But that wasn't the plan in the beginning. They were saying they would turn it on right away. They didn't because a lot of people ( that bought HDTVs early on ) complained about it and they do want to sell their machines ( to those bleeding edge early adopters ). They may still do this if there's an upsurge in piracy.
Again, you disagree that the risk is low but yet the studio's allow it. Why? Because the risk is high? Or because it really doesn't matter?
Quote:
" So, by your actions rather than words you aren't hoping it succeeds. You spread FUD AND you don't support the format. Unless you normally try to torpedo things you hope to happen. "
The last statement has no place in this conversation.
You say one thing and do another.
Quote:
" Do you even understand the word prerequisite? You're insisting that a format must have mainstream market penetration BEFORE it can become mainstream. That's simply stupid. "
No. I'm saying there is a certain criteria that it must meet before it has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming mainstream. At least the same ease of use as the incumbant.
Jeez, look up the word prerequisite. Your "certain criteria" is that a format must be widely available in the population before it can be mainstream.
Look up the word mainsteam while you look up the word prerequisite.
Quote:
"My point is that as business people interested in profit then no position is absolute if there is profit to be had. "
Tell that to Jack Valenti ( yes I know he's dead ) who testified before congress in 1982 about how evil the VCR was and how it would take away all the profit from the movie industry.
From that testimony : "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
If it had been up to him we wouldn't have home video.
So in your opinion in 1982 the studio's were absolutely against the VCR...and yet they changed their minds anyway...because there was money to be made.
You just proved my point.
If there is money to be made selling 720p movies over the internet the studios will eventually do so. Their opposition is neither absolute or immutable whatever their public position might be. AND they haven't come out in vocal opposition anyway. They're simply biding their time and seeing how rentals and HD TV sales go for the moment.
Quote:
As you can see they don't exactly have a friendly attitude toward new ways of distributing their product. Maybe now that Jack's gone things will change.
It happened when he was there. They might go kicking and screaming but they do go when there are $$$ to be made.
Quote:
Look I'll say it again for your benifit. I hope BluRay succeeds.
Then fine. Stop with the LD comparisons , the negativity and the jibes like "Sony learned a lot" implying they came out with the inferior format this go around. In any case, there are a lot more folks backing Blu-Ray than just Sony. Another point you try to FUD over by making all about Sony.
There are a few months between now and when Blu-Ray will begin to push hard for this xmas season. Complain about Blu-Ray's inability to execute closer to x-mas if they fail to do anything. At least THEN it will be justified.
Either that or stop claiming you "hope Blu-Ray succeeds". Or keep on and I'll keep dinging you for transparent FUDing. Whatever floats your boat.
Again, you disagree that the risk is low but yet the studio's allow it. Why? Because the risk is high? Or because it really doesn't matter?
You say one thing and do another.
Jeez, look up the word prerequisite. Your "certain criteria" is that a format must be widely available in the population before it can be mainstream.
Look up the word mainsteam while you look up the word prerequisite.
So in your opinion in 1982 the studio's were absolutely against the VCR...and yet they changed their minds anyway...because there was money to be made.
You just proved my point.
If there is money to be made selling 720p movies over the internet the studios will eventually do so. Their opposition is neither absolute or immutable whatever their public position might be. AND they haven't come out in vocal opposition anyway. They're simply biding their time and seeing how rentals and HD TV sales go for the moment.
It happened when he was there. They might go kicking and screaming but they do go when there are $$$ to be made.
Then fine. Stop with the LD comparisons , the negativity and the jibes like "Sony learned a lot" implying they came out with the inferior format this go around. In any case, there are a lot more folks backing Blu-Ray than just Sony. Another point you try to FUD over by making all about Sony.
There are a few months between now and when Blu-Ray will begin to push hard for this xmas season. Complain about Blu-Ray's inability to execute closer to x-mas if they fail to do anything. At least THEN it will be justified.
Either that or stop claiming you "hope Blu-Ray succeeds". Or keep on and I'll keep dinging you for transparent FUDing. Whatever floats your boat.
" Again, you disagree that the risk is low but yet the studio's allow it. Why? Because the risk is high? Or because it really doesn't matter? "
No. It's because they are absolutely paranoid about this!
" So in your opinion in 1982 the studio's were absolutely against the VCR...and yet they changed their minds anyway...because there was money to be made. "
" It happened when he was there. They might go kicking and screaming but they do go when there are $$$ to be made. "
Congress thought he was out of line. The studios didn't change their minds until congress made their ruling. Congress decided it wasn't a threat. It had nothing to do with money.
MPAA to broadband providers: Pull the plug on pirates
" Jim Williams, the MPAA's chief technology officer and senior vice president, said on Thursday that it's in the best interests of Internet providers to sift through data traveling across their networks and interrupt transmissions that violate copyright law.
"Much of the Internet is being clogged up with stolen goods," Williams said at a technology policy conference here. "Basically you have a bunch of free riders who are hogging the bandwidth (and taking) it away from legitimate consumers."
You were saying?
I agree they'll eventually back down but it'll be at least a decade.
I meant what I said about BR. Please do grow up and stop being like a Troll!
" Again, you disagree that the risk is low but yet the studio's allow it. Why? Because the risk is high? Or because it really doesn't matter? "
No. It's because they are absolutely paranoid about this!
They allow full rez on component because they are absolutely paranoid? If they were absolutely paraniod ICT would be enabled today.
So wrong.
Quote:
Congress thought he was out of line. The studios didn't change their minds until congress made their ruling. Congress decided it wasn't a threat. It had nothing to do with money.
Studios did not ever have to release ANYTHING on video tape. And yet they did. Because Congress forced them to? (Which they did not.) Or because there was money to be made.
And what the studios wanted was a royalty on all blank tapes. Which Congress declined to give them. So it was ALL about money.
In any case that has zippo to do with selling movies on video tape. Which they did sell, so in turn, it implies that studios will sell movies on nearly any medium that makes them money. Even UMDs. Until they don't. Which is when they stop. Like UMDs.
Downloads are no different. They already allow 480p downloads. It's simply a matter of time until a contract is brokered for 720p content.
Quote:
"Much of the Internet is being clogged up with stolen goods," Williams said at a technology policy conference here. "Basically you have a bunch of free riders who are hogging the bandwidth (and taking) it away from legitimate consumers."
You were saying?
Which has nothing to do with LEGAL downloads. You really like bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand don't you?
Quote:
I meant what I said about BR.
Then act it. Or not since its amusing to call attention to your FUD. Don't like it? Don't FUD. Simple.
mmm.. I see what you did there.. nice, but flawed thinking. tell me, when did work start on the BD format again? was it while DVD sales were still on the rise?
I think you might find the answer is yes.
Do you not know that the studios will make money whether they sell DVD or the HDM on Blu-Ray optical disc of a same catalog title?
If what you're saying isn't flawed, then blu-ray is developed to compete with DVD? Why would studios do this if they're making profit on a movie title regardless of whether it is SD or HD?
Perhaps studios would like people to double & triple dip on the same movie titles and generate more revenue from a same movie title with multiple versions?
So, why do you think the studios would like to generate HDM, again? Only to put it on the blu-ray disc?...... I don't think so.
Do you not know that the studios will make money whether they sell DVD or the HDM on Blu-Ray optical disc of a same catalog title?
If what you're saying isn't flawed, then blu-ray is developed to compete with DVD? Why would studios do this if they're making profit on a movie title regardless of whether it is SD or HD?
Except that Blu-Ray was developed/supported largely by CE companies and not studios, right? Although Sony IS both. CE companies need to move new product at good profit which a saturated market can't do as well. Hence their desire for a new format.
That studios get to double dip on library titles is simply additional incentive for them to play along and offer content on the new format.
Quote:
So, why do you think the studios would like to generate HDM, again? Only to put it on the blu-ray disc?...... I don't think so.
I would say that once a "next generation" format has any traction...real or percieved...studios would see a dip in media purchases as folks slow buying because they feel the currrent formate is obsolecent. To maintain sales they can go the High-Low (higher priced HD, lower priced SD) approach as the market transistions and maintain sales.
Plus, in this case, they HAD hoped to replace the completely broken CSS with a better DRM. Which they did but was subsequently broken a lot quicker than they expected.
Which if they had done manage copy from the GET GO nobody might have bothered. Or at least they couldn't hide behind legitimate backup and fair use reasons to break the DRM.
Work started on BR while DVD sales were still going well, but the saturation point was already in sight.
This is no different from moving customers from 8-tracks to cassettes, or VHS to DVD.
Blu-Ray was not some brilliant sudden invention. It has been carefully timed to allow industry to maximize sales of the previous format (DVD) and then force customers to re-purchase the same media collection in another format. This is how the CE world works.
I believe your thinking is definitely flawed.
Sorry, but think your thinking is just grating on the brain.
They allow full rez on component because they are absolutely paranoid? If they were absolutely paraniod ICT would be enabled today.
So wrong.
Studios did not ever have to release ANYTHING on video tape. And yet they did. Because Congress forced them to? (Which they did not.) Or because there was money to be made.
And what the studios wanted was a royalty on all blank tapes. Which Congress declined to give them. So it was ALL about money.
In any case that has zippo to do with selling movies on video tape. Which they did sell, so in turn, it implies that studios will sell movies on nearly any medium that makes them money. Even UMDs. Until they don't. Which is when they stop. Like UMDs.
Downloads are no different. They already allow 480p downloads. It's simply a matter of time until a contract is brokered for 720p content.
Which has nothing to do with LEGAL downloads. You really like bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand don't you?
Then act it. Or not since its amusing to call attention to your FUD. Don't like it? Don't FUD. Simple.
" No the complaint was considered not legal. We came very close to not having Home Video at all. If Valenti had his way that's where we would be today.
He felt the same about computers.
" So it was ALL about money "
Is your take. Unless you've got a link that supports that idea.
" In any case that has zippo to do with selling movies on video tape. "
What????
What part of we wouldn't have Home Video don't you understand?
" Downloads are no different. They already allow 480p downloads. It's simply a matter of time until a contract is brokered for 720p content. "
Jim Williams would disagree with you. Or didn't read the entire aricle?
Look they probably will ok HD downloads that can be burned to a DVD or whaever it takes to make them convienent. However it'll be a long while. Kind of like prying it from their cold dead fingers. Probably about 10 years. The internet will probably be ready for the extra load by that time. Besides I would always prefer 1080P.
" Which has nothing to do with LEGAL downloads. You really like bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand don't you? "
You were the one talking about the MPAA oking this!
I just gave you 2 examples on how unfrlendly they are to the idea. One from the past and one from the present. Don't get all huffy when reality doesn't match your idea of a perfect little world.
" Then act it "
I will when I'm sure they have a good chance at being the mainstream. I don't want another Laser Disc. Much as I like HD. When they get to $199.00 I'll buy into it.
" Or not since its amusing to call attention to your FUD. Don't like it? Don't FUD. Simple. "
No the complaint was considered not legal. We came very close to not having Home Video at all. If Valenti had his way that's where we would be today.
He felt the same about computers.
There is no quote that says this. Valenti has been quoted as saying that the studios were looking for royalties on BLANK media. Not to kill VCRs entirely.
He was never against technology but technology without copyright protection:
"Technology moves with terrifying speed. If the traffic rules are explicit and understandable, and accompanied by common-sense protective designs, this technology will be an incalculable boon to America, a shot in the arm to our international competitiveness, and a stimulus to our creative industries."
1996 Testimony
VCR:
"We are facing a very new and a very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape."
1982 Testimony
Key point: BLANK TAPE.
"I wasn't opposed to the VCR. The MPAA tried to establish by law that the VCR was infringing on copyright. Then we would go to the Congress and get a copyright royalty fee put on all blank videocassettes and that would go back to the creators"
2002 interview with the Harvard Politcal Review.
"So it was ALL about money "
Damn straight and straight from the horse's mouth.
Quote:
Is your take. Unless you've got a link that supports that idea.
There you go. Google is your friend. Valenti and VCR isn't a hard pair of keywords to try.
Quote:
" In any case that has zippo to do with selling movies on video tape. "
What????
What part of we wouldn't have Home Video don't you understand?
The part that you made up. Studios obviously had no problems with selling their own material on video tape. What they DIDN'T want was folks taping movies on BLANK TAPE. Either off TV or from each other. At least without a royalty cut on the blank media.
A royalty cut the music industry gets on blank music CD media and standalone CD recorders.
Quote:
" Downloads are no different. They already allow 480p downloads. It's simply a matter of time until a contract is brokered for 720p content. "
Jim Williams would disagree with you. Or didn't read the entire aricle?
Yes, but obviously your reading comprehension is poor or you would notice that they are railing against PIRACY and ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS of their IP. Not railing against iTunes or unbox or MS Live downloads which they get a cut of the pie.
Quote:
" Which has nothing to do with LEGAL downloads. You really like bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand don't you? "
You were the one talking about the MPAA oking this!
And they are OK are with LEGAL downloads. If they weren't okay then Amazon, Apple and MS would HAVE NO LEGAL CONTRACT to do downloads.
Do you fail to see the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL downloads? Pirate much?
Quote:
I just gave you 2 examples on how unfrlendly they are to the idea. One from the past and one from the present. Don't get all huffy when reality doesn't match your idea of a perfect little world.
That's a bit of marketing hype really. The differences between 720p, 1080i and 1080p are almost imperceptible unless you have the a screen size of 40inches or above. Even then it will depend on the quality of the manufacture. A great 720p TV at 32inches may have a far better picture than a cheaply manufactured screen at 1080p.
Although BR may not be a 100% cert, one thing is certain - We will not be watching Standard definition movies on on HD screens for much longer. If not Blu-ray then what? Blu-ray is already here and selling well, hard to see anything usurping its position as the obvious next-gen HD format.
There is no quote that says this. Valenti has been quoted as saying that the studios were looking for royalties on BLANK media. Not to kill VCRs entirely.
He was never against technology but technology without copyright protection:
"Technology moves with terrifying speed. If the traffic rules are explicit and understandable, and accompanied by common-sense protective designs, this technology will be an incalculable boon to America, a shot in the arm to our international competitiveness, and a stimulus to our creative industries."
1996 Testimony
VCR:
"We are facing a very new and a very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape."
1982 Testimony
Key point: BLANK TAPE.
"I wasn't opposed to the VCR. The MPAA tried to establish by law that the VCR was infringing on copyright. Then we would go to the Congress and get a copyright royalty fee put on all blank videocassettes and that would go back to the creators"
2002 interview with the Harvard Politcal Review.
"So it was ALL about money "
Damn straight and straight from the horse's mouth.
There you go. Google is your friend. Valenti and VCR isn't a hard pair of keywords to try.
The part that you made up. Studios obviously had no problems with selling their own material on video tape. What they DIDN'T want was folks taping movies on BLANK TAPE. Either off TV or from each other. At least without a royalty cut on the blank media.
A royalty cut the music industry gets on blank music CD media and standalone CD recorders.
Yes, but obviously your reading comprehension is poor or you would notice that they are railing against PIRACY and ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS of their IP. Not railing against iTunes or unbox or MS Live downloads which they get a cut of the pie.
And they are OK are with LEGAL downloads. If they weren't okay then Amazon, Apple and MS would HAVE NO LEGAL CONTRACT to do downloads.
Do you fail to see the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL downloads? Pirate much?
Two completely incorrect examples.
You use your quote to interepret the meaning and ignore mine. Gotcha!
What exactly do you think this meant :
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."[
Jack Valenti had a long history of not liking any way of distributing movies except for the old fashion way. The theater.
" The part that you made up. Studios obviously had no problems with selling their own material on video tape. What they DIDN'T want was folks taping movies on BLANK TAPE. Either off TV or from each other. At least without a royalty cut on the blank media. "
So how do you think they would have felt about selling movies?
" Two completely incorrect examples "
You didn't address my other example which was from the other day.
That's a bit of marketing hype really. The differences between 720p, 1080i and 1080p are almost imperceptible unless you have the a screen size of 40inches or above. Even then it will depend on the quality of the manufacture. A great 720p TV at 32inches may have a far better picture than a cheaply manufactured screen at 1080p.
Although BR may not be a 100% cert, one thing is certain - We will not be watching Standard definition movies on on HD screens for much longer. If not Blu-ray then what? Blu-ray is already here and selling well, hard to see anything usurping its position as the obvious next-gen HD format.
My screen at home is 53". I wouldn't consider anything less for my living room than 50 ".
I don't have any data but I'd be willing to bet the larger screen sizes are the one's that are showing the most growth.
You use your quote to interepret the meaning and ignore mine. Gotcha!
"I wasn't opposed to the VCR."
Requires no interpretation.
Quote:
What exactly do you think this meant :
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
In the context of VCR + Blank tape, which if you actually read the transcript you would see he pairs them up consistently. The combination, in the opinion of the MPAA would strangle sales of studio products because people could simply tape them off the air and remove commercials.
Quote:
" The part that you made up. Studios obviously had no problems with selling their own material on video tape. What they DIDN'T want was folks taping movies on BLANK TAPE. Either off TV or from each other. At least without a royalty cut on the blank media. "
So how do you think they would have felt about selling movies?
Obviously they DID sell movies.
Quote:
" Two completely incorrect examples "
You didn't address my other example which was from the other day.
Nah, BD doesn't stand a chance because Paramount won't release Star Trek Season 2 in BD.
Very funny. Nope! I'm afraid it's their prices that are the main thing. But don't believe me. Watch what happens. Also I didn't say they didn't stand a chance.
Chill man. Give it time, and you'll see Blu-ray will win in the market place. Patience.
I don't have as much problem with BR making as I do vinea and the snide comments.
I'm just trying to present other sides than BR being a definite thing and maybe looking at ways that might help it become a definite thing. However some people have problems with asking questions.
In the context of VCR + Blank tape, which if you actually read the transcript you would see he pairs them up consistently. The combination, in the opinion of the MPAA would strangle sales of studio products because people could simply tape them off the air and remove commercials.
Obviously they DID sell movies.
What other example? And your arguments are inane.
You are really naive about the MPAA. For one thing when you say it was all about Blank Tape that's leaving part of the picture out. Back then Home Video ( in it's infancy ) was all about renting. There was no buying. Yes you could buy but it would cost you $100.00 or more for one movie. It wasn't until later that they slowly tried selling a movie at a reasonable price. I see no reason to return to that kind of control by the studios over how you watch and when. If selling had been a real part of the picture it would have been a target also. The only real sales market was video discs ( CED and Laser Disc ). Tape ( with the exception of buying it from a club which obligated you to buy more ) was out of the average person's ball park as far as price.
Nah, BD doesn't stand a chance because Paramount won't release Star Trek Season 2 in BD.
ROFL! Never been a Trekky fan honestly...Matrix...now that's what I'm talking about...release that trilogy with 7.1 uncompressed surround sound with amped up bitrate...I'm their huckleberry.
Comments
But that wasn't the plan in the beginning. They were saying they would turn it on right away. They didn't because a lot of people ( that bought HDTVs early on ) complained about it and they do want to sell their machines ( to those bleeding edge early adopters ). They may still do this if there's an upsurge in piracy.
Again, you disagree that the risk is low but yet the studio's allow it. Why? Because the risk is high? Or because it really doesn't matter?
" So, by your actions rather than words you aren't hoping it succeeds. You spread FUD AND you don't support the format. Unless you normally try to torpedo things you hope to happen. "
The last statement has no place in this conversation.
You say one thing and do another.
" Do you even understand the word prerequisite? You're insisting that a format must have mainstream market penetration BEFORE it can become mainstream. That's simply stupid. "
No. I'm saying there is a certain criteria that it must meet before it has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming mainstream. At least the same ease of use as the incumbant.
Jeez, look up the word prerequisite. Your "certain criteria" is that a format must be widely available in the population before it can be mainstream.
Look up the word mainsteam while you look up the word prerequisite.
"My point is that as business people interested in profit then no position is absolute if there is profit to be had. "
Tell that to Jack Valenti ( yes I know he's dead ) who testified before congress in 1982 about how evil the VCR was and how it would take away all the profit from the movie industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti
From that testimony : "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
If it had been up to him we wouldn't have home video.
So in your opinion in 1982 the studio's were absolutely against the VCR...and yet they changed their minds anyway...because there was money to be made.
You just proved my point.
If there is money to be made selling 720p movies over the internet the studios will eventually do so. Their opposition is neither absolute or immutable whatever their public position might be. AND they haven't come out in vocal opposition anyway. They're simply biding their time and seeing how rentals and HD TV sales go for the moment.
As you can see they don't exactly have a friendly attitude toward new ways of distributing their product. Maybe now that Jack's gone things will change.
It happened when he was there. They might go kicking and screaming but they do go when there are $$$ to be made.
Look I'll say it again for your benifit. I hope BluRay succeeds.
Then fine. Stop with the LD comparisons , the negativity and the jibes like "Sony learned a lot" implying they came out with the inferior format this go around. In any case, there are a lot more folks backing Blu-Ray than just Sony. Another point you try to FUD over by making all about Sony.
There are a few months between now and when Blu-Ray will begin to push hard for this xmas season. Complain about Blu-Ray's inability to execute closer to x-mas if they fail to do anything. At least THEN it will be justified.
Either that or stop claiming you "hope Blu-Ray succeeds". Or keep on and I'll keep dinging you for transparent FUDing. Whatever floats your boat.
Again, you disagree that the risk is low but yet the studio's allow it. Why? Because the risk is high? Or because it really doesn't matter?
You say one thing and do another.
Jeez, look up the word prerequisite. Your "certain criteria" is that a format must be widely available in the population before it can be mainstream.
Look up the word mainsteam while you look up the word prerequisite.
So in your opinion in 1982 the studio's were absolutely against the VCR...and yet they changed their minds anyway...because there was money to be made.
You just proved my point.
If there is money to be made selling 720p movies over the internet the studios will eventually do so. Their opposition is neither absolute or immutable whatever their public position might be. AND they haven't come out in vocal opposition anyway. They're simply biding their time and seeing how rentals and HD TV sales go for the moment.
It happened when he was there. They might go kicking and screaming but they do go when there are $$$ to be made.
Then fine. Stop with the LD comparisons , the negativity and the jibes like "Sony learned a lot" implying they came out with the inferior format this go around. In any case, there are a lot more folks backing Blu-Ray than just Sony. Another point you try to FUD over by making all about Sony.
There are a few months between now and when Blu-Ray will begin to push hard for this xmas season. Complain about Blu-Ray's inability to execute closer to x-mas if they fail to do anything. At least THEN it will be justified.
Either that or stop claiming you "hope Blu-Ray succeeds". Or keep on and I'll keep dinging you for transparent FUDing. Whatever floats your boat.
" Again, you disagree that the risk is low but yet the studio's allow it. Why? Because the risk is high? Or because it really doesn't matter? "
No. It's because they are absolutely paranoid about this!
" So in your opinion in 1982 the studio's were absolutely against the VCR...and yet they changed their minds anyway...because there was money to be made. "
" It happened when he was there. They might go kicking and screaming but they do go when there are $$$ to be made. "
Congress thought he was out of line. The studios didn't change their minds until congress made their ruling. Congress decided it wasn't a threat. It had nothing to do with money.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9905266-7.html
MPAA to broadband providers: Pull the plug on pirates
" Jim Williams, the MPAA's chief technology officer and senior vice president, said on Thursday that it's in the best interests of Internet providers to sift through data traveling across their networks and interrupt transmissions that violate copyright law.
"Much of the Internet is being clogged up with stolen goods," Williams said at a technology policy conference here. "Basically you have a bunch of free riders who are hogging the bandwidth (and taking) it away from legitimate consumers."
You were saying?
I agree they'll eventually back down but it'll be at least a decade.
I meant what I said about BR. Please do grow up and stop being like a Troll!
" Again, you disagree that the risk is low but yet the studio's allow it. Why? Because the risk is high? Or because it really doesn't matter? "
No. It's because they are absolutely paranoid about this!
They allow full rez on component because they are absolutely paranoid? If they were absolutely paraniod ICT would be enabled today.
So wrong.
Congress thought he was out of line. The studios didn't change their minds until congress made their ruling. Congress decided it wasn't a threat. It had nothing to do with money.
Studios did not ever have to release ANYTHING on video tape. And yet they did. Because Congress forced them to? (Which they did not.) Or because there was money to be made.
And what the studios wanted was a royalty on all blank tapes. Which Congress declined to give them. So it was ALL about money.
In any case that has zippo to do with selling movies on video tape. Which they did sell, so in turn, it implies that studios will sell movies on nearly any medium that makes them money. Even UMDs. Until they don't. Which is when they stop. Like UMDs.
Downloads are no different. They already allow 480p downloads. It's simply a matter of time until a contract is brokered for 720p content.
"Much of the Internet is being clogged up with stolen goods," Williams said at a technology policy conference here. "Basically you have a bunch of free riders who are hogging the bandwidth (and taking) it away from legitimate consumers."
You were saying?
Which has nothing to do with LEGAL downloads. You really like bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand don't you?
I meant what I said about BR.
Then act it. Or not since its amusing to call attention to your FUD. Don't like it? Don't FUD. Simple.
mmm.. I see what you did there.. nice, but flawed thinking. tell me, when did work start on the BD format again? was it while DVD sales were still on the rise?
I think you might find the answer is yes.
Do you not know that the studios will make money whether they sell DVD or the HDM on Blu-Ray optical disc of a same catalog title?
If what you're saying isn't flawed, then blu-ray is developed to compete with DVD? Why would studios do this if they're making profit on a movie title regardless of whether it is SD or HD?
Perhaps studios would like people to double & triple dip on the same movie titles and generate more revenue from a same movie title with multiple versions?
So, why do you think the studios would like to generate HDM, again? Only to put it on the blu-ray disc?...... I don't think so.
Do you not know that the studios will make money whether they sell DVD or the HDM on Blu-Ray optical disc of a same catalog title?
If what you're saying isn't flawed, then blu-ray is developed to compete with DVD? Why would studios do this if they're making profit on a movie title regardless of whether it is SD or HD?
Except that Blu-Ray was developed/supported largely by CE companies and not studios, right? Although Sony IS both. CE companies need to move new product at good profit which a saturated market can't do as well. Hence their desire for a new format.
That studios get to double dip on library titles is simply additional incentive for them to play along and offer content on the new format.
So, why do you think the studios would like to generate HDM, again? Only to put it on the blu-ray disc?...... I don't think so.
I would say that once a "next generation" format has any traction...real or percieved...studios would see a dip in media purchases as folks slow buying because they feel the currrent formate is obsolecent. To maintain sales they can go the High-Low (higher priced HD, lower priced SD) approach as the market transistions and maintain sales.
Plus, in this case, they HAD hoped to replace the completely broken CSS with a better DRM. Which they did but was subsequently broken a lot quicker than they expected.
Which if they had done manage copy from the GET GO nobody might have bothered. Or at least they couldn't hide behind legitimate backup and fair use reasons to break the DRM.
My dad had a saying " I'm not being negative. I'm being realistic ".
AHH! you ARE Murch!
I think your thinking is definitely flawed.
Work started on BR while DVD sales were still going well, but the saturation point was already in sight.
This is no different from moving customers from 8-tracks to cassettes, or VHS to DVD.
Blu-Ray was not some brilliant sudden invention. It has been carefully timed to allow industry to maximize sales of the previous format (DVD) and then force customers to re-purchase the same media collection in another format. This is how the CE world works.
I believe your thinking is definitely flawed.
Sorry, but think your thinking is just grating on the brain.
They allow full rez on component because they are absolutely paranoid? If they were absolutely paraniod ICT would be enabled today.
So wrong.
Studios did not ever have to release ANYTHING on video tape. And yet they did. Because Congress forced them to? (Which they did not.) Or because there was money to be made.
And what the studios wanted was a royalty on all blank tapes. Which Congress declined to give them. So it was ALL about money.
In any case that has zippo to do with selling movies on video tape. Which they did sell, so in turn, it implies that studios will sell movies on nearly any medium that makes them money. Even UMDs. Until they don't. Which is when they stop. Like UMDs.
Downloads are no different. They already allow 480p downloads. It's simply a matter of time until a contract is brokered for 720p content.
Which has nothing to do with LEGAL downloads. You really like bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand don't you?
Then act it. Or not since its amusing to call attention to your FUD. Don't like it? Don't FUD. Simple.
" No the complaint was considered not legal. We came very close to not having Home Video at all. If Valenti had his way that's where we would be today.
He felt the same about computers.
" So it was ALL about money "
Is your take. Unless you've got a link that supports that idea.
" In any case that has zippo to do with selling movies on video tape. "
What????
What part of we wouldn't have Home Video don't you understand?
" Downloads are no different. They already allow 480p downloads. It's simply a matter of time until a contract is brokered for 720p content. "
Jim Williams would disagree with you. Or didn't read the entire aricle?
Look they probably will ok HD downloads that can be burned to a DVD or whaever it takes to make them convienent. However it'll be a long while. Kind of like prying it from their cold dead fingers. Probably about 10 years. The internet will probably be ready for the extra load by that time. Besides I would always prefer 1080P.
" Which has nothing to do with LEGAL downloads. You really like bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand don't you? "
You were the one talking about the MPAA oking this!
I just gave you 2 examples on how unfrlendly they are to the idea. One from the past and one from the present. Don't get all huffy when reality doesn't match your idea of a perfect little world.
" Then act it "
I will when I'm sure they have a good chance at being the mainstream. I don't want another Laser Disc. Much as I like HD. When they get to $199.00 I'll buy into it.
" Or not since its amusing to call attention to your FUD. Don't like it? Don't FUD. Simple. "
What's amusing is your bluster.
AHH! you ARE Murch!
You've been watching too much TV. My only handle is jimmac.
No the complaint was considered not legal. We came very close to not having Home Video at all. If Valenti had his way that's where we would be today.
He felt the same about computers.
There is no quote that says this. Valenti has been quoted as saying that the studios were looking for royalties on BLANK media. Not to kill VCRs entirely.
He was never against technology but technology without copyright protection:
"Technology moves with terrifying speed. If the traffic rules are explicit and understandable, and accompanied by common-sense protective designs, this technology will be an incalculable boon to America, a shot in the arm to our international competitiveness, and a stimulus to our creative industries."
1996 Testimony
VCR:
"We are facing a very new and a very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape."
1982 Testimony
Key point: BLANK TAPE.
"I wasn't opposed to the VCR. The MPAA tried to establish by law that the VCR was infringing on copyright. Then we would go to the Congress and get a copyright royalty fee put on all blank videocassettes and that would go back to the creators"
2002 interview with the Harvard Politcal Review.
"So it was ALL about money "
Damn straight and straight from the horse's mouth.
Is your take. Unless you've got a link that supports that idea.
There you go. Google is your friend. Valenti and VCR isn't a hard pair of keywords to try.
" In any case that has zippo to do with selling movies on video tape. "
What????
What part of we wouldn't have Home Video don't you understand?
The part that you made up. Studios obviously had no problems with selling their own material on video tape. What they DIDN'T want was folks taping movies on BLANK TAPE. Either off TV or from each other. At least without a royalty cut on the blank media.
A royalty cut the music industry gets on blank music CD media and standalone CD recorders.
" Downloads are no different. They already allow 480p downloads. It's simply a matter of time until a contract is brokered for 720p content. "
Jim Williams would disagree with you. Or didn't read the entire aricle?
Yes, but obviously your reading comprehension is poor or you would notice that they are railing against PIRACY and ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS of their IP. Not railing against iTunes or unbox or MS Live downloads which they get a cut of the pie.
" Which has nothing to do with LEGAL downloads. You really like bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand don't you? "
You were the one talking about the MPAA oking this!
And they are OK are with LEGAL downloads. If they weren't okay then Amazon, Apple and MS would HAVE NO LEGAL CONTRACT to do downloads.
Do you fail to see the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL downloads? Pirate much?
I just gave you 2 examples on how unfrlendly they are to the idea. One from the past and one from the present. Don't get all huffy when reality doesn't match your idea of a perfect little world.
Two completely incorrect examples.
720p is not the same level of quality as 1080p.
That's a bit of marketing hype really. The differences between 720p, 1080i and 1080p are almost imperceptible unless you have the a screen size of 40inches or above. Even then it will depend on the quality of the manufacture. A great 720p TV at 32inches may have a far better picture than a cheaply manufactured screen at 1080p.
Although BR may not be a 100% cert, one thing is certain - We will not be watching Standard definition movies on on HD screens for much longer. If not Blu-ray then what? Blu-ray is already here and selling well, hard to see anything usurping its position as the obvious next-gen HD format.
There is no quote that says this. Valenti has been quoted as saying that the studios were looking for royalties on BLANK media. Not to kill VCRs entirely.
He was never against technology but technology without copyright protection:
"Technology moves with terrifying speed. If the traffic rules are explicit and understandable, and accompanied by common-sense protective designs, this technology will be an incalculable boon to America, a shot in the arm to our international competitiveness, and a stimulus to our creative industries."
1996 Testimony
VCR:
"We are facing a very new and a very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape."
1982 Testimony
Key point: BLANK TAPE.
"I wasn't opposed to the VCR. The MPAA tried to establish by law that the VCR was infringing on copyright. Then we would go to the Congress and get a copyright royalty fee put on all blank videocassettes and that would go back to the creators"
2002 interview with the Harvard Politcal Review.
"So it was ALL about money "
Damn straight and straight from the horse's mouth.
There you go. Google is your friend. Valenti and VCR isn't a hard pair of keywords to try.
The part that you made up. Studios obviously had no problems with selling their own material on video tape. What they DIDN'T want was folks taping movies on BLANK TAPE. Either off TV or from each other. At least without a royalty cut on the blank media.
A royalty cut the music industry gets on blank music CD media and standalone CD recorders.
Yes, but obviously your reading comprehension is poor or you would notice that they are railing against PIRACY and ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS of their IP. Not railing against iTunes or unbox or MS Live downloads which they get a cut of the pie.
And they are OK are with LEGAL downloads. If they weren't okay then Amazon, Apple and MS would HAVE NO LEGAL CONTRACT to do downloads.
Do you fail to see the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL downloads? Pirate much?
Two completely incorrect examples.
You use your quote to interepret the meaning and ignore mine. Gotcha!
What exactly do you think this meant :
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."[
Jack Valenti had a long history of not liking any way of distributing movies except for the old fashion way. The theater.
" The part that you made up. Studios obviously had no problems with selling their own material on video tape. What they DIDN'T want was folks taping movies on BLANK TAPE. Either off TV or from each other. At least without a royalty cut on the blank media. "
So how do you think they would have felt about selling movies?
" Two completely incorrect examples "
You didn't address my other example which was from the other day.
Your insults are childish.
That's a bit of marketing hype really. The differences between 720p, 1080i and 1080p are almost imperceptible unless you have the a screen size of 40inches or above. Even then it will depend on the quality of the manufacture. A great 720p TV at 32inches may have a far better picture than a cheaply manufactured screen at 1080p.
Although BR may not be a 100% cert, one thing is certain - We will not be watching Standard definition movies on on HD screens for much longer. If not Blu-ray then what? Blu-ray is already here and selling well, hard to see anything usurping its position as the obvious next-gen HD format.
My screen at home is 53". I wouldn't consider anything less for my living room than 50 ".
I don't have any data but I'd be willing to bet the larger screen sizes are the one's that are showing the most growth.
You use your quote to interepret the meaning and ignore mine. Gotcha!
"I wasn't opposed to the VCR."
Requires no interpretation.
What exactly do you think this meant :
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
In the context of VCR + Blank tape, which if you actually read the transcript you would see he pairs them up consistently. The combination, in the opinion of the MPAA would strangle sales of studio products because people could simply tape them off the air and remove commercials.
" The part that you made up. Studios obviously had no problems with selling their own material on video tape. What they DIDN'T want was folks taping movies on BLANK TAPE. Either off TV or from each other. At least without a royalty cut on the blank media. "
So how do you think they would have felt about selling movies?
Obviously they DID sell movies.
" Two completely incorrect examples "
You didn't address my other example which was from the other day.
Your insults are childish.
What other example? And your arguments are inane.
My dad had a saying " I'm not being negative. I'm being realistic ".
Looks like someone needs a Coke and a smile...
Chill man. Give it time, and you'll see Blu-ray will win in the market place. Patience.
Looks like someone needs a Coke and a smile...
Chill man. Give it time, and you'll see Blu-ray will win in the market place. Patience.
Nah, BD doesn't stand a chance because Paramount won't release Star Trek Season 2 in BD.
Nah, BD doesn't stand a chance because Paramount won't release Star Trek Season 2 in BD.
Very funny. Nope! I'm afraid it's their prices that are the main thing. But don't believe me. Watch what happens. Also I didn't say they didn't stand a chance.
And you know I really expected more from you.
Looks like someone needs a Coke and a smile...
Chill man. Give it time, and you'll see Blu-ray will win in the market place. Patience.
I don't have as much problem with BR making as I do vinea and the snide comments.
I'm just trying to present other sides than BR being a definite thing and maybe looking at ways that might help it become a definite thing. However some people have problems with asking questions.
"I wasn't opposed to the VCR."
Requires no interpretation.
In the context of VCR + Blank tape, which if you actually read the transcript you would see he pairs them up consistently. The combination, in the opinion of the MPAA would strangle sales of studio products because people could simply tape them off the air and remove commercials.
Obviously they DID sell movies.
What other example? And your arguments are inane.
You are really naive about the MPAA. For one thing when you say it was all about Blank Tape that's leaving part of the picture out. Back then Home Video ( in it's infancy ) was all about renting. There was no buying. Yes you could buy but it would cost you $100.00 or more for one movie. It wasn't until later that they slowly tried selling a movie at a reasonable price. I see no reason to return to that kind of control by the studios over how you watch and when. If selling had been a real part of the picture it would have been a target also. The only real sales market was video discs ( CED and Laser Disc ). Tape ( with the exception of buying it from a club which obligated you to buy more ) was out of the average person's ball park as far as price.
Here's a little bit of history.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/H/.../homevideo.htm
Nah, BD doesn't stand a chance because Paramount won't release Star Trek Season 2 in BD.