Posted by Jeff Rife on 09/30/05 15:57

Jay G. (Jay@tmbg.rg) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> As has been pointed out, DVD was released in the US 1997, with PS2
> out in 2000. That has little to do with your reasoning that Sony would make
> extra money by making movie playback seperate. Again, Sony would've
> made more money on the PS2 by making DVD movie playback a seperate
> option requiring additional hardware, such as the X-Box did.

At that point, the difference in price between a "DVD player" and a PS2
wasn't really that much, especially if you looked at the lowest-priced
DVD players. I picked up an *expensive* DVD player in March of 2000 and
paid only $600.

> The only additional hardware available is an optional wireless DVD
> remote, which is nice, but not necessary.

Yet every standalone DVD player had one.

> >You're right, I did. The first release players for both formats seem to
> >have price tags around $1000 based on announcements.
>
> Can you give a link to these announcements?

Have you not been reading this group? There have been many, many posts
with links to such announcements. Here's just one link:

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=14895

> >If the MSRP of standalone
> >BluRay players is closer to $1000, and the PS3 plays BluRay out of the
> >box for $300, which do you think will sell?
>
> PS3, which was my point.

Right, and how do you think Sony will feel losing $100-300 on pieces of
hardware and not getting any software (i.e., game) sales to make up for
it, especially when they have an $500-1000 BluRay player just sitting on
shelves?

Do you see my point?

> >Well, anybody who doesn't really care about games. At $300, I would
> >very likely pick up a PS3 to play HD movies instead of spending $500-1000
> >on another player.
>
> Yet you later admit to possibly buying some PS2 games to play on it.

Sure...used games that Sony has already made money on. I suspect that sort
of business model is the reason Sony is supposed to lose a *lot* of money
this year.

> Anamorphic video transfers don't "cost nothing." They require an entirely
> new transfer than the ones used for Laserdisc and VHS, letterboxed or
> not.

This is absolutely not true. Many, many laserdisc transfers were already
HD, so all an anamorphic DVD needed was re-scaling (exactly like a non-
anamorphic DVD).

In addition, for many, many movies there was no digital transfer available
at all...just analog, so a new transfer had to be made for *most* DVDs,
even those early ones, and that's the #1 reason people bitched about them
not being "enhanced for 16:9 TVs". The studio had to pay money to do a
new transfer anyway, so why didn't they do the win-win version?

You really need to look into the history of this stuff a little more.

> Actually, I can think of *one* reason for buying a Hi-Def player and discs
> without a HD display. Namely that for no ill effect on your current system,
> you would have discs that will greatly benefit from an eventual upgrade.

That's dumber than all the other dumb things you have said. You're better
off waiting until you have the display and player and buying the HD discs
in the WalMart $5 bin (or whatever the equivalent will be).

> >HD-DVD will have only one distinction over the previous entrenched medium:
> >better picture *if* you have the right display, which most people don't.
>
> I believe it will also have better audio quality, at least as an option.

Not any better than what is *available* for DVD, although it's likely
because of the vast amount of extra space, they will use better than what
is on most DVDs.

> >This is true, but *every* single hardware DVD player is "authorized" by
> >definition.
>
> They are authorized because they've paid to be so, and have agreed to
> certain rules regarding decoding and playback of DVDs.

So, why are you missing the point that every DVD player is authorized to
play every DVD (and this can't be changed after it is built), yet every
BluRay player will *not* be authorized to play every BluRay disc, and this
*can* be changed after it is built, and that's what DRM really is.

DVD players are no different from CD players...every disc that meets the
spec plays in every player that meets the spec. This is *not* true of
BluRay (or HD-DVD) players, and that's what DRM means.

> These rules
> place restrictions on users, namely copy restrictions.

No, actually, they don't, but that's another story. A licensing agreement
between a CE company and some technology group doesn't place any
restrictions (or reductions of my rights) on *me* (or any other end user),
although they may try to using encryption, etc.

> CSS restricts the DVDs to authorized playback devices,

When every player is authorized, where is the restriction?

> and restricts
> unauthorized use of the DVDs, namely copying

No, it doesn't. A raw copier that ignores CSS (which works by scrambling
the sector including the CRC so that regular players think the read is in
error) can copy any DVD just fine with no need to decrypt CSS. You can
then make as many copies as you want, and each will be *exact* duplicates
of the original. This is one way the "industrial" pirates (in China, etc.)
made their copies.

> or playback on
> unauthorized devices, such as unlicensed players, either hardware
> or software.

When every player (hardware or software) is licensed, where is the
restriction?

--
Jeff Rife | "I have a question that could affect our entire
| relationship...did you kill Coach Mattay?"
| "No!"
| "But, you did dress him up like a woman...?"
| "Yeah."
| "Just checking."
| -- Alex Lambert and Brian Hackett, "Wings"

[Back to original message]