• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Era of DVD extras may disappear....anyone else aware of this?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This is good for the DivX community.

Without the extras, DVD = DivX.

So downloading a movie will be the exact same thing as buying it.
 


<<

<< If I earned millions every year, then yes. >>



That's a load of horse crap. DVDs have become big business, why shouldn't these people get their cut? Why should the studios take it? >>

Give me a break, they got their cut when they made 20million to make the movie and make a royalty for every dvd sold. That is their cut, besides, you have no idea what they do and do not get paid for behind the scenes, and nobody said they didn't want them to get paid, just not ridiculous amounts for an hours worth of yakking.BTW, we're not talking some backwoods dvd's here, we're talking stars who are already making a ton of money.

What do they have to do with the production side of this anyhow? Nothing, all they have to do is read a script for an hour and leave, you make it sound like they are going to get cheated if they don't make ten grand to do it. The people behind the scenes are going to make squat no matter what, so what is your point, are you saying the people who do the real work should get a cut in rates so these big headed blowhard actors/actresses can ask ludicrous amounts of money. That's what it comes down to, so basically that is what you are saying, "screw the production people, the actors deserve all the money".
 


<< So downloading a movie will be the exact same thing as buying it. >>


ROFL
except one is legal and the other is
well
not
 


<< except one is legal and the other is >>



Right, THAT argument convinced the 20 million+ Napster users.

With Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster (the 3 headed Hydra) that number is probably even higher these days.

What are you going to do? Start getting your own customers arrested?

Now that's a great business plan if I ever saw one.

 


<<

<<

<< If I earned millions every year, then yes. >>



That's a load of horse crap. DVDs have become big business, why shouldn't these people get their cut? Why should the studios take it? >>

Give me a break, they got their cut when they made 20million to make the movie and make a royalty for every dvd sold. That is their cut, besides, you have no idea what they do and do not get paid for behind the scenes, and nobody said they didn't want them to get paid, just not ridiculous amounts for an hours worth of yakking. >>



If it's in their contract to do the DVD production from the start, then that's fine, but if not, then no matter how much they make from the initial movie should matter when DVD production time comes around. And you my friend have no place to say what I do and do not know.
 


<< So downloading a movie will be the exact same thing as buying it. >>



Not that arguement again. I'll leave it alone, though, because you have yet to provide any valid proof to prove that divx is a lossless compression form.
 


<<

<< except one is legal and the other is >>



Right, THAT argument convinced the 20 million+ Napster users.

With Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster (the 3 headed Hydra) that number is probably even higher these days.

What are you going to do? Start getting your own customers arrested?

Now that's a great business plan if I ever saw one. >>


Are you really that dumb? The mentality of the masses does not dictate the law.
Furthermore, people who are downloading films and music and software and anything else without paying for it ARE NOT customers. They didn't buy anything. The production company doesn't lose a dime if these people get arrested.
The argument that DID convince 20M Napster lusers is this:
"You have to pay for what you take."
Where are your 20M users now?

Even if it is impossible to bring down media pirates, if enough people turn to piracy to watch films, eventually companies would either send the prices through the roof or simply give up on making DVDs and offer them only through a lame subscription service with a lame copy-protection scheme that makes you call them up everytime you decide you want to watch it on a new computer....

But this is horrendously off-topic for this thread, so please let it go.
 
Deleted scenes are where its at.....I don't give a crap about the actor telling about their experience making the film.
 


<< The mentality of the masses does not dictate the law. >>



The mentality of the masses is the SOLE THING that dictates the law.

This country has been founded "by the people, for the people". Not "by the corporations, for the corporations". Ever hear that one before?



<< Furthermore, people who are downloading films and music and software and anything else without paying for it ARE NOT customers. They didn't buy anything. >>



People who download the most music are the most passionate about music and tend to buy the most music. Countless studies bear this result out. There is no reason to believe that the results would be any different for movies.

If the movie industry starts going after its most passionate consumers, rest assured that the backlash will be severe. The music recording industry was not stupid enough to do this, it remains to be seen whether the movie industry will act likewise.



<< The argument that DID convince 20M Napster lusers is this:
"You have to pay for what you take."
Where are your 20M users now? >>



Those 20 millions, and millions more besides, moved on to alternative filesharing networks that work.

Kazaa, Morpheus, Grokster, AudioGalaxy, BearShare, you name it.

You can't shut these services down easily either, because there is no central server to shut down.

Even if you manage to bankrupt the company that wrote the original software through legal harrassment and other underhanded tactics, the filesharing network itself will function just fine.

The content cartels are fighting a battle they cannot win.



<< a lame subscription service with a lame copy-protection scheme that makes you call them up everytime you decide you want to watch it on a new computer.... >>



DVD's had a copy control scheme called CSS. Much good it did the movie industry. It was easily cracked and now CSS cracking tools are all over the place.

Any attempt to hijack the public's fair use rights will be met by swift retaliation by some of the smartest people in the known universe. There is absolutely nothing that content cartels can do about this. Once code is in the wild, it cannot be controlled nor contained.
 


<< The mentality of the masses is the SOLE THING that dictates the law.

This country has been founded "by the people, for the people". Not "by the corporations, for the corporations". Ever hear that one before? >>


Ahhh the sweet smell of innocence burning.
Money makes the world go round, dear VoodooGuy. You like to advocate communism, and it is an effective plan on paper, but greed and human fallibility destine it for failure. I take it you haven't graduated from college yet? I noticed during my "school daze" that there is this bizarre feeling of "entitlement" amongst college students when it comes to things like this.
You need to wake up.



<< People who download the most music are the most passionate about music and tend to buy the most music. Countless studies bear this result out. There is no reason to believe that the results would be any different for movies. >>


Countless studies, eh? Please enlighten me further. Show me a scientific study conducted by a reliable and unbiased source that show this.
I can tell you one thing--I'm "most passionate about music" and I've never felt the need to rob the pockets of hard-working artists.



<< If the movie industry starts going after its most passionate consumers, rest assured that the backlash will be severe. The music recording industry was not stupid enough to do this, it remains to be seen whether the movie industry will act likewise. >>


The RIAA and the MPAA are not law enforcement agencies. They don't NEED to go after their customers. They have law enforcement agencies to do so for them. They can only go so far as to try and seek lawsuits and injunctions against independent providers, but we alll know that won't work. Currently law enforcement has neither the time nor the resources to go after all the little brats on those networks. That might change eventually.
Hopefully.



<< Those 20 millions, and millions more besides, moved on to alternative filesharing networks that work.

Kazaa, Morpheus, Grokster, AudioGalaxy, BearShare, you name it.

You can't shut these services down easily either, because there is no central server to shut down.

Even if you manage to bankrupt the company that wrote the original software through legal harrassment and other underhanded tactics, the filesharing network itself will function just fine. >>


You don't think it's strange?
If these services were actually doing something defensible, why would they go to so much trouble to make it as hard as possible for them to be shut down?

The content cartels are fighting a battle they cannot win.



<< DVD's had a copy control scheme called CSS. Much good it did the movie industry. It was easily cracked and now CSS cracking tools are all over the place. >>


Mad props to the idiots who left the decryption key unencrypted.
There is no fool-proof copy-protection.
However, if it wasn't for people like you, we wouldn't have to worry about companies even bother trying to prevent us from ripping our CDs and DVDs.



<< Any attempt to hijack the public's fair use rights will be met by swift retaliation by some of the smartest people in the known universe. There is absolutely nothing that content cartels can do about this. Once code is in the wild, it cannot be controlled nor contained. >>


Smartest people in the known universe? hahaha
Since when was THEFT a fair-use right?
 


<< Since when was THEFT a fair-use right? >>



Theft is the stealing of property.

Theft has nothing to do with this discussion.

The only possible legal issue here is potential copyright infringement, not theft.

And I ask you to try and differentiate between circumventing a copy control to exercise one's legal fair use rights, and doing so for illegal purposes.

If people like you ran our country, crowbars, baseballs bats and knives would be unavailable to the general public. Just because a tool may potentially be used for illegal purposes does not make the tool itself illegal. It makes the illegal purposes illegal.
 


<< Theft is the stealing of property. >>


Euphemize it how you will--DVDs and CDs cost money to produce and distribute. You take something you're supposed to pay for without actually paying for it. You can call it whatever you like.



<< Theft has nothing to do with this discussion. >>


Nor does your communistic tendencies. In fact this thread isn't about justification of theft, it's about the unfortunate loss of DVD extras which could occur do to greed on the part of both the producers.....and consumers.



<< The only possible legal issue here is potential copyright infringement, not theft. >>


As I said: Call it what you will.



<< And I ask you to try and differentiate between circumventing a copy control to exercise one's legal fair use rights, and doing so for illegal purposes. >>


What, like you don't know the difference? If you have a copy of "Gladiator" on your HD yet you never bought the DVD, don't even try to tell me you're exercising your fair use rights.



<< If people like you ran our country, crowbars, baseballs bats and knives would be unavailable to the general public. Just because a tool may potentially be used for illegal purposes does not make the tool itself illegal. It makes the illegal purposes illegal. >>


Nice blanket statement, idiot. No, if people like me ran the country we wouldn't try to somehow justify beating someone with a baseball bat as a "fair use right."
Of course, if you ran the country, I'd have to stand in a bread line all night. Care to change your nick to VladimirLeninGuy?

Oh and you conveniently avoided showing me that reliable study that shows that media pirates make great consumers. Funny that.
 


<< No, if people like me ran the country we wouldn't try to somehow justify beating someone with a baseball bat as a "fair use right." >>



Let's try this again.

Buying or owning or making or selling a baseball bat should be legal.

Copying or having or writing or giving away or selling copy control circumvention software should be legal.

Using a baseball bat for legal purposes should be legal.

Using copy control circumvention software for legal purposes should be legal.

Using a baseball bat for illegal purposes should be illegal.

Using copy control circumvention software for illegal purposes should be illegal.

Do we agree?
 


<<

<< No, if people like me ran the country we wouldn't try to somehow justify beating someone with a baseball bat as a "fair use right." >>



Let's try this again.

Buying or owning or making or selling a baseball bat should be legal.

Copying or having or writing or giving away or selling copy control circumvention software should be legal.

Using a baseball bat for legal purposes should be legal.

Using copy control circumvention software for legal purposes should be legal.

Using a baseball bat for illegal purposes should be illegal.

Using copy control circumvention software for illegal purposes should be illegal.

Do we agree? >>

I conditionally agree to this half of your "argument." Please continue and I'll let you know how I feel if you ever get around to making a point. Oh and what happened to that feeble statistic I've asked you twice about?
 


<< I conditionally agree to this half of your "argument." >>



If all copy control circumvention software is legal (because all copy control circumvention software have the predominant legal use of allowing consumers to make backup copies) then it doesn't matter how much copy control studios use.

The copy control will be easily cracked, and software to do so will be quickly and legally passed around.

As for studies proving that heavy mp3 consumers are also heavy CD consumers:

1

2

3

4
 


<<

<< I conditionally agree to this half of your "argument." >>



If all copy control circumvention software is legal (because all copy control circumvention software have the predominant legal use of allowing consumers to make backup copies) then it doesn't matter how much copy control studios use.

The copy control will be easily cracked, and software to do so will be quickly and legally passed around. >>


Still waiting for a point....



<< As for studies proving that heavy mp3 consumers are also heavy CD consumers:

1

2

3

4 >>


Thanks for at least putting SOMETHING out.
One of these "studies" is an informal survey from USC that only covers college students; it's too limited to constitute anything conclusive.
The other 3 links all describe the same study, which is somewhat more sound in demographic, but it still only interviewed 2200 people and the news reports give no indication of how those people were chosen. I checked the Jupiter website, but you have to have an account to access the data. Ah well.
Any other good studies?
 
The fact remains that as a DVD owner I have the right to make a backup of the DVD to my hard drive. Same way with my CDs. Thus, if the music/movie industry impliments measures to prevent me from doing so, they are violating my rights as a consumer. What other people do with their backup copies is their business.

As far as DVD extras go, all I really like to see is the deleted scenes and special effects information. It reminded me of this long bit on the Episode I DVD. This poor bastard was describing how he spent three or four months of his life working on the special effects on the waterfall scene, which was cut from the movie. It was like a 10 or 15 minute presentation where this guy told us how he did everything and spent so much time on it, and then they just cut it from the movie. Sucks to be him, huh?

Ryan
 


<< Sucks to be him, huh? >>



I don't see why.

I assume he got paid the same.

I assume he can put his work on his resume.

He wasn't going to be famous ANYWAY. He wasn't going to appear onscreen ANYWAY.

So what did he lose out on?
 


<< Another study >>


You're getting closer on this one. At least you have the good name of Wharton, although it still appears to be a very small sample size. If you can find a link to the actual study, not just a news article that mentions it, we could do a better analysis on just how valid it is.
The problem with these studies is this:
if 25% or even 30% of file sharing users say they actually buy MORE CDs because of being able to hear them first, that still leaves a whopping 70-75% of people who either do not buy CDs any more frequently or do not buy them at all. Businesses in a capitalist world do NOT think in terms of "Thanks to Napster, 25% of those people actually buy a couple of CDs." What they think is "xxx million people are using Napster but we're not seeing that reflected in our revenue."
If you produced something intangible for the SOLE purpose of making money and only made 25% of what you potentially could have made if people weren't stealing it, would you not be annoyed?

But I digress. As usual, you have wandered horrendously far from what the debate really is.
Which was your statement, oh so long ago:


<< So downloading a movie will be the exact same thing as buying it. >>


And as I said before, downloading it (mutually exclusive of buying it, meaning that you actually legitimately PAID for the item) would be illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top