4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

You don't "own" the content on the disc, only the discs themselves. When you bought the discs, the implication is that you agreed to the terms and conditions of the use of the content on the discs (or on the LPs or CDs). The studios can change those terms and conditions on future formats on disc (or on other delivery systems). But if it's on disc, of course the plastic is yours to do as you see fit.

It's like buying a container, with an agreement to use the contents on the conditions imposed by the the distributor/studio.

And that's where I disagree in how this should work. I accept that there are legal limitations on it's use (i.e. no public presentations, etc.).

But there are legal restrictions on other things that we own (i.e. you can own a kitchen knife, but it's illegal to use it to stab someone with it).

My feeling is that we own that copy of the movie. We don't own the intellectual property of the movie. We don't own/have the right to make unauthorized copies of that copy and sell them/give them away. We don't have the right to show it publically. But that particular copy, it's ours to watch as we wish. There should be no ability for the distributor to revoke access to it once the transaction has taken place.

They may technically legally have the right not to release it again (something that I also don't agree with as I've explained elsewhere, but I see the difference there of), but the existing purchased copies should remain untouchable.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Dex Robinson

I reiterate: folks are making legal points that are really irrelevant.

My dad left me a bunch of 78RPM records from the 1950's. So I don't own the music. I only have the license to listen to the music.

Blah, blah, blah...

Yeah we get it. We all get it. We all know the law.

It doesn't matter.

What does matter: Will people pay money for UHD BD if they don't have complete control of their purchases?

Oooooo!!! You'll have to hand them back or put them beyond use, your not the original end user. After all they are not licenced to you. By rights the licence expired with the original end user. This is a grave breach of the EULA! Copyright thief!!!

Pardon the parody, but this is nightmare that awaits with online authentication!!!

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

You don't "own" the content on the disc,

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I was responding to Steel's post. Wasn't sure if he knew.

What does matter is that frankly the studios don't give a s**t about UHD BD. Sales potential is too small and can easily be made up in digital. You guys can cry until the cows come home and the only likely result is that they'll just stop supporting it and keep the content exclusive to digital. Which is what they want anyway.

Yup, that's the twisted irony behind all of the inevitable chest-beating about rights and ownership and all that jazz. If folks boycott UHD BD then all of the doomsday scenarios that they're talking about will surely come to pass because UHD will be delivered exclusively online. And not only will all of those passionately-defended rights disappear into the ether, we'll get UHD content at much lower bitrates than on disc and it'll be subject to things like local internet speeds, download caps etc. There won't be one unified UHD service either, we'll probably have to sign up to a variety of providers to get all the content from all the studios. Can't ****ing wait.

[reanimator]

I'll go you one further. If the studios stop backing UHD-BD, it will only be a matter of time before they withdraw support for regular BD as well. The collapse of UHD-BD would likely be the beginning of the end for ALL physical media. The recent moves by Fox are an alarming indicator of what's ahead.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yup, that's the twisted irony behind all of the inevitable chest-beating about rights and ownership and all that jazz. If folks boycott UHD BD then all of the doomsday scenarios that they're talking about will surely come to pass because UHD will be delivered exclusively online. And not only will all of those passionately-defended rights disappear into the ether, we'll get UHD content at much lower bitrates than on disc and it'll be subject to things like local internet speeds, download caps etc. There won't be one unified UHD service either, we'll probably have to sign up to a variety of providers to get all the content from all the studios. Can't ****ing wait.

And that's why, if UHD BD has some kind of authentication and/or if it crashes and burns upon arrival and doesn't last, I'll just stick with regular Blu-Ray for however long it lasts. It is what it is.

I'll support UHD BD if I can watch the movie from the disc without authentication. But if that is not an option, or if the format just fails for whatever reason, to me regular BD will pretty much be the next best thing available anyway.

I won't give up the freedom that DVD and BD currently provide. As it is, when something (like a TV show) only comes out on DVD and Digital HD, with no BD option, I choose DVD for the reason of wanting to own it and not "lease" it.

And the way I see it, it will be quite some time, if ever, before internet speeds and such allow for UHD content to be effeciently downloaded/streamed at a quality anywhere near what UHD BD would provide (not to mention service providers putting data caps on people's accounts). Frankly I doubt that UHD downloads and streams will look much better than standard Blu-Ray, which means if UHD BD doesn't take off, Blu-Ray will pretty much still be the best quality format available anyway, and there will be no reason for me to change so long as it's available.



And looking at that poll in that other thread, while there is a handful of people who would support UHD BD with an authentication requirement, many more would not (and at least one person who would buy into it specified that they would greatly limit their purchases because of the authentication feature, so that's not exactly a ringing endorsement).

So to reitterate a point that I made in a previous post, the irony of all of this is that those of you who care about the extra quality of UHD BD so much that you'd be willing to put up with an authentication feature have the most to lose if it in fact includes one that makes it impossible to watch the movie in full UHD quality without authentication. The format likely won't gain nearly as much support as it would without it, and will be far more likely to fail. So you have more to lose by the inclusion of an authentication feature than those of us who would otherwise be okay sticking with regular BD.



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'm interested in the extra quality, but I have concerns about UHD BD beyond just this authetnication issue (though the authentication issue is, of course, a BIG issue with me).

[bruceames]

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 fanbase for 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.


I'm interested in the extra quality, but I have concerns about UHD BD beyond just this authetnication issue (though the authentication issue is, of course, a BIG issue with me).

Yeah that's the problem. The market for UHD BD are basically only those buying BD's now, or, 1/3 of the disc market. Those leaving DVD are more likely to stop buying altogether and just stream, or buy a few movies on Digital HD. So you only have 1/3 of a dying market to buy UHD BD. The only gain in revenue will be the extra price being paid for UHD BD over regular BD. Don't think there will be any infusion of consumers coming over from digital nor upgrading directly from DVD (although there will be some, but not enough to make a real difference).

So in that light, the studios have little to gain, and as such, can dictate the terms they want. I think they want to make UHD BD a digital-on-disc format. Whether that becomes reality remains to be seen. I hope not, but if it means the studios are more inclined to support it with more content, or as a condition of their support, then I don't have a problem with it. If my player(s) are connected (just like everything else in my household) then there will be no difference whether it needs authentication or not. The movie will just play, just like if you play one of your VUDU movies.

[dublinbluray108]

I could not imagine the scenario where the studios would be inclined to force consumers on regular BD to download a key to watch a movie at any given time on their own BD player when UHD-BD will begin to be sold to the public.

First of all; how on earth would that rule, as controversial as it sounds, be immediately implemented if someone who supports BD for nearly a decade goes to find out their collection is going to be rendered useless unless they attempt to download a title key that quite possibly could take hours to even finish when they go through a slow enough internet connection and waste their allowance for the entire month just to download separate keys for movies or TV shows they like to enjoy. How can the studios even think for a second to render this a likelihood for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately; the scenario of someone doing this with a large collection of with over 100 blus or more would not be one happy camper and will probably go back to the unfortunate scenario of downgrading to DVD only for the rest of their life unless there is a way to reset their BD player and then they will be happy all over again.

Although; I would not mind one bit if digital bridge for 2K and 4K BD become an optional download for the end user like BD-Live is an optional decision to view more extras online with regular BD. I also wouldn't mind at all if the digital bridge was the only process to be authenticated online and then we had to watch the UHD-BD version of the disc title without connecting to the internet. This will someway guarantee the future of UHD-BD to last that little bit longer. But; for how long when it launches to the consumer mass market, well that is the ultimate question that will remain unanswered.

The discussion of the download keys is possibly not the only thing that will leads it's possible demise in the market. All of the workings of UHD-BD as we have discussed already are the pricing, the movie titles, the demand for the product itself (we already know that it's demand could be very small to begin with at launch), The manufacturer who makes the first UHD-BD player (The size of the player can also come into account for it as well), the ability to connect with the 4K TV set if one can afford it, the various extensive marketing campaigns to the general public at large is going to have to be done too (we don't even know how that is going to play out to the masses either).

To have all that work done from the studios and the HE manufacturers until the end of the year is no doubt going to be exhausting for them to complete. It's also all ultimately dependent on what the people will say on this format when it does come to the buying masses.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Yeah that's the problem. The market for UHD BD are basically only those buying BD's now, or, 1/3 of the disc market. Those leaving DVD are more likely to stop buying altogether and just stream, or buy a few movies on Digital HD. So you only have 1/3 of a dying market to buy UHD BD. The only gain in revenue will be the extra price being paid for UHD BD over regular BD. Don't think there will be any infusion of consumers coming over from digital nor upgrading directly from DVD (although there will be some, but not enough to make a real difference).

So in that light, the studios have little to gain, and as such, can dictate the terms they want. I think they want to make UHD BD a digital-on-disc format. Whether that becomes reality remains to be seen. I hope not, but if it means the studios are more inclined to support it with more content, or as a condition of their support, then I don't have a problem with it. If my player(s) are connected (just like everything else in my household) then there will be no difference whether it needs authentication or not. The movie will just play, just like if you play one of your VUDU movies.

It depends on how you look at it. You can argue that they can dictate the terms that they want, but at the same time since they are even going along with UHD BD in the first place, presumably they want it to be at least somewhat successful, and will probably want it to be as appealing to potential customers as possible.

Forcing an online handshake will just add an extra, unneeded step to the process. It may work seemlessly when all is functioning correctly, but that is not the point. Most of my applicable equipment (i.e. Smart TV, BD player, current gaming systems) are connected online as well, but the features that don't explicitly need internet to work at all still work if my internet is down and still will when/if online support is ever cut off. Features like streaming from Netflix, playing games online against other players, downloading firmware updates, etc., need the connection. Just playing a disc does not and should not.

And as we've seen from that poll, most people are not on board with a required connection. It is what it is.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

It depends on how you look at it. You can argue that they can dictate the terms that they want, but at the same time since they are even going along with UHD BD in the first place, presumably they want it to be at least somewhat successful, and will probably want it to be as appealing to potential customers as possible.

Forcing an online handshake will just add an extra, unneeded step to the process. It may work seemlessly when all is functioning correctly, but that is not the point. Most of my applicable equipment (i.e. Smart TV, BD player, current gaming systems) are connected online as well, but the features that don't explicitly need internet to work at all still work if my internet is down and still will when/if online support is ever cut off. Features like streaming from Netflix, playing games online against other players, downloading firmware updates, etc., need the connection. Just playing a disc does not and should not.

And as we've seen from that poll, most people are not on board with a required connection. It is what it is.

Well I don't think there's any point worrying about it until we know for sure. It's really not that big a deal with me. What IS a big deal is 1) having it come to begin with, and 2) having the studios enthusiastically behind it.

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Well I don't think there's any point worrying about it until we know for sure. It's really not that big a deal with me. What IS a big deal is 1) having it come to begin with, and 2) having the studios enthusiastically behind it.

amen

[Coenskubrick]

People being so pedantic on what the law IS, not asking what it should be. Laws are supposed to be made to benefit people in general, not give one group all the power. Doesn't always happen that way but that doesn't mean it's fair.

Businesses got by fine when they didn't have the power to take your purchases away whenever they wanted.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

People being so pedantic on what the law IS, not asking what it should be. Laws are supposed to be made to benefit people in general, not give one group all the power. Doesn't always happen that way but that doesn't mean it's fair.

Businesses got by fine when they didn't have the power to take your purchases away whenever they wanted.

Not to mention the law is different depending on what country you live in.

[Coenskubrick]

True. A lot of people are just saying "Well it's the company's right to not let us watch the movies we buy if they want". Yes, legally, that is their right, but should it be? I wonder if people understand the reason copyright and IP laws exist in the first place. It's so people can make a living off art, not so people can't watch a goddamn movie they purchased without getting it approved on the internet.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

And that's the problem. Many laws that are still in effect were not designed to take things like digital distribution into effect. Prior to digital delivery and the like, things were far more clear cut between what is a product or a service... or a purchase or rental. Now with digital delivery, these lines are becoming more blurred. But since EULAs are techincally a contract that people are technically agreeing to, that's what the law tends to side with... without even considering whether EULAs should even be legal in the first plkace or whether or not there should be limits on what can be put in them.

And even when laws are ammended or new one are created to try and get a handle on this sort of thing, they are often decided upon mostly by old men who don't een understand how most of this technology works in the first place and the implications of it.

The bottom line is that laws are created by humans... and humans are not perfect. As a result, most laws aren't perfect to begin with. And they become less so as times change, but the law doesn't adapt quickly enough to keep up.

Now while that doesn't give us free reign to break any old law that we happen to not agree with, it doesn't mean that we just sit back, throw up our hands, and take it. We push back. We try to make our case... both to the lawmakers and to those who would use the law in a way that allows them to conduct business in a manner unfavorable to many consumers. We don't just shrug our shoulders and give up.

[Cevolution]

It could also mean the end of being able to import.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

True. A lot of people are just saying "Well it's the company's right to not let us watch the movies we buy if they want". Yes, legally, that is their right, but should it be?

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.

[refnulf]

I'm guessing this DRM thing could be a very real thing. And I'm not liking it one bit.

[Coenskubrick]

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.

Well I simply disagree. I think it goes against the purpose of the creation of IP laws and is unlikely to make anyone happy except certain already very wealthy executives, and in my books, a law which makes very few people happy is not a good law.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

Well I simply disagree. I think it goes against the purpose of the creation of IP laws and is unlikely to make anyone happy except certain already very wealthy executives, and in my books, a law which makes very few people happy is not a good law.

You said it! The draconian Digital Millennium Copyright Act got the ball rolling in the wrong direction since Congress basically (like they always tend to do) let the industry lobbyists write the damn law.

There should be some reasonable protection for content owners and artists, but in the past decade or so the whole thing has become untenable and corporate power has increased a thousand fold.