If you have an older TV or HDTV or monitor you are screwed!

I thought the slashdot article in question relating to HDCP related to computer monitors - not HDTVs.

In any event - assuming I read it wrong, if one needs a brand spanking new TV to see these new discs - I'm not troubled by it - as these new discs will never be sold in commercially significant numbers to matter a damn.

The tail does not wag the dog - not that much.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Fast Learner said:
I don't disagree that these are problems, but as people become accustomed to video on demand (which will blossom in the next few years), bandwidth with increase, with fiber-to-the-home becoming more and more common, with the pipes behind it growing to meet the demand.

You don't necessarily need to store much of anything with a very wide pipe and the ability to purchase the rights to watch something (even unlimited times). IMO, the desire to "own" electronic media will decrease dramatically as near-instant access to it becomes more real.
I agree.

Magnetic storage (HDs), optical storage (DVD/CD), and bandwidth have all been increasing in capacity at a geometric pace as far as I can remember. I'm sure the graph isn't totally smooth but it's been pretty near so, with increases of an order of magnitude every five years or so. I'm sure DLing 50gb in 5-10 years and storing it (optionally, there will always be collectors IMO) will be about as easy as DLing 50mb now, or 500kb 5 years ago.

Back then I had a 28.8 modem; now I have 1500down/384kbs up DSL. I generally DL big files of over 100MB in about 10-20 minutes. SureWest has already been trying to sell me 10/10mbs Fiber (they came in and set up the whole neighborhood in Sacramento earlier this year), and I know some folks in other countries already get 100/100mbs.
 

Fast Learner said:
You don't necessarily need to store much of anything with a very wide pipe and the ability to purchase the rights to watch something (even unlimited times). IMO, the desire to "own" electronic media will decrease dramatically as near-instant access to it becomes more real.
I disagree. People like owning the physical media. It gives a real sense of posession. Most people don't think in terms of owning the rights to view something, they think in terms of owning a physical copy of something. It's part of why downloading piracy and casual software piracy is so common, many people who would never steal a physical disc have no qualms about downloading a song or installing Windows on multiple computers because mentally they see the media as the possession, not the copyright. In their minds, they bought that copy, so they're going to install it wherever they feel like, and they aren't stealing anything, they didn't take the disc from anybody. It's not the way the law works, but we've got a big gulf between our laws, our culture, and our technology right now.

Possessing the physical media means the system is also much more usable when portable. I can play my DVD's on my laptop, in my living room, in the in-vehicle DVD player in a friend's van, on a mini-DVD player out in the field, ect., if I license a file, where I can use it and what I can use it with is much more limited, compare DRM'ed licensed music downloads with physical CD's or ripped mp3's. It also makes it much more useful archivally. For example, given how Lucasfilm likes to pretend that pre-Special Edition versions of Star Wars don't exist, in the kind of setup you envision, it's much easier to erase any trace that Han shot first if every time you watch Star Wars you have to download it straight from LFL.

DIVX was a big example of the failure of having to purchase the rights to unlimited view a media you'd already bought at retail. For those who may be unaware, it was a competing sub-format of DVD that came out at the same time (DIVX players could play both DIVX discs and DVD's, but DIVX discs didn't work in DVD players). The basic idea was that movies would only cost $3 or $4 dollars retail, and would be marketed as impulse buys at convenience stores and the like, as "disposable movies" essentially. When you first buy a DIVX disc, you could only watch it for a fixed amount of time before it would lock up. Your DIVX box calls in to their central server and reports the serial number of the disc you used, and how long it's valid for. Once the initial time (usually around 48 hours) was up, you couldn't watch the disc anymore. You could pay a few more dollars to unlock the disc for another viewing cycle, or just throw the disc away. For much more money (comparable to buying a new DVD of a movie) you could just buy unlimited viewing rights. Every time you played a disc, the machine had to check their central server to verify your rights to use the media.

It bombed, horribly. People weren't willing to buy such a heavily restricted media, and the more open and less secure DVD format took off by comparison. The format was terminated, and the servers kept open for a year or so for the use of current DIVX owners, before they were shut down and the discs obsolete.
 

drothgery said:
Err... anything that let an HD signal get through at full fidelity to a noncompliant display would defeat the entire point of HDCP; I really think those of us without relatively new HDTVs are going to be stuck with downsampled-to-DVD resolution output. Which is well, fine for anyone with a non-HD TV. It's going to bug people with pre-HDMI HDTVs, and people who watch a lot of video on their PCs, but neither are large groups. But I won't be able to see HD movies at 720p on my nice new Dell 20" widescreen LCD monitor...

The point I was trying to make isn't to let an HD signal through, but to accomodate those with non-compliant HDTVs. Screwing their market over into buying new (expensive) TVs will not work, they'll just hamstring their technology before it starts running. They'll need to accomodate the group that has bought non-compliant HDTVs already, because that group is almost all the HDTV owners out there. And based purely on market research, except for technophiles, which are a small group, people do not replace televisions unless they really have to, especially once they've spent over a thousand dollars on one. Thus, some sort of device, and converter was probably the wrong word, will be necessary, or this technology is going nowhere.
 

wingsandsword said:
People like owning the physical media. It gives a real sense of posession. Most people don't think in terms of owning the rights to view something, they think in terms of owning a physical copy of something.
Today, mostly, yes. But the success of iTunes is no fluke, and they sold one million DRM songs in the first week of business, and is rapidly closing in on 400 million DRM song sales. That number doesn't include their many (albeit less successful) competitors

Music is changing. Books are changing. TV and movies aren't far behind. The failure of DiVX was related more to timing and disagreement within the industry than the concept of disposable DVDs. Our whole concept of IP is shifting.
 
Last edited:

Fast Learner said:
I don't disagree that these are problems, but as people become accustomed to video on demand (which will blossom in the next few years), bandwidth with increase, with fiber-to-the-home becoming more and more common, with the pipes behind it growing to meet the demand.

By all reports, there's a problem with this scenario - the fiber-to-the-home step. Generally, the infrastructure to provide bandwidth to the American home has seriously lagged behind the technology. The problem is a simple matter of capital investment - the guys who own the wires spend a lot of money to lay the cable, but they don't see much of a return on the investment. You see much the same problem with electical power service.
 

LightPhoenix said:
The point I was trying to make isn't to let an HD signal through, but to accomodate those with non-compliant HDTVs. Screwing their market over into buying new (expensive) TVs will not work, they'll just hamstring their technology before it starts running. They'll need to accomodate the group that has bought non-compliant HDTVs already, because that group is almost all the HDTV owners out there. And based purely on market research, except for technophiles, which are a small group, people do not replace televisions unless they really have to, especially once they've spent over a thousand dollars on one. Thus, some sort of device, and converter was probably the wrong word, will be necessary, or this technology is going nowhere.

The problem is that any such device would take an encrypted HD signal in and send out an unencrypted HD signal. Anything that did that would completely destroy the copy protection scheme (because you could hook up the output to something other than a TV, like a PC with an HD video in).

Owners of pre-HDMI HDTVs (and people who usually use their PC monitor to watch legal TV/movies) are going to get screwed over on this, because there's no technically feasable way of getting around it that wouldn't also make removing the encryption from HDCP-encrypted movies trivial. So they're going to be stuck watching HD-DVD movies at DVD resolution.

Besides, by the time Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are available at any kind of mass-market price point (even if the PS3 launches at $499, it will be the cheapest Blu-Ray player aviable for a year or two), HDCP-compliant HDTVs will be the majority by far. HDTVs are getting a lot cheaper, and all new displays are HDCP-compliant. High-end ($1000+) standard definition screens are already uncommon, and this year HD sets should take over the upper midrange ($500-$1000) segment (mostly with 26" and 30" CRTs), which is a much higher-volume space. Next year, I won't be surprised if HDTVs are available in the lower midrange ($300-$500) segment. And so a lot of HDTVs are going to be sold in the next couple of years, probably far more than have been sold to date.
 

Looking at this from a completely different angle... just how bad is piracy? Are the manufacturers really hurting from piracy? Is it a significant financial loss?

and please, no "stick it to the big evil corporations" comments please... ;)
 

I am not overly concerned about Blu-ray techonology and compatability. Here is how I see it playing out, probably over the next 10 years:

This new technology will become available - at relatively high cost.

HD format movies will be released using Blu-ray. They will contain some extra goodies which won't ever appear on the standard DVDs.

DVDs will continue to be produced and will rule the market for many more years. No studio will take a chance on kicking the ca$h cow by only releasing movies in the new format.

HDTV broadcast standard will finally come to pass. People who need it will buy set-top converters for their old televisions.

Price of HDTV sets will continue to fall.

People will eventually replace old televisions with new low-cost HDTV sets.

Blu-ray HD movies will gain in popularity as more and more people have HD TV sets in their homes.

Among this will be, as always, the people who are willing to shell out the $$$ for the latest and greatest. They will complain about incompatabilities, but they'll still buy because they just can't help themselves.
 

David Howery said:
Looking at this from a completely different angle... just how bad is piracy? Are the manufacturers really hurting from piracy? Is it a significant financial loss?

and please, no "stick it to the big evil corporations" comments please... ;)

Well the MPAA and RIAA have done their best to blame any and all losses or decreaces in the markets on Piracy. The RIAA in particular has spent years energetically laying the decrease in music sales at the feet of piracy and denying that it might also be related to things like cookie cutter acts, no good new musicians or music... etc.

Their basic view on how "Piracy" should be measured is that any and all copies exchanged should be counted as a loss to them. So if I get 26 episodes of an old british sitcom that isn't available on DVD, from someone else I have "Stolen" $100 (Price of a season box set) from them despite the fact that I couldn't buy it if I wanted to OR that I might not be willing to shell out $100 for each season of "Are You Being Bored Out of Your Skull" even IF it was available. Same sort of thing for the RIAA, so if I downloaded 10 different mixes and live performances of the same song. I've "Stolen" the equivalent of a CD from them. Again, even if these are not available or being sold in any form.

I would be a lot more willing to listen to their claims if the RIAA in particular hadn't made such a big deal about how "Downloading is Stealing From Artists" when it is well documented that only a handful of the biggest and best known acts actually make money. Or they didn't have such a well established reputation for screwing artists out of money they are owed.

One of the major things that they seem to be overlooking IMHO, is that the heaviest downloaders or "Pirates" are most often the earliest, biggest purchasers of their products and the ones who are willing to pay the most money for the most elaborate releases, including purchasing multiple copies of DVD (in particular) when new editions are released that have new extras.
 

Remove ads

Top