Why does the media industry hate its customers?

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › Why does the media industry hate its customers?

1 | 2

ech3lon

369 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#1285728 16-Apr-2015 16:42

networkn: Buy Cyberlink PowerDVD Blu-Ray player, the issue will be resolved.

It's expensive, but it works, right away out of the box.

ArcSoft Theatre is what I used, cheaper then powerdvd, pretty much the same features.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1285746 16-Apr-2015 17:12

SamF: Well, considering the AACS content protection scheme cost millions to develop and implement, but yet was defeated within a few short months of release, I wouldn't call that cost effective return on investment!

Again, like I said to HiroProtagonist: it all comes back to the definition of "effective" and "successful" [in the context of DRM]. I suspect your definitions and criteria don't match those of content producers, because overwhelmingly content producers continue to choose to use DRM.

SamF: Perhaps it stops casual users from copying it, but really, anyone with minimal knowledge can download a movie.

Maybe stopping casual users from copying was the base-line goal, I don't know. I'm not a content producer or distributor so I can only speculate.

SamF: I can do many other things with my blu-ray player and PC, Why do I have to pay for third party software to play the movie I bought!?

Why do you have to pay?!? For basically the same reasons you have to pay for anything else. Primarily because it takes skill, time and effort to create hardware and/or software that is capable of playing a Blu-Ray. Most people think it is fair and reasonable to compensate engineers for the fruits of their labour (...in the same way that it would be fair and reasonable to compensate content producers for their work product!).

SamF:
mm1352000:
SamF: ...and B) If the media companies had their way, AnyDVD would be off the market!

I don't understand your point.

Media companies do not like others bypassing their expensive copy protection and have been successful in making this illegal in the USA.

Is your point that I'd be saying the same things as you if I didn't have recourse to AnyDVD HD?

SamF

1578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1285750 16-Apr-2015 17:23

mm1352000:Is your point that I'd be saying the same things as you if I didn't have recourse to AnyDVD HD?

Perhaps; I don't claim to know your mind :) My point is that the only reason you can even view content protected Blu-Rays on a PC is due to 3rd party solutions that the media industry would prefer didn't exist.

Behodar

10508 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1285756 16-Apr-2015 17:32

Aside from DRM, I'm sick of movies that have been "tampered" with. It's common for the studios to crop the edges off to make the movie fit a 16:9 TV. Sometimes they mess with the actual content or colour. Take The Matrix, for example, which has a brown tint all over the DVD that wasn't there in the theatre. The Blu-ray, on the other hand, has excessive green. The Lion King hasn't had an accurate release since the initial LaserDisc!

SamF

1578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1285758 16-Apr-2015 17:35

Behodar: Aside from DRM, I'm sick of movies that have been "tampered" with. It's common for the studios to crop the edges off to make the movie fit a 16:9 TV. Sometimes they mess with the actual content or colour. Take The Matrix, for example, which has a brown tint all over the DVD that wasn't there in the theatre. The Blu-ray, on the other hand, has excessive green. The Lion King hasn't had an accurate release since the initial LaserDisc!

I think it's often more carelessness & laziness than deliberate changes, but yes, annoying. It wouldn't take a lot of effort to make it right.

Behodar

10508 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1285760 16-Apr-2015 17:37

SamF: I think it's often more carelessness & laziness than deliberate changes, but yes, annoying. It wouldn't take a lot of effort to make it right.

While I can believe carelessness/laziness for older movies, there's no excuse for ones produced in the "digital era".

SamF

1578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1285761 16-Apr-2015 17:38

Behodar:
SamF: I think it's often more carelessness & laziness than deliberate changes, but yes, annoying. It wouldn't take a lot of effort to make it right.

While I can believe carelessness/laziness for older movies, there's no excuse for ones produced in the "digital era".

No, not really any legitimate excuses that's for sure.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1285778 16-Apr-2015 18:22

SamF: Ha! Have you ever tried to use an UltraViolet code!?

No, but that doesn't invalidate my point, which was that content producers are trying to offer people options for playing content on their devices.

SamF: 1) You have to install proprietary, invasive, buggy software on your device

It doesn't surprise me that software has to be installed. How else could restrictions be enforced?

SamF: 2) You do not have unrestricted access to play the media on any device

If you were expecting unrestricted access then you're almost certain to be disappointed, because unrestricted access would mean unrestricted ability to pirate. I'd hazard to guess that device support will be improved over time.

SamF: 3) The media quality is rubbish

I'm curious about how many movies you've tried, on what devices you tried them, and whether you streamed or downloaded.

Wikipedia says:

UltraViolet files use H.264/AVC video (ISO/IEC 14496-10). Multiple resolutions, aspect ratios, and frame rates are supported. Only progressive-scan video is allowed.

UltraViolet files use stereo MPEG-4 AAC LC audio (ISO/IEC 14496-3) as a required base format, with optional multi-channel AAC, HE AAC v2 (optionally with MPEG surround), Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD (MLP), DTS, DTS HD, DTS Master Audio, and DTS Express (low bit rate).

That doesn't sound so bad. Not that I'd generally believe Wikipedia over you. Rather, I guess quality could vary depending on various factors.

SamF: 4) The codes EXPIRE! I bought a relatively new retail movie once which had an UltraViolet code which had expired only a few months after the movie was released!

I don't know why they'd have such a policy, but as far as I'm concerned it could be much worse. For example, access to the content could be expired after entering the code.

SamF: In reality UltraViolet is no better, and in some ways worse, than standard Blu-Ray content protection. If this is the movie industry's answer to pirating, they need to go back to the drawing board!

Got a better solution? I'm all ears. ;)

Seriously, content producers have the right to offer their content on their terms. If you can't accept the terms then don't buy or consume the content! It's really that simple. If you feel strongly about the situation, perhaps you could consider taking your concerns directly to content producers. They're not going to know what you're thinking unless you tell them.

As a "creative", I have some empathy with/for content producers. Therefore, I chose to play the "devil's" advocate in this discussion. It may interest you to know I've also chosen to not participate in piracy. That isn't an easy choice at times, but I don't ever regret it. Everybody makes their own choices for their own reasons. I try to respect that, but I admit I struggle to respect people who choose to pirate.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1285783 16-Apr-2015 18:30

SamF: Perhaps; I don't claim to know your mind :)

SamF: My point is that the only reason you can even view content protected Blu-Rays on a PC is due to 3rd party solutions that the media industry would prefer didn't exist.

I don't think the media industry have any problem with PowerDVD, WinDVD etc. Such software enables viewing of Blu-Rays on a PC without removing DRM restrictions. Obviously AnyDVD HD, DVD Ranger etc. would be a different story.

SamF

1578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1286122 17-Apr-2015 10:47

mm1352000:
Seriously, content producers have the right to offer their content on their terms. If you can't accept the terms then don't buy or consume the content! It's really that simple.

I think you've simultaneously missed the basis of my original point and unconsciously underscored it at the same time (quite a feat!) :)

Sure, the content producers have the right to do whatever they like with their content, but they are trying to sell it to the consumer. If they don't give the consumer what they want, they won't buy it, but the consumer may get what they want anyway by pirating!

And my secondary, but closely related point is; DRM only serves to disadvantage legitimate customers. DRM is no barrier to pirates, so the only group left affected is paying customers who, while being able to pirate the content, choose not to. Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but to my mind, a 'feature' which disadvantages your customers whilst presenting no challenge to those it is intended to affect (pirates) is not an asset to your business!

At the end of the day it is a simple case of demand and supply; Consumers demand better access to the product, and if they can't get it via legal sources, they will get it illegally. Until content producers understand this, they will continue to miss out on revenue.

Case in point: Digital Music; We started with Napster and ended up at Spotify. There is no longer any real reason to pirate music because everything the consumer wants is available at an agreeable price via Spotify. I believe that the movie & TV industry needs to move in the same direction with video media.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1286506 17-Apr-2015 18:42

Argh! I had a nicely worded reply almost ready, then my browser crashed. :(

SamF: Sure, the content producers have the right to do whatever they like with their content, but they are trying to sell it to the consumer. If they don't give the consumer what they want, they won't buy it...

...and that should be absolutely fine! Content producers don't have to sell at any cost. It's their prerogative to decide what they'll sell and at what price. The problem is that pirates don't seem to understand or accept that.

SamF: ...but the consumer may get what they want anyway by pirating!

Sure, that's what happens in reality.

I guess what I'm saying is that I have a bone to pick with people who in any way condone or participate in piracy.

When somebody chooses piracy I think it shows a complete lack of respect and empathy for the people that produce content. Perhaps even an entitlement complex. As humans we have various inalienable rights, but the "right to access content" is not one of them. In short, I don't see any logical justification for piracy whatsoever.

SamF: And my secondary, but closely related point is; DRM only serves to disadvantage legitimate customers.

No, I don't agree.

These days some content producers flat out won't release content without protection. If you can accept that premise then DRM could be considered to enable the release of content that otherwise wouldn't be released... and surely that's an advantage. I admit it's a bit tenuous, and it's the only advantage I can think of right now... but DRM isn't meant to be a feature. It's a necessary evil.

Clearly you don't like some of the restrictions that DRM imposes. That's why I asked if you could propose a better solution. :)

SamF: DRM is no barrier to pirates, so the only group left affected is paying customers who, while being able to pirate the content, choose not to.

Again, I don't agree.

Have you ever tried to crack a DRM scheme? I haven't, but I'd hazard to guess breaking a well-designed scheme would be challenging even for the technical elite. You might say that is irrelevant because downloading a torrent is trivial, and I would say that completely misses the point. In my opinion, the purpose of DRM is to minimise the number of pirates who are able to acquire the original copy of the content [that is then shared on a massive scale]. Curbing piracy is probably impossible if you go after everybody that torrents... but you might have a chance if you go after the "content acquirers".

As for the paying customers...
The intention of a reasonable content producer would be to minimise the impact of DRM as far as possible. The average paying customer who buys a Blu-Ray is going to be able to put it in their Blu-Ray player and play it without even a second thought. It's only when you try to push the boundaries of what Blu-Ray was designed to do and be that you'll run into DRM walls. That's a success as far as I'm concerned.

SamF: At the end of the day it is a simple case of demand and supply; Consumers demand better access to the product, and if they can't get it via legal sources, they will get it illegally. Until content producers understand this, they will continue to miss out on revenue.

...or alternatively, piracy compromises the ability of the content producer to continue to make content and/or make a profit, and they go under.

[aside: Gosh, what a world we live in. Supply and demand is not everything. A little respect would go a long way.]

SamF: Case in point: Digital Music; We started with Napster and ended up at Spotify. There is no longer any real reason to pirate music because everything the consumer wants is available at an agreeable price via Spotify. I believe that the movie & TV industry needs to move in the same direction with video media.

I can understand why you'd compare with the music industry, but it's hardly the perfect model.

The changes in the music industry have arguably caused reductions in variety, quantity and quality of new content. There's also been a cost in terms of jobs and lower compensation. Finally, the new services haven't stopped music piracy. You may be satisfied with Spotify but other people (including some of the artists) clearly are not. If the "video" industry goes the same way I can only guess that the same issues would apply.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1286740 18-Apr-2015 11:16

@mm1352000 - I think you are missing SamF's point somewhat. They aren't, at any point in any post as far as I can see, advocating or defending piracyor those who pirate. Nor are they taking a moral stance, either for or against, on piracy. They are merely making a couple of empirical observations:

If people can't get what they want, appropriately priced in a user friendly format and unencumbered by irritations, then they are more likely to pirate.
DRM causes inconvenience for many people and makes the legit product less attractive than the pirated product (heck, I have seen this first hand. I had to replace a perferctly good blu-ray player with an inferior de-regioned one, just to be able to play a couple of legitimate and legally imported Zone A blu-rays from North America. I have also suffered through a barrage of unskippable trailers on disks I have purchased. None of these exist in pirated products).
DRM as it currently exists is ultimately pretty ineffective and doesn't seem to actually prevent many people from copying the material if they really want to, certainly not the dedicated pirates.

SamF isn't opining on what is right or wrong, just observing what is happening and how many people believe in practice. And, from this, drawing the logical conclusion that DRM as applied by media companies seems ineffective and counterproductive.

There is no point in countering him with long opinions about why piracy is wrong, people lack respect, why you have a bone to pick with people who condone or participate in piracy - because advocacy or endorsement of piracy doesn't seem to have ever been the point of SamF's analysis. Yor are trying to construct a lengthy rebuttal to an argument that was never in fact made in the first place.

And, for what it is worth, I think SamF's analysis and conclusions are correct.

SamF

1578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1286819 18-Apr-2015 14:37

mm1352000:
You may be satisfied with Spotify but other people (including some of the artists) clearly are not. If the "video" industry goes the same way I can only guess that the same issues would apply.

Sure, nothing's perfect, but IMO Spotify is a much better solution than what we started with, plus, I for one can't think of a better solution :)

1 | 2