDMI, oh well, can I return it? K Thx, bye!"
I suggest others do the same so we can send a message and make sure the MPAA et al know there's a segment of the market who won't stand for degraded standards for committing the crime of purchasing an HDTV before THEY got THEIR act together.
Whenever you use term "DRM" in a post, please put the words "infected with" before it. Stuff like that catches on you know. The RIAA and MPAA did it with the terms "p2p" and "thief". Why shouldn't we do it too? "Infected with DRM" sounds just as good as "stole material via p2p".
The picture's so good you can see the DRM watermark!
Now THAT'S progress people! Huzzah!
I never recalled Indiana Jones being chased by a boulder with a giant DRM logo emblazoned on it - but the metaphor is so right ya know?
Let's see, I could choose Blu-Ray as my next technology to adopt, but since it was created by Sony, the people who brought us rootkit enabled audio CDs that opened huge security holes on users PCs, that is completely out of the question.
Or I could choose HD-DVD. And thereby render every television and computer monitor I have useless for seeing the HD content because none of them support HDCP. Also out of the question.
Oh, and don't forget, if the DRM gods decide that your new Blu-ray or HD-DVD player broke the rules by doing something like not hiding a region code setup menu good enough, they can revoke the keys for that player and turn it into a boat anchor.
No thanks, I'll stick with DVDs.
Compression formats like MPEG-4 and all its variants (h.264, DivX, XviD, etc) can fit perfectly well on a CD or a DVD.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray use h.264 [1]. Also, DivX is not usually MPEG-4 compliant, and XviD often is not.
Anyhow, the compression is not the issue, it's the bitrate. Sure, you can fit a movie on a CD, but only at bitrates less than about 1Mbps. For HD content, that won't even remotely cut it, no matter what codec you use. You'd either have deplorable quality or deplorable capacity. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both range from around 10Mbps up to 40Mbps, even using modern codecs. In other words, you need a new kind of disc.
[1] h.264 is one of the required formats, in addition to VC-1 and MPEG-2. That is, the content can be in any of these, but all players must support each.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Copyright law exists to protect and benefit the copyright holder, nobody else.
Copyright law was started so that content producers would have a limited time to recoup their cost before it became available for all to enjoy (a balance between the copyright holder and the general public ). In other words an incentive to develop public domain works.
Finally, to sum up why I think this limited-copy DRM is a good thing: it removes the pro-piracy argument of "I just want to make personal copies!" from the equation. If you can make your own copies -- but can't distribute them -- then there's no reason why any legal owner would ever complain. With that farcical argument gone, the pirates have no pseudo-righteosness to hide behind.
Let say I wanted to rip to a media server but it is not supported by the DRM. What then?
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
This statement is incorrect, insofar as it applies to Western concepts of copyright.
Copyright law is there to ensure a flow from creative authors into the general culture of arts and science of a population. A culture which does not have a rich shared commons of cultural works will rot and die.
It is most certainly a balance between the needs of creators to have the opportunity to recoup costs of creation (note: opportunity to recoup, not right to recoup) and the rights of the community to communicate those ideas through the medium of shared culture. No-one - and I mean no-one - has produced completely original art for millenia beyond counting: all of art is founded upon popular culture.
Of course you have a right to it. The right to quote, excerpt, review, criticise, parody are enshrined (if you are a US citizen) in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I can't stop you saying something because I said it first.
Fair Use is what stops copyright becoming censorship. Can you imagine not being able to quote people like Martin Luther King, or John F Kennedy, in print, online, or whatever? I choose the examples deliberately, since the King estate in particular is quite hot on ensuring that Dr Kings full speeches are paid for.
And all of this is without consideration for those who would like to enjoy works but for various reasons cannot enjoy them in the format in which they were originally distributed. Should visually impaired people not be allowed to enjoy books because suitable media were thought to be of insufficient economic value to the original producer?
What you describe here is more properly covered under patent law, not copyright law. You cannot copyright a drug.
To return to the original topic - what is copyright for. The US Constitution defines it thus:
So clearly the rewarding of authors is set down, but that is a means to an end. The end is progress in arts and science. The beneficiaries of the temporary derogation of the normal rights of free expression is the population at large.
--Ng
I stopped reading your post entirely after the first paragraph.
Copyright exists, not to benefit the copyright holder, but to benefit society by encouraging the creation of new works.
Original american Copyright legislation was enacted with the specific statement 'for a limited time' as a nod to the fact that Copyright is needed to encourage the creation of new works (books, plays, paintings) so that the holder can sell such works, but only for a (very) limited time. After this time period, those works fall into the public domain and are available for the benefit of all.
Those who tried to foresee the future of what Copyright would do didn't want works to be limited to those who'd paid for copies, they wanted everyone to have free access to all media, but conceded a time limit wherein creators could benefit financially from their works.
Unfortunately, that time limitation has grown again and again, and is now practically a joke.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)