Is the Classic-Film Blu-ray Market Drawing to a Close? (1 Viewer)

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Cinescott
For DVD the answer is "probably." For Blu-ray the answer is "maybe."

UltraViolet purchases can include the right to get a physical copy (called a discrete media right). The copy can be on a DVD or an SD card. You might get a DVD right there in the store, or you might be able to request that a DVD be mailed to you later, or you might be able to burn the movie to a DVD or SD card in the store or at home

UltraViolet rights can also be included with the purchase of a DVD or BD. In this case you buy the physical disc and then go through a registration process to active the movie in your UltraViolet digital locker. (You don't get an additional discrete media right to use later, since in effect you've already used it.)

Yes lots of unanswered questions we shall see when its released in the next few months. It says this also on the front of the UV website:

Disc-copy rights will be part of an optional disc/download bundle. Alternative physical
media formats may be offered instead of DVD

Not sure what they mean by that yet. Again we shall see...

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Towergrove




Not sure what they mean by that yet. Again we shall see...

Pretty much what it says. The idea is that you could go into a Kiosk in a store, insert say, a 16GB Pendrive, and download the film right onto it, take it home and integrate it into your library. Hook up your WP7/8 Phone and do it. Or your Android, or whatever.. then the license would be held at their website and if you wanted to download it later in varying qualities and size, it's free for you to do it. That's the idea.


There are things about that I find interesting - and some things not. But that is definitely part of their goals.

 

[Cinescott]

I too like what Ultraviolet is "trying" to do here and I see the positives for the ownership concept. However, the only physical rights concept they appear to even be half supporting is DVD quality and that would have to be purchased in addition to the cost of the film as part of their optional disc/download bundle. So, the consumer pays extra for a DVD copy of an HD film they already supposedly own through the licensing feature. Hmmmmmmmm. Someone sell that concept to me, please. I understand their model includes right to copy, but read close. That's a right to copy within their network onto another supported device on your list. Yes, a movie can be "copied" from the home theater to the bedroom (assuming there's another Ultraviolet enabled device there), but they'll control the copy process, thank you very much.


For a true DVD "copy" of what is supposedly already owned in HD, that would mean a physical file no bigger than 8 Gb or so in size (DL), not something any compression scheme's going to make look as good as Blu-ray. Downloads are restricted to three. They are not unlimited. Registered devices are limited to 12. Not too bad, but still restricted. Are we going to register our friend's or neighbor's devices on our account with whom we'd like to share an HD movie and who doesn't belong to Ultraviolet? What if their televisions are not UV-enabled, are we SOL? If we're in an area without internet service, are we limited to iPods or cell phones from this day forward? Even if we could download a Blu-ray quality copy, would any additional features be available? I may be overstepping reality here, but not by much.


In simple words, this is content control. I've always been a fierce advocate for copyright and the right of a creator to earn a profit on what they do. I understand that studios have been hurt by pirates and I support them in the endeavor to rid the world of piracy. This, however, is the wrong way to do it. I hope the details that come out as this is implemented paint a better picture.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Cinescott

I too like what Ultraviolet is "trying" to do here and I see the positives for the ownership concept. However, the only physical rights concept they appear to even be half supporting is DVD quality and that would have to be purchased in addition to the cost of the film as part of their optional disc/download bundle. So, the consumer pays extra for a DVD copy of an HD film they already supposedly own through the licensing feature. Hmmmmmmmm. Someone sell that concept to me, please. I understand their model includes right to copy, but read close. That's a right to copy within their network onto another supported device on your list. Yes, a movie can be "copied" from the home theater to the bedroom (assuming there's another Ultraviolet enabled device there), but they'll control the copy process, thank you very much.


For a true DVD "copy" of what is supposedly already owned in HD, that would mean a physical file no bigger than 8 Gb or so in size (DL), not something any compression scheme's going to make look as good as Blu-ray. Downloads are restricted to three. They are not unlimited. Registered devices are limited to 12. Not too bad, but still restricted. Are we going to register our friend's or neighbor's devices on our account with whom we'd like to share an HD movie and who doesn't belong to Ultraviolet? What if their televisions are not UV-enabled, are we SOL? If we're in an area without internet service, are we limited to iPods or cell phones from this day forward? Even if we could download a Blu-ray quality copy, would any additional features be available? I may be overstepping reality here, but not by much.


In simple words, this is content control. I've always been a fierce advocate for copyright and the right of a creator to earn a profit on what they do. I understand that studios have been hurt by pirates and I support them in the endeavor to rid the world of piracy. This, however, is the wrong way to do it. I hope the details that come out as this is implemented paint a better picture.

Sure, why not? 8GB is -nothing-. I can buy a 2TB Hard Drive right now, this weekend, for $60. 8GB for a full DVD? I can hold 300 DVD in full, complete form on a 2TB hard drive, and using Microsoft and Sony services, I can stream those in full quality to my XBOX on PS3.


This is what I am getting at. The studios have made a major, major change in their expectations. UltraViolet is part of that, but the fact is, even if you don't use UltraViolet - even if you are making your own full ISO copies of your DVD/BD, at this point, they are going to pat you on the back and say: thank you for buying our movie. The tune has changed.

For a very long time, these kind of things were the kind of thing that would get me smacked around here on HTF for even bringing up. But it's not so much me or people who want it, it's that studios have come to an impasse where they are telling people in many ways: ownership is the key. They've shifted dramatically since the FCC last summer. Find me a Bluray player that is shipping in the above $100 range that doesn't support MKV... more importantly, supports playing full resolution audio from a public format. You can't. GE (Universal), Sony (Sony Studios) Patriot (Fox), Microsoft (Investor in a few studios) etc. they are all saying: this is the way forward.


Now, things like UltraViolet are their way to make it easy. Because frankly, it is not easy to do it on your own - and prepping a form of media to go to all your devices can be complicated, especially when people want to target phones, ipads, etc.

What they are selling you is ease with a license - and there will be a big market for it. But your ability to do that on your own now is a given - and they aren't going to do anything in the world to prevent you from doing it, because again, they want you to buy movies. However you buy them, they really don't care. They just want you to buy them. What you do with them after you buy them - as long as it isn't sell or make copies for other people, as long as you do it for your own use only, they still want to see your shelves full of their blurays and DVDs, digital media..


The studios have kind of learned from the music industry, though it took them a long, long time. They can sit and fight people who are using thier own libraries, or they can be as friendly with you as possible and make it easy to say: pirates are the people who steal and never pay. Pirates are the people who do nothing for our service. Oh, you want to put a MKV of your bluray on your Network and watch on your Mac? Why, we'll help supply the artwork, the sources, the media.. we'll get a percentage fee from the hard drive makers, we'll promote content delivery.

Am I going to be one of the ones lining up with a pen drive to get a movie on a stick? No. But I find the fact that they are willing to offer films in any format possible - Xbox, PSN store, Amazon, Direct VOD, Streamed, Content on Demand, Bluray, DVD.

The studios are giving people every possible option imaginable to own content, to use their content how they want. That way, when they make a case against websites that illegally offer out low-quality crap video copies of a film or a movie, the studio can say: look, we made it cheap and easy for you to get this in tons of formats, and you decided you didn't want to do any of that. It makes their case to the public of why piracy really hurts more effective.

If a studio busted into my house and saw that I have terrabytes of bluray backed up, and yet, I have every single one in a box on the top shelf in my closet and in my storage cabinets, do you really think they'd want to go to war with me? Hell no. They are far more likely to say: "Nice hobby you've got there". Last year I helped put in a movie library for someone who... let's say has his own deep personal library of films - including one that put a few trophies on his shelf. Would any studio come busting into his doors and say "damn you!" No. They want you to buy the media.


They will leap up and down for you to buy, just please, buy the media.


And the reality is, they are right. They are dead right. Media should be selling faster with more buyers because of it. There is almost no excuse to not buy stuff right now. My sister had a fire in her house last week.. got struck by lightening.. anyway, knowing that like me she's a Buffy fan, I went to walmart and bought -all seven seasons- in a set for $69. You realize the first time I bought Season 1 of Star Trek it was $120? That's less then $10 a season if you buy them all at once (they had them in season at a time option at $14) and they had Angel in 2 season options, Season 1/2 for $14. Season 3/4 $14. Season 5 $14. (why that, I don't know) but there you go, $42 and I had all seasons.

I think we're at the end of an era of high cost media and scared about how long it lasts. We're at a point where we want to buy and keep it always with us. And there isn't an excuse in the world out there to not embrace owning content now.

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by mattCR



What you do with them after you buy them - as long as it isn't sell or make copies for other people, as long as you do it for your own use only, they still want to see your shelves full of their blurays and DVDs, digital media..

As long as this is truly the case (call me a living skeptic), I welcome streaming and other content delivery systems. Hopefully, the advent of these new distribution methods will not diminish choice, but rather increase it. Quality's very important to me. Control's very important to me. I imagine it's important to 99% of the people who read these posts. Provided all the avenues currently available to me remain available at a decent price, I have no problem with what other people find convenient. I envision myself using a streaming system for everyday content. For content I consider collectible, I'll stick with physical media for the foreseeable future. Rather, I'll eventually convert to a digital distribution system in-home and keep the hard backups on disc.

For unless I can do that, unless I can hold the content in my hand and know no one can take it away from me, I never truly own anything. It's not a question of cloud vs. disc. It's a matter of control. I'll likely love the convenience of a home server and the instant gratification of streaming (I tried Netflix for a month and it was OK, but the title selection seemed a little poor), but if the control over that media is ever diminished, then the enjoyment factor falls through the floor for me. The collecting instinct's ingrained in many of us. It's difficult to relinquish that pleasure. I've always been a big supporter of new technology as long as it made sense. I was all for VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-ray, even though I had an investment in each, because I knew the next stage was better. It isn't a matter of change or resistance to the unknown. Rather, it's the principle of the right to personal ownership. The right to pay for something and say "this is mine and no one can take it away."


Others can have their so-so rental-model VOD streams. I like disc.

 

[mattCR]

I here you Scott. Soon, I'll try and show why video walls and things should be the future of HT... and yes, keeping original, perfect quality is imperative.

 

[JoHud]

Also, I think these days it is also recommended to follow the video game industry, which is even more inclined to be used online, regarding digital download service as an alternative to physically purchasing at a store. Yet even in that industry, which has a much heavier slant towards younger and more tech savvy consumers, there is no indication that physical media will eventually vanish. It's just an alternative to going to the store or ordering through Amazon. That's pretty much what most VOD and streaming services are.


I think Matt is right in that the growth of streaming and the like is simply the studios casting a wider net of distribution, like television broadcasts or availability on websites like Hulu.


Personally, I stick to physical media because they tend to retain at least some resale value and, as Cinescott mentioned, control.


Also, regarding the original topic news piece, I did notice that it neglected to mention the role of MOD programs in regards to the restoration and remastering of classic films that "missed" the original DVD boom. The author seemed to indicate that, if blu-ray faded out, studios would simply not bother with restoring or remastering those films and only existing masters would be left over for streaming programs. While there is some truth in this (some "stream-only" video masters appear over a decade old), MOD programs appear to have developed a standard of visual quality that necessitates restoring and/or remastering if existing masters aren't up to quality. MOD is yet another alternative distribution method recently only made possible through online access.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Originally Posted by Phoebus

I have to confess that I prefer colour movies on blu-ray to black and white.. The improved picture quality is all well and good, but a well mastered b/w dvd isn't much different for me, when projected, from a b/w bluray.

Have you seen the BD releases of THE MALTESE FALCON and PSYCHO? Those presentations are light-years beyond anything I've ever seen on these titles. If you haven't seen them, you just might change your mind about the power of BD to absolutely dazzle with classic B/W films when the transfers are done right.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert




I definitely don't agree that everything looks a little better. The vast majority of my blurays look a LOT better than DVD. Have you ever watched a DVD projected at 10 feet? Watchable yes but bluray is a quantum leap at those sizes. Even on my 60 inch in the living room blurays look a heck of a lot better than even the best dvds. I don't see how people can put up with NTSC and DVD compression and scaling artifacts and 480 resolution on these new digital displays

I love BDs, and I think they look a chunk better than DVDs, but I will say that DVDs with great transfers look just fine upscaled to my lovely ultrathin Samsung 55" LED LCD. For instance, the Warner Archive DVD-R of THE HYPNOTIC EYE looks fantastic upscaled. Of course, it would look even more amazing in BD, but that just ain't gonna happen.

 

[Cinescott]

There's always going to be a place for DVD, particularly on the lesser-known titles that will never see the light of day on Blu-ray.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




HD DVD had no such feature. I have 3 HD DVD players and never has one been hooked up to an internet connection. There are however some blu-rays that seem to have some trouble playing with out an internet connection, because of the BD-Live feature.


Again you have it backwards. HD DVD had a VERY uniform firmware, which is why HD DVD had so few playback problems, when blu-ray did and still does.


Doug

I believe there's some confusion here; HD-DVD players were indeed required by spec to have an ethernet port to facilitate the reception of firmware updates and interactive features (inclusion of ethernet ports by manufacturers is optional on Blu-ray players), but were not required to be connected to operate.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Towergrove

I've worked at 4 major studios. When it comes right down to it, they really don't like the fact that just anyone can physically own a copy of their product. To this day they still want to get back to the “one ticket, one viewing” model of motion picture exhibition. But the Betamax decision forced their hand and they have been trying to put this genie back into the bottle every sense.


They have been trying to control the product. They tried with macrovision on VHS tapes so people couldn’t copy them. Remember Divx anyone? They tried it on DVD with its digital copy protection. Remember disposable DVDs that stopped working 48 hours after you removed them from the plastic? They tried it with Blu-ray. Of course all of these failed. But now they see a way to eliminate the physical copy all together and trust me they LOVE the idea.


UV is just another attempt to control how and where you view their product. It seems to me that the market is shifting under their feet, making the whole idea irrelevant.


Doug

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Matt, excellent posts - I pretty much agree with you across the board, and I'm glad to see that studios are starting to get it (whether or not they wanted to "get it" in the first place, who cares at this point). The iPod analogy/reference you used, I think, is perfect, at least in terms of what I want. Being able to carry all of my music that I've ever purchased in a single device smaller than an old walkman hasn't made me want to buy less music -- it's increased my purchases because the iPod has opened up how and when I can listen to music.


I like the concept of the "digital copy" that comes with some discs now, but have issues with how it's implemented because of the reasons you bring up, that software, hardware and DRM compatibility issues make it impractical (for me, anyway) and that if I'm buying a Blu-ray in 1080p, a 480p digital copy is not a fair equivalent. I'm not someone who seeks to copy media illegally; I think artists and those that put up the money to make the content in the first place deserve to be compensated for that. And I love my collection of physical media, over 500 DVD and Blu-ray discs (which is probably small compared to many here but larger than anyone else I personally know), but it's not always convenient to have those items with me at all times. I'm in kind of weird living situation at the moment where I'm splitting my time between two houses, but my collection is only in one. How awesome would it be to have perfect copies of the Blu-rays that could stay at the other place? Password locked or whatever so only I can use it, so other people aren't getting a free ride, that's reasonable, but it would make my entertainment life a little easier right now.


But I think your biggest and best point is that when we pay for something, we should have the right to that content perpetually and forever. I can think of no reason, from a moral/making sure the right people get paid point of view, that I shouldn't be allowed to protect my content by backing it up. If I accidentally break a disc (or a disc fails for whatever reason on its own, which can happen, rare as it is), I shouldn't be forced to rebuy it. If I decide it's easier to buy the discs but use a single giant hard drive or home media server as you have to be able to play everything I own in different rooms in my house, what's wrong with that? The important thing, as you mention, is that I've paid the money and acquired the content legitimately. How I play that content should be at my discretion. I shouldn't have to worry about being accused of piracy and copyright violations if I decide it's easier to put an entire season of a TV show on a hard drive so I can watch them all without having to swap discs every couple episodes (I've never done that but it's a nifty idea). If I own it, I own it. And when I feel that my investment is protected by being allowed to back things up, when I feel like I can watch what I've purchased on whatever device is most convenient at that moment - maybe the Blu-ray player in the living room, maybe the laptop sitting in the backyard, whatever - I'm more likely to keep buying. I love the idea of being able to purchase something online because I feel a need to watch it at that moment, can stream or download it right then, and get the actual disc in the mail a couple days later. If that starts happening on a large scale, I'm probably inclined to buy more instead of renting or using Pay-Per-View. (PPV is convenient but at about $5 for 24 hours to view a movie, I'd rather pay the extra few bucks to have a disc I can keep forever.)


I know not everyone may feel this way, but when studios make it more convenient for me to buy things than to acquire them illegally, I'm gonna buy. When iTunes made it easier for me to get a song legitimately than go through the effort of trying to get it illegally, whatever desire I may have had to download songs illegally (which for me was never about stealing music, just getting what I wanted when I wanted it) disappeared. Give me a quick, easy, convenient way to do the right thing and I'll do the right thing every time.


And just to the point of the market for classics and whatnot -- I agree with everyone here who says that this is the best time in history to have a home theater. I remember growing up, I was limited to whatever the local video store had and what classic films PBS might air at 1am on weekends. That's how I fell in love with film in the first place so I'll never complain about that, but I wouldn't go back to it either. The sheer amount of content that's easily accessible now thanks to sell-thru (no more $100 VHS tapes or laserdiscs), internet ordering, online rentals, etc., it still blows my mind. And that the overwhelming majority of this content now comes in its original aspect ratio so there's nothing compromised between seeing something in theaters and watching it at home -- these are the days to live in. When I was a kid and was introduced to W.C. Fields for example, we had to call a dozen video stores and libraries, sometimes drive a half hour or more to be able to get maybe one or two of his films. Same for the Marx Brothers and countless other classics. What was once almost impossible to find is now easy to access. It's not perfect, of course, but the sheer amount of content I have easy access to was unimaginable to me twenty years ago. I remember as a kid watching old Star Trek episodes and thinking how awesome it was that the Enterprise computer had everything that had ever been made stored on it. While we're not there yet -- we're a lot closer to that than I ever thought we'd be in my lifetime.


So in my humble (and occasionally not-so-humble, for which I apologize) opinion, this is an amazing time to be a film lover and a home theater enthusiast.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

But now they see a way to eliminate the physical copy all together and trust me they LOVE the idea.


UV is just another attempt to control how and where you view their product.

I am vehemently AGAINST the whole idea of streaming/downloading -- that is, as a means of replacing physical media and robbing collectors of a chance to build their libraries and maintain physical copies of their own. (I have no problem with streaming as a "rental" replacement for one-time viewing, but I always want the option to be there to OWN the film on a disc).



But I just wanted to respond to Doug's quote above by saying, let them do their worst. It's already come too late in the game, because I and others like me have already bought HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of their films and they're not going anywhere from our present collections. Sorry, guys in the suits -- you waited too long (luckily for us). The movies in our homes are now OURS. And just as we can still play old vinyl records or 16mm films today and get outdated dusty turntables and reel to reel projectors pumping, so too shall we be able to always play our DVDs for decades to come, one way or another. Even if you were to pull the plug today and try and put a stop to it.

 

[Cinescott]

Studios only disliked the idea of home video when they were terrified that their property would be copied ad infinitum without payment. As has been stated, provided customers are willing to pay for their entertainment, they have no problem whatsoever with any distribution method.


Once the ownership model in home video took hold in the 90s, studios raked in billions. Is any person with an ounce of business sense going to argue that they were against this? Give me a break. Hollywood often made more money from home video versions of films than they did from theatrical runs. I should know, I spent my fair share.


Aren't these the very same studios and analysts that are lamenting the slowdown in this very same market? Lamenting the slowdown in o-w-n-e-r-s-h-i-p? By circumventing companies like Blockbuster (remember them?) and the "rental only" model, studios provided ownership at an affordable price, in direct response to consumer wishes. There was no financial incentive for anyone to commit piracy. Why buy a crappy bootleg when you can have an original with features for $15? The whole Betamax debacle is ancient history. When the cash started flowing in by the truckload, Hollywood warmed up to the idea real fast. Fortunes were made and will continue to be made provided the studios respond to customer wants. It is really that simple. No company in this world is going to cut off its own nose to spite its face. If they did, they'd be the biggest fools on the planet.

 

[Gary OS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi



Gary "I think we are on the verge of seeing a slowdown in classic material being released onto DVD and/or BR - although I hope I'm wrong" O.

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by Gary OS



Gary "I think we are on the verge of seeing a slowdown in classic material being released onto DVD and/or BR - although I hope I'm wrong" O.

I don't have any illusions that Blu-ray's going to last 10 years, but I don't think physical media's just going to disappear. Blu-ray will eventually be replaced by something better, perhaps smaller. It'll be a smaller audience, that's for sure, but unless they want rampant hacking and piracy for which they earn no profit, they'll make physical media available in a hi def format. All the streaming models I have seen so far pretty much stink IMO. I too like collecting. I like having the shiny disc in my little hand. It may be clutter to some, but it's fun for me. Watch movies forever on an iPad? No, thanks. No matter how "convenient" the studios make streaming and downloading, people are still going to want to archive and get the extra features to which they've become accustomed.

 

[GMpasqua]

There will always be movies you only want to watch once and movies you watch many times.

There will always be movies you will want to download and movies you will want to physically own

 

[Josh Steinberg]

What Greg said --


I think the explosion of DVD in the late 90s/early 2000s kinda skewed the market, the same way financial markets have their bubble/bust cycles. Because having affordable, cheap, high quality discs suddenly came into being, even people who wouldn't consider themselves collectors in the first place bought in initially. But the market has normalized since then, and I think will continue to do so. The truth is, most people don't have a need to own hundreds of movies. Most people don't watch the same things over and over, or feel a need to actually possess something. They like having access to the content with relative ease, but they don't need to own everything they've ever seen. So just in the same way I used to buy titles almost indiscriminately and no longer do, both because I think more about what I'm spending and because I don't have unlimited shelf space, the average consumer gets that as well. Certain titles will always sell well in any format that comes out -- the Star Wars films and those types of timeless, popular entertainments, children's movies -- but the need to own everything isn't there for most people.


In the 80s and early to mid 90s, people who collected videotapes and laserdiscs were a very small minority. They were a devoted bunch, who could be counted on to spend a lot more than most people on their collections, but they were a small percentage of the total viewing audience. I think we're seeing a return to that. Streaming, mail-order rental, that kind of thing, is allowing the market to normalize to what it once was. And truthfully, is it good for the industry if people who aren't into collecting are buying stuff they don't want? Short term, that's profit, but long-term it's unsustainable.

Better to have a system, I think, where everybody pays a certain minimum amount - your streaming bill, your Netflix bill, rentals, whatever. Let the casual viewers pay a low fee to have their needs met, and let people like us have the option to pay a premium to get the things that we want. Studios in the long run I think will be happy to get that minimum from a majority of people because there was probably a time when they didn't get even that, and they'll be very happy to continue to get our enthusiast dollars because we're willing to spend a lot for our hobby.


Our system may not always be physical media - I tend to think it will be for maybe longer than some analysts predict - but in the end, I don't think it's a question of streaming vs. owning a physical disc. It's a question of renting (having a temporary license to view something) and having unlimited privileges, ownership of that license. and currently, the best way to guarantee ownership is to give someone a physical product. that may change one day, but it won't be overnight.