4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[HarcourtMudd]

Originally Posted by octagon

Yes. Absent a compelling argument to the contrary, property owners should be free to dispose of their property as they see fit.

If Sony wants to sell essentially unlimited licenses to Lawrence of Arabia they should be free to do so. If they want to sell limited licenses they should be free to do that too. If Disney wants to put movies in a vault for years they should be free to. If Disney wants to sit on Song of the South indefinitely they should be free to.

They own the movies. We don't. The fact that we've become accustomed to consuming home video in certain ways doesn't - and shouldn't - trump the ownership interest of the copyright holders.

Ownership of the copyright and ownership of the product are two completely different things. As was mentioned, your toaster analogy doesn't hold up, because while you do not own the design or right to manufacture/sell that particular product, you absolutely do own the appliance sitting on your counter-top. The manufacturer might have the right to change their business model moving forward (ie. B&M to Internet, for example), but they have absolutely no right to retroactively exert control on what what they have already sold. Disney certainly does have the right to sit on "Song of the South" as long as they wish, but they have no right to say "All current copies that have previously been legally sold are now illegal contraband because we find it offensive."

I concur that they should be able to do anything they want with their product moving forward (so long as they explicitly state the terms at the time of the transaction), but this talk about them having the right to do so retroactively is complete bunk (again, show me the EULA for my current library, please). I'm not about to bow to the draconian paradigm of the studios on a gentleman's agreement, and I don't think I am alone. The solution to this retroactive BS is simple: I will stop supporting this crap moving forward, stock up on backup BD players (without the upgraded firmware/hardware), and redirect my funds elsewhere. All of my current library plays fine, without an internet connection, and will continue to do so. And the studios/lawyers hate that because there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. No internet connection = no outside control. And unless I am mistaken, this whole "IP over power line" thing assumes that the device in question must have the hardware/firmware to filter the IP content from the power stream and convert it to something ethernet can understand. So, if my player does not have this, too bad for the studios...

[ouflak]

Originally Posted by octagon

And if this that does come to pass I won't particularly like it but I won't feel like I've had something taken away from me.

I wonder if you would perhaps feel a bit different the first time you legally bought a disc from a legitimate outlet, put it in your internet-connected player and got a message, "This content has not been authenticated. Any attempt to view, reverse engineer, or sell this content is a specific violation of Copyright law."

Originally Posted by octagon

Content providers are well within their rights to put whatever limits they want on the use of their property.

Even your God-like content providers have to submit to Copyright law. Sorry.

I only buy from legitimate dealers and it's my legally purchased disc. If I put it into a player and am told that it needs to be authenticated, I might be inclined to take it down to Family Video, ask to borrow their 'refurbishing' machine, and buff that disc until it bends in a stiff breeze. Then send it back to them for a refund and laugh at them trying to claim that copyright law prevented me from legally doing just exactly what I did to their content.

[Strapped4Cash]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Frankly I have another concern about UHD BD anyway, even if authentication is not an issue. As has been stated by a few people, UHD BD isn't likely to attract very many people who aren't already into regular BD now. People who have found DVD to be "good enough" and/or have switched to downloads/streaming are likely to stick with those options regardless.

While BD has otherwise done well enough, it never overtook DVD and never will. And there is a good chunk of BD supporters who are reluctant to upgrade again. The introduction of UHD BD could be a catch-22 that simply divides that existing BD fanbase between the regular and UHD versions of the format. UHD BD sales likely won't "set the world on fire," as has been stated, but it may do just enough "damage" to further reduce the audience of regular BD. By splitting the custome base between both versions of BD in this manner, it could ultimately do more to kill off disc based media faster.

Since BD has already seen some decline, this would just speed that up further. The studios likely won't want to keep having to put out two versions of their movies on two versions of Blu-Ray, and supporting what may eventually effectively become two niche formats.

They may kill one off in favor of the other, or they may say screw it and give up on both. Then we'll be stuck with so-called "UHD" "leased" downloads that don't even quite live up to the quality of the BDs that we already have.

So the further irony here is that UHD BD selling "okay enough" could potentially be worse for physical media (and by extension, having the best PQ and AQ available, since regular BD will likely still surpass most any streaming/download options in terms of quality) than it failing outright.... or it will leave DVD as the only surviving physical medium for movies.

Hopefully I am wrong on this, and this scenario wildoes not occur, but I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility at this point.

I've been thinking about this lately myself. It seems to me that one of the issues is shelf space at Target, BB and WM. They seem to keep cutting back. And I can't imagine them expanding it again much, if at all, for UHD BD.

The WM's near me have reduced the Blu & DVD presence on their permanent shelves, even as they've devoted more to their temporary displays. Further, I noticed that one of my larger Target's, with more shelving devoted to physical media and additional titles, seems to have reduced their display space to match that of the average store layout. BB's reduction of shelf space in recent years has been talked about a lot, and even if they keep it as is for awhile, there are a fair number of titles each week that they no longer get in, or only receive in either DVD or Blu, but not both.

So if a movie gets stocked in three different formats (DVD, BD, UHD BD) then that just means more titles losing out and not being carried at all. Every title that gets removed, or never ordered, is a disappointment to some consumer, and if orders are cut enough then that may mean that whatever studio is losing out is less likely to produce as much future physical media, and may therefore cut BD (or DVD though that seems less likely), switch to mod, or just have more titles that get no release at all. This seems to already be happening around the edges with titles that have lesser interest. Some of that is likely the less interest, but some more titles that would have been made if it was only DVD & BR will now get pushed out. Every one not made, or only getting a dvd-r, is a drop in the bucket. But it keeps adding up and before we know it then drastic changes will be happening (such as already seems to be the case with Fox).

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by octagon

Yes. Absent a compelling argument to the contrary, property owners should be free to dispose of their property as they see fit.

I actually agree to an extent. We just differ on what consitutes what type of property and who owns it.

You see the content on a DVD or Blu-Ray as the actual intellectual property. I see it as a single copy derivative of the intellectual property. As such, I own that individual copy, but not the right to make further copies and sell them, show the movie publically, etc. Therefore, as the property owner of my DVDs, Blu-Rays, etc., it's my property to either keep or dispose of as I wish.

If Sony wants to sell essentially unlimited licenses to Lawrence of Arabia they should be free to do so. If they want to sell limited licenses they should be free to do that too. If Disney wants to put movies in a vault for years they should be free to. If Disney wants to sit on Song of the South indefinitely they should be free to.

This is where we further disagree.

I just feel that there should be a reasonable expectation for their to be an option to BUY a copy of a movie that is made available and keep "forever."

I also disagree on things like keeping certain movies (or certain established versions of movies) "locked away" where average people cannot access them. Beyond legal ownership, I do feel that there are both cultural and historical reasons why all films, big or small, should be made reasonably available in a relatively continuous manner. But I'll digress on that for now. I've written about that at length elsewhere on the forum, and it's somewhat separate from the topic at hand here.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the Disney Vault system as it's been used so far to date. It's a means by which they are able to keep the value of their movies up by making them available for limited windows of time every few years. It still allows people to BUY them, and upon doing so, they still have access to those movies even after they go out of print, aka "back into the vault." If the vault system not only made the movie unavailable for further purchase, but also took away the ability for anyone who already paid for it to continue watching it, then I would have a HUGE problem with that.

They own the movies. We don't. The fact that we've become accustomed to consuming home video in certain ways doesn't - and shouldn't - trump the ownership interest of the copyright holders.

I think there just needs to be a reasonable medium between the interest of the copyright holders and customers. To me things like film, etc, have a cultural significance beyond monst other products, and I feel there is a responsibility there on the part of the owners of the content beyond their own sheer money-driven business interests. I have no problem with them making money off of the films that they own (within reason), and I have no problem paying a reasonable price for them. But I don't feel that having a basic expectation of perpetual ongoing access to the content upon it being paid for is out of line. I may have to pay again for any future upgraded versions with better PQ, AQ, new extra features, and so forth, but the copy that I already paid for should be mine to hang onto and watch whenever I want (and the same should hold true for any future purchases of upgraded versions).



And as I said previously, IF things are going to go to a "license only" model going forward, as much as I will HATE that and as much as it will reduce the money that I spend on movies, I do feel that the studios/distributors should be forced to use terminology in their advertising that specifically refers to the transaction as leasing the content or something similar, rather than "buying" it and "owning" it. They should not be able to use misleading verbage to the general unsuspecting public, which is EXACTLY what they are doing. They know that if they started referring to is as leasing instead of buying/owning, they'd get a lot of backlash from those who have otherwise not really thought about long term access to any digitally distributed content that they've paid for.



Furthermore, as much I don't want there to only be lease-based options going forward that could be taken away at any time, a small part of me almost hopes that (A) it does happen and (B) at least some studio with some really popular content does something really shady like revoke licenses to really popular movies within a year or two of people paying for them.

That would cause a major uproar that would bring attention to this issue, likely prompting major changes in how the law works for these sorts of things in favor of the consumer. And I also think several of you who are defending the studios rights to do whatever they want woud swiftly change your tune if you bought a bunch of movies not all that long ago and suddenly lost access to them.

[Coenskubrick]

Would you think it just if books were sold with little licenses written inside saying that at any point in time, someone was allowed to come into your house and seal all of your books away in a welded steel box, which is illegal to breach? You can still physically own them, you're just not allowed to ever read them again because the intellectual property is not yours.

That's what this would be for movies, except hey, at least you can open up that box once the copyright on the book expires.

[raygendreau]

I’m not sure why so many of you are focusing on content ownership. Nothing has changed. You didn’t own it on DVD, you don’t own it on BD and you won’t own it on UBD.

The focus should be on the Digital Bridge and its benefits. The BDA UHD extension specs will almost certainly settle on the Digital Bridge and the DBEF (Digital Bridge Export Function) as optional. So, in the future you will have a choice of purchasing a BD or UBD with or without DB. There will be a DB logo on disc and packaging and probably premium pricing for physical discs with DB.

The primary reason for offering DB is that content owners believe it will reduce piracy due to the convenience of accessing and exporting content to internal storage in the player or external attached storage.( If you purchase HD content, you will store HD, if UHD, you will store UHD). There is the added benefit of export to external/mobile devices using SeeQvault or something like it. http://www.soundandvision.com/conten...inition-movies

So, rather than restricting your rights to view content, they will be expanded. Does anyone not see the advantages of storing your collection on player and external storage? Think of the ease in organizing and searching for content compared to doing it with physical media. The benefits outweigh the cost of digital storage, in my opinion.

If the Sony, Fox, et al proposals are adopted for DBEF, it is highly unlikely that you will need on line authentication/authorization to just play the movie. To use the DBEF, you will certainly need authentication, and that is reasonable.

I would not be surprised if the DBEF could be added to existing BDs for a small fee, which would allow collectors to consolidate their entire collection on external storage. Similar to the VUDU DVD/BD digital conversion offer http://www.vudu.com/in_home_disc_to_digital.html

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

I’m not sure why so many of you are focusing on content ownership. Nothing has changed. You didn’t own it on DVD, you don’t own it on BD and you won’t own it on UBD.

The focus should be on the Digital Bridge and its benefits. The BDA UHD extension specs will almost certainly settle on the Digital Bridge and the DBEF (Digital Bridge Export Function) as optional. So, in the future you will have a choice of purchasing a BD or UBD with or without DB. There will be a DB logo on disc and packaging and probably premium pricing for physical discs with DB.

The primary reason for offering DB is that content owners believe it will reduce piracy due to the convenience of accessing and exporting content to internal storage in the player or external attached storage.( If you purchase HD content, you will store HD, if UHD, you will store UHD). There is the added benefit of export to external/mobile devices using SeeQvault or something like it. http://www.soundandvision.com/conten...inition-movies

So, rather than restricting your rights to view content, they will be expanded. Does anyone not see the advantages of storing your collection on player and external storage? Think of the ease in organizing and searching for content compared to doing it with physical media. The benefits outweigh the cost of digital storage, in my opinion.

If the Sony, Fox, et al proposals are adopted for DBEF, it is highly unlikely that you will need on line authentication/authorization to just play the movie. To use the DBEF, you will certainly need authentication, and that is reasonable.

I would not be surprised if the DBEF could be added to existing BDs for a small fee, which would allow collectors to consolidate their entire collection on external storage. Similar to the VUDU DVD/BD digital conversion offer http://www.vudu.com/in_home_disc_to_digital.html

Are you sure you don't work for the studios?

They have no intention of expanding your rights at all. It's just a further means of tethered control of content.

I still stand behind my call for very vocal opposition of online authorization for discs. It's like adding a ticking time bomb to your collection.

[Penton-Man]

Cripes. Over 2 hrs. with no postings? Is everyone but Ray and Filmfreak taking a breather or has the DRM angst been exhausted?

In the meantime, a numbers break. Question is….How are the extra 2 bits of the 10-bit HDR system plotted here – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...n#post10737499
distributed?

Answer - Well, essentially, the traditional SDR intensity range receives one extra bit of precision; whereas, thee other extra bit goes to luminances greater than 100 nits.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I still stand behind my call for very vocal opposition of online authorization for discs. It's like adding a ticking time bomb to your collection.

Did you vote in Wendell's poll? I haven't checked yet.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Did you vote in Wendell's poll? I haven't checked yet.

I have, yes.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by HarcourtMudd

I concur that they should be able to do anything they want with their product moving forward (so long as they explicitly state the terms at the time of the transaction), but this talk about them having the right to do so retroactively is complete bunk (again, show me the EULA for my current library, please).

Didn't we already do this? "I'm not talking about the copy you just bought, I'm talking about the next copy"? Does that ring any bells?

I'm not suggesting that one party to an agreement should be free to retroactively amend that agreement.

Originally Posted by ouflak

I wonder if you would perhaps feel a bit different the first time you legally bought a disc from a legitimate outlet, put it in your internet-connected player and got a message, "This content has not been authenticated. Any attempt to view, reverse engineer, or sell this content is a specific violation of Copyright law."

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. If you're asking how I would feel if I bought a disc and the authentication failed I would probably feel the way I usually feel when a product fails to perform as expected - I would feel frustrated.

Originally Posted by ouflak

Even your God-like content providers have to submit to Copyright law. Sorry.

Of course. 'Whatever they wish' was an overstatement. There are all sorts of fair use and satirical and journalistic exceptions to copyright protections.

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

Would you think it just if books were sold with little licenses written inside saying that at any point in time, someone was allowed to come into your house and seal all of your books away in a welded steel box, which is illegal to breach? You can still physically own them, you're just not allowed to ever read them again because the intellectual property is not yours.

That's what this would be for movies, except hey, at least you can open up that box once the copyright on the book expires.

I would very disappointed if book sellers decided to become book renters and only book renters but I don't know that I would view that decision in terms of 'just' and 'unjust'.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

I’m not sure why so many of you are focusing on content ownership. Nothing has changed. You didn’t own it on DVD, you don’t own it on BD and you won’t own it on UBD.

The focus should be on the Digital Bridge and its benefits. The BDA UHD extension specs will almost certainly settle on the Digital Bridge and the DBEF (Digital Bridge Export Function) as optional. So, in the future you will have a choice of purchasing a BD or UBD with or without DB. There will be a DB logo on disc and packaging and probably premium pricing for physical discs with DB.

The primary reason for offering DB is that content owners believe it will reduce piracy due to the convenience of accessing and exporting content to internal storage in the player or external attached storage.( If you purchase HD content, you will store HD, if UHD, you will store UHD). There is the added benefit of export to external/mobile devices using SeeQvault or something like it. http://www.soundandvision.com/conten...inition-movies

So, rather than restricting your rights to view content, they will be expanded. Does anyone not see the advantages of storing your collection on player and external storage? Think of the ease in organizing and searching for content compared to doing it with physical media. The benefits outweigh the cost of digital storage, in my opinion.

If the Sony, Fox, et al proposals are adopted for DBEF, it is highly unlikely that you will need on line authentication/authorization to just play the movie. To use the DBEF, you will certainly need authentication, and that is reasonable.

I would not be surprised if the DBEF could be added to existing BDs for a small fee, which would allow collectors to consolidate their entire collection on external storage. Similar to the VUDU DVD/BD digital conversion offer http://www.vudu.com/in_home_disc_to_digital.html

I think two different things are being discussed here. One is the Digital Bridge function which will allow a consumer to make a digital copy of their disc to store on a hard drive or other media device. The second is the title key. For BD the title key is currently stored on every disc. However, the BDA appears to be adding an additional option for UHD BD. The first is the same as BD where the title key is still stored on the disc. The second option is where the title key is not on the disc but the player has to connect to a server to download the title key in order to be able to authenticate and play that disc.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I just feel that there should be a reasonable expectation for their to be an option to BUY a copy of a movie that is made available and keep "forever."

The expectation is reasonable. Or at the very least, it's not terribly unreasonable.

We've been able to buy movies for thirty or so years. A lot of people here have been able to buy movies their entire lives. It's not unreasonable to hope - or even expect - that we will be able to continue buying movies when the next generation of physical media finally gets here.

The unreasonable part is the belief that we are somehow entitled to buy movies. We're not. We don't have an inalienable right to BUY a copy of a movie that is made available and keep "forever".

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I think there just needs to be a reasonable medium between the interest of the copyright holders and customers. To me things like film, etc, have a cultural significance beyond monst other products, and I feel there is a responsibility there on the part of the owners of the content beyond their own sheer money-driven business interests.

Sure, there's a 'responsible steward' aspect to holding copyrights but I'm not sure that has much to do with online authentication of ultra-high definition discs.

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

That would cause a major uproar that would bring attention to this issue, likely prompting major changes in how the law works for these sorts of things in favor of the consumer. And I also think several of you who are defending the studios rights to do whatever they want woud swiftly change your tune if you bought a bunch of movies not all that long ago and suddenly lost access to them.

Perhaps my tune would change but I seriously doubt losing access to some discs would send me rushing into the arms of legislators.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by octagon

Yes. Absent a compelling argument to the contrary, property owners should be free to dispose of their property as they see fit.

If Sony wants to sell essentially unlimited licenses to Lawrence of Arabia they should be free to do so. If they want to sell limited licenses they should be free to do that too. If Disney wants to put movies in a vault for years they should be free to. If Disney wants to sit on Song of the South indefinitely they should be free to.

They own the movies. We don't. The fact that we've become accustomed to consuming home video in certain ways doesn't - and shouldn't - trump the ownership interest of the copyright holders.

Yes, the studios are free to release these titles however they choose but consumers are also free to, vote with their wallets and, choose not to support the product.

Studios and manufacturers invest quite a bit to release a new technology but if consumers fail to support a poor product then the studios and manufacturers will be the ones that take the financial loss. I guess one could simple say they're free to lose on the investment. If they end up taking a loss on UHD BD it won't be the consumers fault because the product failed due to a flawed design.

What I see here are consumers voicing their opinion and concerns because they don't want the product to fail. This is the best time to do it because once the product is released it will be harder to retroactively fix the issue.

[ouflak]

Originally Posted by octagon

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. If you're asking how I would feel if I bought a disc and the authentication failed I would probably feel the way I usually feel when a product fails to perform as expected - I would feel frustrated.

Let's say this happened after you'd owned the disc for 18 months. And it turned it was performing as designed. In the fine print, the content owners could chose to, at any time after one year of production, decide to no longer authenticate that particular release. After some googling, you find out that a special director's cut is being released and the studios are wanting previous content 'owners' to purchase this new expanded edition. Since you now know that your disc and player are working correctly, I suppose you wouldn't be frustrated, so that's a good thing.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ouflak

Let's say this happened after you'd owned the disc for 18 months. And it turned it was performing as designed. In the fine print, the content owners could chose to, at any time after one year of production, decide to no longer authenticate that particular release. After some googling, you find out that a special director's cut is being released and the studios are wanting previous content 'owners' to purchase this new expanded edition. Since you now know that your disc and player are working correctly, I suppose you wouldn't be frustrated, so that's a good thing.

Oh, I might be frustrated in that situation but that frustration would not be directed solely at the content provider. I would be frustrated with myself for rolling the dice in the first place.

I've been very clear about the fact that I'm skeptical of online authentication and that I would be less inclined to buy discs that require it. If I were to override that reluctance and it wound up biting me in the ass I wouldn't be shocked or outraged. I wouldn't claim my rights had been violated or look to lawmakers for protection or redress.

But sure, I might be frustrated.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by octagon

They own the movies. We don't. The fact that we've become accustomed to consuming home video in certain ways doesn't - and shouldn't - trump the ownership interest of the copyright holders.

Over a hundred years of copyright law, the first sale doctrine, and many US Supreme Court cases would disagree with you.

You do have rights when it comes to ownership of intellectual property.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any cases where DRM, EULA agreeements, etc were ever challenged. This is an instance of technology outpacing legal protections.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

I think two different things are being discussed here. One is the Digital Bridge function which will allow a consumer to make a digital copy of their disc to store on a hard drive or other media device. The second is the title key. For BD the title key is currently stored on every disc. However, the BDA appears to be adding an additional option for UHD BD. The first is the same as BD where the title key is still stored on the disc. The second option is where the title key is not on the disc but the player has to connect to a server to download the title key in order to be able to authenticate and play that disc.

So, you are referring to the AACS 2.0 basic and enhanced. I don't see any sinister intent here. AACS 2.0 enhanced would require a one time on line connection, most likely to provide offers to additional content. Perhaps a Director's cut to be released after the initial release of the UBD.

For discs where all offers, i.e. theatrical cut, director's cut, all extras are on the physical media, no on line authorization/authentication required.

"Three sets of capabilities resident in all UHD
Players
• AACS 1.x – for legacy discs
• AACS 2.0 – multiple choices
• AACS 2.0 (basic) – for discs where the Title Key is delivered
with the disc and an online connection is not required
• AACS 2.0 (enhanced) – for discs where the Title Key is
provided by an online connection
• Title diversity may also supported
• Use Cases
• Disc does not require online connection – Title Keys and Security Module (if provided)
delivered on disc
• Disc requires online connection for first playback, but first playback has occurred and Title
Keys have been downloaded and cached
• List the assets provided on the disc
• MKB and records
• Security module (optional)
• Process –
• Determine what kind of disc (1.x or 2.0)
• Is online connection required (not required, or Title Key already downloaded and cached)
• Process MKB and derive Title Key
• Is there a Security Module on the disc (if yes, load Security Module)"

EDIT: Link removed

[mackna]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

So, you are referring to the AACS 2.0 basic and enhanced. I don't see any sinister intent here. AACS 2.0 enhanced would require a one time on line connection, most likely to provide offers to additional content. Perhaps a Director's cut to be released after the initial release of the UBD.

For discs where all offers, i.e. theatrical cut, director's cut, all extras are on the physical media, no on line authorization/authentication required.

"Three sets of capabilities resident in all UHD
Players
• AACS 1.x – for legacy discs
• AACS 2.0 – multiple choices
• AACS 2.0 (basic) – for discs where the Title Key is delivered
with the disc and an online connection is not required
• AACS 2.0 (enhanced) – for discs where the Title Key is
provided by an online connection
• Title diversity may also supported
• Use Cases
• Disc does not require online connection – Title Keys and Security Module (if provided)
delivered on disc
• Disc requires online connection for first playback, but first playback has occurred and Title
Keys have been downloaded and cached
• List the assets provided on the disc
• MKB and records
• Security module (optional)
• Process –
• Determine what kind of disc (1.x or 2.0)
• Is online connection required (not required, or Title Key already downloaded and cached)
• Process MKB and derive Title Key
• Is there a Security Module on the disc (if yes, load Security Module)"

https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/d..._2014.pptx.pdf

yes it is sinister, they want the interconnect to be able to turn off the ability to play the disc when they want

that extra content promise is the same scam that BD-LIVE is

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

So, you are referring to the AACS 2.0 basic and enhanced. I don't see any sinister intent here. AACS 2.0 enhanced would require a one time on line connection, most likely to provide offers to additional content. Perhaps a Director's cut to be released after the initial release of the UBD.

For discs where all offers, i.e. theatrical cut, director's cut, all extras are on the physical media, no on line authorization/authentication required.

[Show spoiler]"Three sets of capabilities resident in all UHD
Players
• AACS 1.x – for legacy discs
• AACS 2.0 – multiple choices
• AACS 2.0 (basic) – for discs where the Title Key is delivered
with the disc and an online connection is not required
• AACS 2.0 (enhanced) – for discs where the Title Key is
provided by an online connection
• Title diversity may also supported
• Use Cases
• Disc does not require online connection – Title Keys and Security Module (if provided)
delivered on disc
• Disc requires online connection for first playback, but first playback has occurred and Title
Keys have been downloaded and cached
• List the assets provided on the disc
• MKB and records
• Security module (optional)
• Process –
• Determine what kind of disc (1.x or 2.0)
• Is online connection required (not required, or Title Key already downloaded and cached)
• Process MKB and derive Title Key
• Is there a Security Module on the disc (if yes, load Security Module)"

https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/d..._2014.pptx.pdf

Just because all of the contents, except the key, are on the disc doesn't mean the player will play the content. Currently, the title key is stored on all BD discs which allows the player to interact with the disc and authenticate the validity of the disc so that it will play the stored content. By removing the title key and making it available by an online connection the player would have to either connect each time or download the key from the server to be able to play the content on the disc.

But even if your player was able to download and store the key, at some point in the past, if you ever get a new player that player would also need to connect to a server to download the title key again. If that functionality goes away, some point in the future, and the new player can't download the key then the player won't play the content regardless as to whether or not all of the content (i.e. movies, features, audio, subtitles, etc.) is on the disc. This is quite different from the BD-Live concept.