Walmart Entertainment’s Disc-to-Digital Service Powered by VUDU

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Originally Posted by 3Stooges

I'm sure there will be some that try that, but looks like they're thinking ahead....

...they will "stamp" the disc in the middle to prevent people from getting 2 conversions out of a disc.

Like the idea of your discs getting "marked"? You can read additional news & details about this new program at Home Media Magazine:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/wal...-program-26664

I was thinking they would find some way to stop people from just renting. Personally I don't care if they mark my disc. As long as it works I could care less if there is marks or writing on the top of the disc.

[HockeySlasher]

Originally Posted by jj5206

Maybe it is just me, but I personally would rather have physical discs. I can see why people would prefer the convience of digital copies but when I buy a digital movie I just feel like I don't actually own it. I need a "supported" device to play it on my tv or I have to plug my computer into the tv. While you may not have the clutter of discs, I still say DVD's or blu-rays give you much more freedom than a digital copy of the film from a website.

Not to be a total d-bag, but you also need a "supported" device to play your blu-rays on your TV. It just happens to be a different type of device.

Anyway, I for one am I big fan of digital copies. I like being able to just pull up a movie without having to get up from the coach (I know, lazy.) Or, when the kids decide that they don't want to watch Lion King, they want to watch something else, it makes for an easy switch.

Then, of course, I have the movies on my iPad so when we travel the kids can be entertained for a period of time.

It may not be the thing for most people here, but I'm a fan. Unfortunately, this news does nothing to help me. I'm too far down the Apple/iTunes ecosystem hole to have this be beneficial for me.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by HockeySlasher

Not to be a total d-bag, but you also need a "supported" device to play your blu-rays on your TV. It just happens to be a different type of device.

Anyway, I for one am I big fan of digital copies. I like being able to just pull up a movie without having to get up from the coach (I know, lazy.) Or, when the kids decide that they don't want to watch Lion King, they want to watch something else, it makes for an easy switch.

Then, of course, I have the movies on my iPad so when we travel the kids can be entertained for a period of time.

It may not be the thing for most people here, but I'm a fan. Unfortunately, this news does nothing to help me. I'm too far down the Apple/iTunes ecosystem hole to have this be beneficial for me.

Same here. And now with iTunes movies in the Cloud, it makes the idea of having a digital library much, much more appealing than having a shelf full of discs I may get to...at some point.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by wormraper

actually no, you are not allowed to break the encryption (that's the catch 22) but you ARE allowed a backup.

yup

meaning they can't bust you for HAVING them in your collection. they have to catch you RIPPING it or Downloading it. thus making it a near un enforceable rule

no. Just having a copy is enough since it implies that the DMR was circumvented. And once the law is broken the law is broken.

[Clark Kent]

The real problem I see going forward is that Walmart will drop the program if it does not gain traction with the masses, like they did with their music downloads. No one wants to waste their time and money doing this if your digital products go up in smoke when Walmart decides it's not profitable.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

The real problem I see going forward is that Walmart will drop the program if it does not gain traction with the masses, like they did with their music downloads. No one wants to their time and money doing this if your digital products go up in smoke when Walmart decides it's not profitable.

I would agree but VUDU is different. It's a very popular rental service...

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by E55 KEV

I apologize for ruining yours and others day for posting in an not so correct section of this forum. I just thought the announcement was interesting and worthwhile for those that like Blu-ray with Digital Copies. I could not find an Off Topic section. Again, my sincerest apologizes for ruining your day.

I think it's a good post. I for one am tired of having to store hard copies. It takes up space. I'm just not one of those that has to have the physical media in my hand. Most argue they have to have the physical media. Well guess what if you have something that is out of print and your home burns down or someone breaks in and steals everything you are hosed. Would be so nice to have all your music and movies stored in iCloud or off site digital storage. It just makes life easier. Hopefully VUDU will upgrade to Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD. I don't go to the movies much anymore unless its a biggie like TDKR or TASM. So I rent a lot of movies on VUDU and guess what 1080p is 1080p. VUDU is handling up to 7.1 Dolby Digital now. So if we can just get Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD that would be sweet!

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

I think it's a good post. I for one am tired of having to store hard copies. It takes up space. I'm just not one of those that has to have the physical media in my hand. Most argue they have to have the physical media. Well guess what if you have something that is out of print and your home burns down or someone breaks in and steals everything you are hosed. Would be so nice to have all your music and movies stored in iCloud or off site digital storage. It just makes life easier. Hopefully VUDU will upgrade to Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD. I don't go to the movies much anymore unless its a biggie like TDKR or TASM. So I rent a lot of movies on VUDU and guess what 1080p is 1080p. VUDU is handling up to 7.1 Dolby Digital now. So if we can just get Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD that would be sweet!

tell that to the people who went with some of those digital download companies for music that went out of business. their entire library of music they paid for went with it. and guess what if you have something that is out of print... you can't get it PERIOD in a cloud based storage. and guess what 1080p is NOT 1080p. Vudu is low bitrate CRAP 1080p. huge video difference between Vudu and blu-ray. I see compression artifacts on Vudu every time I use it. It's better than netflix but not by much. and their audio.... *shudder, it's absolutely horrible at the moment. they use some of the lowest bitrates I've seen sometimes only 448 kpbs

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yup


no. Just having a copy is enough since it implies that the DMR was circumvented. And once the law is broken the law is broken.

actually no, it is NOT, believe me. Just because you have a rip doesn't mean you didn't get it legally,. they have to PROVE that you ripped it AND what source it's from. did you get it from an HDTV that you recorded and converted which doesn't copy protection, did you rip it from the blu-ray etc. it's a weird catch 22, otherwise the backup law wouldn't even be in existence. Brother's IN the PD as a fraud enforcement detective. they have zero right to arrest you for copyright infringement if you have rips on your computer. only if they can get you downloading or sharing and even then all you have to do is produce the physical media and the case is thrown out.

[E55 KEV]

Originally Posted by wormraper

actually no, it is NOT, believe me.

Originally Posted by wormraper

all you have to do is produce the physical media and the case is thrown out.

So, have you been charged with piracy by the FBI before?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by wormraper

did you get it from an HDTV that you recorded

depends what you mean and even than you are not right. Copyrite law allows you time shifting of what is shown on TV but not the right to make copies of films you did not lawfully buy a copy of. So if you have one film on a PVR, no one could prove anything but if you have a big bunch than it is enough to show violation.

Also it would be relatively through video forensic (studying the video) to show providence.

Brother's IN the PD as a fraud enforcement detective. they have zero right to arrest you for copyright infringement if you have rips on your computer. only if they can get you downloading or sharing and even then all you have to do is produce the physical media and the case is thrown out.

no one said they go after people. you are mistaking legal with indifference. It is illegal to jay-walk, but I have seen tons of people doing it and even in front of cops and not getting a ticket, that does not make it any more legal.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

depends what you mean and even than you are not right. Copyrite law allows you time shifting of what is shown on TV but not the right to make copies of films you did not lawfully buy a copy of. So if you have one film on a PVR, no one could prove anything but if you have a big bunch than it is enough to show violation.

It's also important to note that laws differ depending on the country in question. I have quite a few recorded shows on my DVR but does that mean the police are going to come and lock me up. No, it's perfectly legal to record tv broadcasts to a DVR in the US.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by E55 KEV

So, have you been charged with piracy by the FBI before?

nope, but my brother has been in charge of dozens of case where that happens

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

depends what you mean and even than you are not right. Copyrite law allows you time shifting of what is shown on TV but not the right to make copies of films you did not lawfully buy a copy of. So if you have one film on a PVR, no one could prove anything but if you have a big bunch than it is enough to show violation.

Also it would be relatively through video forensic (studying the video) to show providence.


no one said they go after people. you are mistaking legal with indifference. It is illegal to jay-walk, but I have seen tons of people doing it and even in front of cops and not getting a ticket, that does not make it any more legal.

wrong again, as he said THEY HAVE NO RIGHT OR LEGAL PRECEDENCE TO ARREST BASED ON THEM HAVING FILES. it needs to be proven where they got the files, what they legally own etc. not indifference.

also as Rdolack said, in the U.S. it is PERFECTLY legal to DVR HUNDREDS of films to your dvrs and keep them. may not be that way in CA but in the U.S. it's just fine and you aren't going to be arrested or any such crap

for example, a case was thrown out 6 months ago because a guy was downloading backups of his dvds. the legal issue is did he violate the copyright? the answer was no. because HE didn't rip the films which is where the DMCA legality was covering. whoever RIPPED the file was at fault in a legal sense and NOT the guy downloading (since legally he has a right to a backup even if breaking the encryption isn't legal) so basically the case was thrown out because they could not produce the guy who ripped the disc and since the guy owned the dvds he wasn't committing piracy and wasn't sharing the files. like I said it's kind of a catch 22 and another reason why I'd agree that our piracy laws are kinda bizarre.

anyways this has gotten WAY off topic now, this is about walmart's crappy vudu thing. me personally I don't support ANY cloud based or digital storage based service. I've seen too many of these companies go belly up or change the rules on your mid service. I'd rather have my own hard copy for myself. It's why I refuse to purchase games through steam

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by wormraper

wrong again, as he said THEY HAVE NO RIGHT OR LEGAL PRECEDENCE TO ARREST BASED ON THEM HAVING FILES. it needs to be proven where they got the files, what they legally own etc. not indifference.

but that is indifference when they can't be bothered to check if the files are legal videos or come from an illegal source. That is very different from catching you ripping a file which is what you said was the minimum requirement.

also as Rdolack said, in the U.S. it is PERFECTLY legal to DVR HUNDREDS of films to your dvrs and keep them. may not be that way in CA but in the U.S. it's just fine and you aren't going to be arrested or any such crap

no, show me the law that states it is legal.

for example, a case was thrown out 6 months ago because a guy was downloading backups of his dvds. the legal issue is did he violate the copyright? the answer was no. because HE didn't rip the films which is where the DMCA legality was covering. whoever RIPPED the file was at fault in a legal sense and NOT the guy downloading (since legally he has a right to a backup even if breaking the encryption isn't legal) so basically the case was thrown out because they could not produce the guy who ripped the disc and since the guy owned the dvds he wasn't committing piracy and wasn't sharing the files. like I said it's kind of a catch 22 and another reason why I'd agree that our piracy laws are kinda bizarre.

show me the link

anyways this has gotten WAY off topic now, this is about walmart's crappy vudu thing. me personally I don't support ANY cloud based or digital storage based service. I've seen too many of these companies go belly up or change the rules on your mid service. I'd rather have my own hard copy for myself. It's why I refuse to purchase games through steam

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

It's also important to note that laws differ depending on the country in question. I have quite a few recorded shows on my DVR but does that mean the police are going to come and lock me up. No, it's perfectly legal to record tv broadcasts to a DVR in the US.

no it is not, but does it mean the police will come knocking at your door? well probably it is not.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no, show me the law that states it is legal.

The same could be said to you for making the claim that it's illegal.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no it is not, but does it mean the police will come knocking at your door? well probably it is not.

I don't know how Canada runs things but the US doesn't allow illegal items to be manufacturered by legal companies in the US and sold by legal retailers to US consumers. Recording items on a DVR is just as legal as it was, and still is, to record items on a VCR.

[wormraper]

/faceplam wow. this is ridiculous.

since you have ALL the answers I guess I'll just bow to your wisdom

but as for things like Proof. Look up the "321 Case" presided by judge Susan Illston

or

Look up (can't remember the case #) the Library of congress allowing the bypassing of the DMCA for personal fair use in 2010 (that ruling expires in 2013 and can be up for re institution)


or the actual DMCA itself

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

here's and excerpt that opponents of fair use always gloss over

(c) "Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.—(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."


but I'm officially done arguing, I posted the information for your sake since you asked for it but I'm not gonna go on anymore, I've made my point and we've derailed this thread long enough. You guys can continue to argue but I'm stepping back

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

The same could be said to you for making the claim that it's illegal.



I don't know how Canada runs things but the US doesn't allow illegal items to be manufacturered by legal companies in the US and sold by legal retailers to US consumers. Recording items on a DVR is just as legal as it was, and still is, to record items on a VCR.

lol no kidding, this is almost as bad as the religion and the MPAA ratings thread.

strange how DVR's are sold in the U.S. for the sole intent of recording TV shows/movies and suddenly they're illegal ??

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

The same could be said to you for making the claim that it's illegal.

Here

I don't know how Canada runs things but the US doesn't allow illegal items to be manufacturered by legal companies in the US and sold by legal retailers to US consumers. Recording items on a DVR is just as legal as it was, and still is, to record items on a VCR.

that is dumb that would be like sayiong that shooting people is legal since guns are sold and or manufactured legaly in the US. Being completely drunk while driving is legal because alcahool and cars are made and sold in the US. Time shifting is legal, and that is the function of a DVR (or VCR) copying something at 2pm while at work to watch it when you get home, copying something at 8PM because youy are out to watch it the next day.... all legal since you did not change the aspect of the copy (whatch what is on TV) but just the time. But archiving is not the same thing. And here is what happened back when VCRS came out and it is CLEARLY spelled out in the rulling of the Betamax case

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=464&invol=417

(1) that there is a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses.