«

"keved" <> wrote in message
news:BB778A59.1C6A7%. ..

<<Well besides the environmental issue, there's also the issue that it
is likely that many of these titles will be exclusive to throw-away
versions. There's a hard core base of DVD fanatics who would rank
"ownership" of the movie in a permanent high quality media format pretty
high on the list for why they bought into DVD. Now they're looking at a
possible situation where they can no longer own movies.>>


The creation of a way to prevent people from "owning" a movie was the
ultimate DIVX objective and it is also the objective of the throwaway
DVD. If owning a movie is defined as having the ability to play it over
and over, without incurring additional cost, then we all own every DVD
in our collections. Some movie studios have a problem with this and they
will go to great lengths to invent a system which prevents the repeated
no-charge viewing of their titles. Disney is a perfect example of this
type of thinking: "What to do, what to do? If we release _Snow White_ on
LaserDisc and/or DVD, people will watch it over and over without
additional charge and some people will copy it. But if we don't release
it on LaserDisc and/or DVD, we will lose millions of dollars. There must
be a way to get people to pay each time they view our movies."

The creation of exclusive titles was the original DIVX strategy. Having
titles which were exclusive to the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format
was an essential factor in getting people to purchase overpriced DIVX
players and disks and pay additional money for extended play capability
of selected DIVX titles. Now that DIVX Central has gone out of business,
all DIVX disks have become throwaway media because they are all
unplayable. The only difference now is that while DIVX disks required a
special DIVX player, the proposed self-destructing, throwaway DVD format
will be playable on regular DVD players.

The danger which is inherent in any time-bomb movie media is that the
format can easily become the exclusive distribution channel for some
titles. Unlike throwaway DVD, DIVX was designed to ultimately replace
DVD. Fox and Disney were adamant DIVX supporters and several exclusive
DIVX titles from these two studios were being pressed when DIVX
announced that it was going out of business. Disney's _Dumbo_ and _Roger
Rabbit_ were released on DIVX a week after it was announced that DIVX
was a total failure.

The ONE advantage that DIVX disks had over the proposed,
self-destructing, throwaway DVD format is that all DIVX disks could be
played over and over again -- for a price. Repeat playback will not be
an option with throwaway DVDs. If George Lucas decides to release Star
Wars IV, V and VI exclusively on throwaway DVD, those who desire repeat
viewing will need to buy multiple copies. Some people have advocated
making copies of the throwaway DVDs, but copying these disks may not be
easy, because they are going to be loaded with anti-copy mechanisms.

DIVX was introduced as a pay-per-view disk system, but Circuit City's
insidious DIVX proprietary, digital disk format was a blatant attempt to
ultimately destroy DVD. The original plan included a sell-through
"DivxGold" disk which would be playable only on DIVX players which were
connected by a telephone line to DIVX Central. Unlike DIVX rental disks
and "upgraded" DIVX Silver disks, the DivxGold disk would not have any
playback time restrictions.

Fortunately, no DivxGold disks were ever produced. Blockbuster DIVX
proprietary, digital disk format titles, from Fox and Disney, could very
well have brought an end to DVD. Fortunately, even Circuit City's
full-screen, pan and scan DIVX buyers were smart enough to realize that
DIVX was a total rip off. After only 11 months, DIVX was declared a
total failure. The DIVX fiasco became the largest financial failure in
home electronics history. What a shame.

Here is a post that I made in November, 2001:

There are often questions as to whether or not the fabled DIVX Gold disk
actually ever existed. I have quoted the before and after statements
from the now-dead, official DIVX website. Digital Video Express was
rumored to be preparing a DIVX Golden fleecing, starting with certain
Disney releases.

By January 21, 1999, Digital Video Express had removed references to
DIVX Gold disks from its website. At one time, the official DIVX website
had quite a lot to say about DIVX Gold disks. But, now DVE (Digital
Video Express, DIVX' parent company) admits to having only two types of
DIVX disks:

What are the different types of Divx discs?

There are two types of Divx discs: 1) the "rental" disc, sold at retail
for a suggested price of about $4.50 (the disc includes a two-day
viewing period); 2) DivxSilver discs, which started as "rental" discs
but had since been converted for a one-time-fee ($15-$20) by the disc
owner to unlimited play on players registered to his or her account.

We've all heard of the DIVX disc that is bought/rented. Many have become
acquainted with the DIVX Silver disc which allows unlimited viewing of
certain selected non-exclusive titles. But, there is a third lesser
known sibling in this unholy trio known as the Gold disc. The Gold disc
is something special that the DIVX conspiracy is saving for later.

Q. "What is the difference between basic DVD and DivxGold?"

A. "While a basic DVD disc may offer such features as widescreen,
multiple language tracks or subtitles, a DivxGold disc does not. Studios
may decide to release particular titles on DivxGold because it provides
greater anti-piracy protections. It is unlikely that a single title
would be available on basic DVD and DivxGold...DivxGold discs will be
priced similar to basic DVD discs. All pricing and availability is set
by the studio and is subject to change."

The so called "greater anti-piracy protections" of DivxGold are not the
primary concern.The success of DIVX depends upon its ability to compel
movie studios to grant DIVX the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to titles. No one, not
even someone who owns a DIVX player, would prefer a crippled DivxGold
disk over the same title, similarly priced, on open DVD. Once again, the
DIVX FAQ page supplies the main reason for choosing open DVD over
DivxGold:

Q. "Can I play DivxGold discs without setting up an account or
connecting my Divx player to a phone line?"

A. "All Divx-enhanced players must be registered with the Divx Customer
Satisfaction Center prior to playing any Divx movies. Part of that
registration includes providing a credit or debit card number for future
billing, even if no billing ever takes place."

Obviously, a DivxGold disc must be an EXCLUSIVE title or it will not
sell.

While open DVD is able to get by with one "type" of disc, DIVX needed
three.

Q. What are the different types of Divx discs?

A. There were three types of Divx discs:

1) the "rental" disc, sold at retail for a suggested price of about
$4.50 (the disc includes a two-day viewing period);

2) DivxSilver discs, which started as "rental" discs but have since been
converted for a one-time-fee by the disc owner to unlimited play on
players registered to his or her account; and

3) DivxGold discs, which are purchased much like a basic DVD at retail.
DivxGold discs can be played an unlimited number of times without charge
on any Divx player.

Notice that Circuit City's CEO, Dick Sharp, mentioned DIVX Gold as a
"sell-through" item in his forward looking statement:

"If projections hold up, DIVX would earn a pretax profit (for Circuit
City) of 70¢ per disc. At this point, says Sharp, DIVX transactions
should account for 20% of home video rentals, or roughly 800 million
transactions, which translates to $560 million in pretax profit. Added
to that will be whatever profits DIVX earns (for Hollywood) from repeat
plays, fees to convert rental discs to unlimited viewing, and sales of
so called DIVX-GOLD sell-through discs. Hollywood will make the most
from DIVX and will receive the largest cut from the sale of DIVX discs
and the continual pay-per-view fees."

QUOTE about the Huge Profitability of "Divx" for Circuit City/Divx
Corporation. Dick Sharp President of Circuit City and "Divx" speaks to
analysts on Wall Street about the profitability of "Divx" for their
Company. October 1997

I guess we will all have to see what happens. I think you are being a bit
paranoid without ever having seen the product or how it is marketed. I'm willing
to take the companies word on things at this point and scream later if they
don't live up to their promises. Ultimately the market will decide and quite
frankly I'm beginning to focus my attention on HD. My DVD collection is at
around 500 titles and I don't imagine I'll be buying nearly as many in the
future anyway. They will be joining my Laserdisc collection one of these days
and I'll probably start all over with HD! Ain't technology grand?

"Scot Gardner" <> wrote in message
news:20030901112335.849$...
> "keved" <> wrote in message
> news:BB778A59.1C6A7%. ..
>
> <<Well besides the environmental issue, there's also the issue that it
> is likely that many of these titles will be exclusive to throw-away
> versions. There's a hard core base of DVD fanatics who would rank
> "ownership" of the movie in a permanent high quality media format pretty
> high on the list for why they bought into DVD. Now they're looking at a
> possible situation where they can no longer own movies.>>
>
>
> The creation of a way to prevent people from "owning" a movie was the
> ultimate DIVX objective and it is also the objective of the throwaway
> DVD. If owning a movie is defined as having the ability to play it over
> and over, without incurring additional cost, then we all own every DVD
> in our collections. Some movie studios have a problem with this and they
> will go to great lengths to invent a system which prevents the repeated
> no-charge viewing of their titles. Disney is a perfect example of this
> type of thinking: "What to do, what to do? If we release _Snow White_ on
> LaserDisc and/or DVD, people will watch it over and over without
> additional charge and some people will copy it. But if we don't release
> it on LaserDisc and/or DVD, we will lose millions of dollars. There must
> be a way to get people to pay each time they view our movies."
>
> The creation of exclusive titles was the original DIVX strategy. Having
> titles which were exclusive to the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format
> was an essential factor in getting people to purchase overpriced DIVX
> players and disks and pay additional money for extended play capability
> of selected DIVX titles. Now that DIVX Central has gone out of business,
> all DIVX disks have become throwaway media because they are all
> unplayable. The only difference now is that while DIVX disks required a
> special DIVX player, the proposed self-destructing, throwaway DVD format
> will be playable on regular DVD players.
>
> The danger which is inherent in any time-bomb movie media is that the
> format can easily become the exclusive distribution channel for some
> titles. Unlike throwaway DVD, DIVX was designed to ultimately replace
> DVD. Fox and Disney were adamant DIVX supporters and several exclusive
> DIVX titles from these two studios were being pressed when DIVX
> announced that it was going out of business. Disney's _Dumbo_ and _Roger
> Rabbit_ were released on DIVX a week after it was announced that DIVX
> was a total failure.
>
> The ONE advantage that DIVX disks had over the proposed,
> self-destructing, throwaway DVD format is that all DIVX disks could be
> played over and over again -- for a price. Repeat playback will not be
> an option with throwaway DVDs. If George Lucas decides to release Star
> Wars IV, V and VI exclusively on throwaway DVD, those who desire repeat
> viewing will need to buy multiple copies. Some people have advocated
> making copies of the throwaway DVDs, but copying these disks may not be
> easy, because they are going to be loaded with anti-copy mechanisms.
>
> DIVX was introduced as a pay-per-view disk system, but Circuit City's
> insidious DIVX proprietary, digital disk format was a blatant attempt to
> ultimately destroy DVD. The original plan included a sell-through
> "DivxGold" disk which would be playable only on DIVX players which were
> connected by a telephone line to DIVX Central. Unlike DIVX rental disks
> and "upgraded" DIVX Silver disks, the DivxGold disk would not have any
> playback time restrictions.
>
> Fortunately, no DivxGold disks were ever produced. Blockbuster DIVX
> proprietary, digital disk format titles, from Fox and Disney, could very
> well have brought an end to DVD. Fortunately, even Circuit City's
> full-screen, pan and scan DIVX buyers were smart enough to realize that
> DIVX was a total rip off. After only 11 months, DIVX was declared a
> total failure. The DIVX fiasco became the largest financial failure in
> home electronics history. What a shame.
>
> Here is a post that I made in November, 2001:
>
> There are often questions as to whether or not the fabled DIVX Gold disk
> actually ever existed. I have quoted the before and after statements
> from the now-dead, official DIVX website. Digital Video Express was
> rumored to be preparing a DIVX Golden fleecing, starting with certain
> Disney releases.
>
> By January 21, 1999, Digital Video Express had removed references to
> DIVX Gold disks from its website. At one time, the official DIVX website
> had quite a lot to say about DIVX Gold disks. But, now DVE (Digital
> Video Express, DIVX' parent company) admits to having only two types of
> DIVX disks:
>
> What are the different types of Divx discs?
>
> There are two types of Divx discs: 1) the "rental" disc, sold at retail
> for a suggested price of about $4.50 (the disc includes a two-day
> viewing period); 2) DivxSilver discs, which started as "rental" discs
> but had since been converted for a one-time-fee ($15-$20) by the disc
> owner to unlimited play on players registered to his or her account.
>
> We've all heard of the DIVX disc that is bought/rented. Many have become
> acquainted with the DIVX Silver disc which allows unlimited viewing of
> certain selected non-exclusive titles. But, there is a third lesser
> known sibling in this unholy trio known as the Gold disc. The Gold disc
> is something special that the DIVX conspiracy is saving for later.
>
> Q. "What is the difference between basic DVD and DivxGold?"
>
> A. "While a basic DVD disc may offer such features as widescreen,
> multiple language tracks or subtitles, a DivxGold disc does not. Studios
> may decide to release particular titles on DivxGold because it provides
> greater anti-piracy protections. It is unlikely that a single title
> would be available on basic DVD and DivxGold...DivxGold discs will be
> priced similar to basic DVD discs. All pricing and availability is set
> by the studio and is subject to change."
>
> The so called "greater anti-piracy protections" of DivxGold are not the
> primary concern.The success of DIVX depends upon its ability to compel
> movie studios to grant DIVX the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to titles. No one, not
> even someone who owns a DIVX player, would prefer a crippled DivxGold
> disk over the same title, similarly priced, on open DVD. Once again, the
> DIVX FAQ page supplies the main reason for choosing open DVD over
> DivxGold:
>
> Q. "Can I play DivxGold discs without setting up an account or
> connecting my Divx player to a phone line?"
>
> A. "All Divx-enhanced players must be registered with the Divx Customer
> Satisfaction Center prior to playing any Divx movies. Part of that
> registration includes providing a credit or debit card number for future
> billing, even if no billing ever takes place."
>
> Obviously, a DivxGold disc must be an EXCLUSIVE title or it will not
> sell.
>
> While open DVD is able to get by with one "type" of disc, DIVX needed
> three.
>
> Q. What are the different types of Divx discs?
>
> A. There were three types of Divx discs:
>
> 1) the "rental" disc, sold at retail for a suggested price of about
> $4.50 (the disc includes a two-day viewing period);
>
> 2) DivxSilver discs, which started as "rental" discs but have since been
> converted for a one-time-fee by the disc owner to unlimited play on
> players registered to his or her account; and
>
> 3) DivxGold discs, which are purchased much like a basic DVD at retail.
> DivxGold discs can be played an unlimited number of times without charge
> on any Divx player.
>
> Notice that Circuit City's CEO, Dick Sharp, mentioned DIVX Gold as a
> "sell-through" item in his forward looking statement:
>
> "If projections hold up, DIVX would earn a pretax profit (for Circuit
> City) of 70¢ per disc. At this point, says Sharp, DIVX transactions
> should account for 20% of home video rentals, or roughly 800 million
> transactions, which translates to $560 million in pretax profit. Added
> to that will be whatever profits DIVX earns (for Hollywood) from repeat
> plays, fees to convert rental discs to unlimited viewing, and sales of
> so called DIVX-GOLD sell-through discs. Hollywood will make the most
> from DIVX and will receive the largest cut from the sale of DIVX discs
> and the continual pay-per-view fees."
>
> QUOTE about the Huge Profitability of "Divx" for Circuit City/Divx
> Corporation. Dick Sharp President of Circuit City and "Divx" speaks to
> analysts on Wall Street about the profitability of "Divx" for their
> Company. October 1997
>
>

"Charles Tomaras" <> wrote in message news:<>...
> I guess we will all have to see what happens. I think you are being a bit
> paranoid without ever having seen the product or how it is marketed. I'm willing
> to take the companies word on things at this point and scream later if they
> don't live up to their promises. Ultimately the market will decide and quite
> frankly I'm beginning to focus my attention on HD.

So you're buying those D-VHS tapes? There is no other HD out there to
focus on at this point.

> My DVD collection is at
> around 500 titles and I don't imagine I'll be buying nearly as many in the
> future anyway. They will be joining my Laserdisc collection one of these days
> and I'll probably start all over with HD! Ain't technology grand?

You'll be waiting about 7-10 years before you see any of those HD-DVD
movies.

Smaug69

in article , Charles Tomaras at
wrote on 9/1/03 8:44 AM:

> I guess we will all have to see what happens. I think you are being a bit
> paranoid without ever having seen the product or how it is marketed. I'm
> willing
> to take the companies word on things at this point and scream later if they
> don't live up to their promises.

Actually I have seen the product, and I do know how it's going to be
marketed (as outlined in my first post). What companies word? Disney is
not saying they don't want to exclusively release titles in disposable DVD
format. Disney has a history of pulling titles from the market. Ask anyone
in the industry and they'll tell you that it is in their best interest to do
this, and they are *very* aware of this.

> Ultimately the market will decide and quite
> frankly I'm beginning to focus my attention on HD. My DVD collection is at
> around 500 titles and I don't imagine I'll be buying nearly as many in the
> future anyway. They will be joining my Laserdisc collection one of these days
> and I'll probably start all over with HD! Ain't technology grand?

Well unlike Laserdisc your existing DVD titles will play in any new HD-DVD
player. Every prototype I've seen has been able to do this with the reps
very clearly explaining that they saw backwards compatibility as a huge
requirement. I suspect that less than 5% of my existing 1,000+ titles would
be repurchased in HD...I already have a HD tv.

Excellent post Scot! Thanks for pulling out all that relevant info about
Divx. I lived through that, but didn't keep all that info handy...very
useful, accurate, and informative to those who didn't experience it!
[snip]

> The ONE advantage that DIVX disks had over the proposed,
> self-destructing, throwaway DVD format is that all DIVX disks could be
> played over and over again -- for a price. Repeat playback will not be
> an option with throwaway DVDs. If George Lucas decides to release Star
> Wars IV, V and VI exclusively on throwaway DVD, those who desire repeat
> viewing will need to buy multiple copies. Some people have advocated
> making copies of the throwaway DVDs, but copying these disks may not be
> easy, because they are going to be loaded with anti-copy mechanisms.

The copy protection in Flexplay DVDs will be exactly the same as
conventional DVDs. There's an irony that these disks will be owned by the
customer and therefore legal to back up before they expire.

[snip]

> Judging from the huge number of posts, people are already having plenty
> of difficulty copying regular DVDs. On the other hand, here's an article
> which claims that there will be no difficulty in copying the new,
> self-destructive, "ez-D" DVDs from Flexplay Technologies:

I think most people are having problems *learning* how to copy DVDs, and
that it has more to do with the issue involving dual-layer DVDs. The
Flexplay DVDs are single-layer and thus much easier to produce bit-perfect
back ups before they expire. Also the technology is getting easier. The
latest software would make backing up one of these DVDs as simple as
dragging the disk over to the application icon, clicking "start", and then
dragging the folder it creates over to the burning software and clicking
start.

The hardware is improving and getting cheaper too. DVD burners have broken
the $150 mark and disks are under $1. This is for 4x speed. 8x are just
now coming out and of course they'll be getting even faster and cheaper. In
a couple of years, I would expect to be able to copy a DVD in less than 5
minutes for less than 50 cents with a burner that costs $50.

"Smaug69" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> "Charles Tomaras" <> wrote in message
news:<>...
> > I guess we will all have to see what happens. I think you are being a bit
> > paranoid without ever having seen the product or how it is marketed. I'm
willing
> > to take the companies word on things at this point and scream later if they
> > don't live up to their promises. Ultimately the market will decide and quite
> > frankly I'm beginning to focus my attention on HD.
>
> So you're buying those D-VHS tapes? There is no other HD out there to
> focus on at this point.

Actually I've just been watching HD movies via Direct TV. It's kinda taken the
excitement out of purchasing DVD's for me.

> > My DVD collection is at
> > around 500 titles and I don't imagine I'll be buying nearly as many in the
> > future anyway. They will be joining my Laserdisc collection one of these
days
> > and I'll probably start all over with HD! Ain't technology grand?
>
> You'll be waiting about 7-10 years before you see any of those HD-DVD
> movies.

I think HD DVD is closer than you might imagine. I'm pretty impressed with the
quality I've seen from the Terminator WM9 HD DVD version and know for a fact
there will be new DVD players supporting WM9 coming out this Fall. The fact that
Microsoft, and I'm sure other companies soon, have been able to fit and entire
HD resolution movie on a standard DVD bodes well for an HD standard that doesn't
require blue lasers and extensive retooling for the hardware manufactures.

"keved" <> wrote in message
news:BB792DB9.1CAAC%. ..
> in article , Charles Tomaras at
> wrote on 9/1/03 8:44 AM:
>
> > I guess we will all have to see what happens. I think you are being a bit
> > paranoid without ever having seen the product or how it is marketed. I'm
> > willing
> > to take the companies word on things at this point and scream later if they
> > don't live up to their promises.
>
> Actually I have seen the product, and I do know how it's going to be
> marketed (as outlined in my first post). What companies word? Disney is
> not saying they don't want to exclusively release titles in disposable DVD
> format. Disney has a history of pulling titles from the market. Ask anyone
> in the industry and they'll tell you that it is in their best interest to do
> this, and they are *very* aware of this.
>
> > Ultimately the market will decide and quite
> > frankly I'm beginning to focus my attention on HD. My DVD collection is at
> > around 500 titles and I don't imagine I'll be buying nearly as many in the
> > future anyway. They will be joining my Laserdisc collection one of these
days
> > and I'll probably start all over with HD! Ain't technology grand?
>
> Well unlike Laserdisc your existing DVD titles will play in any new HD-DVD
> player. Every prototype I've seen has been able to do this with the reps
> very clearly explaining that they saw backwards compatibility as a huge
> requirement. I suspect that less than 5% of my existing 1,000+ titles would
> be repurchased in HD...I already have a HD tv.

I doubt I'll be repurchasing many of mine either. I kinda went hog wild with DVD
as it was really the first really watchable format that I could own. I couldn't
stand VHS and found laserdisc only passable. I've really been enjoying watching
HD stuff on Direct TV lately.

I'm curious as to your involvement in the industry. I'm a sound mixer for film
and video and see most of my new tech at the NAB and AES conventions every year.
Which prototypes have you seen? Blue Laser stuff or conventional players that
have been beefed up to handle newer advanced codecs like WMV and the like?

"keved" <> wrote in message news:BB7931BB.1CAC3%>
> I think most people are having problems *learning* how to copy DVDs, and
> that it has more to do with the issue involving dual-layer DVDs. The
> Flexplay DVDs are single-layer and thus much easier to produce bit-perfect
> back ups before they expire.


Even without the extras, it seems that the longer feature Flexplay discs will
need some additional compression tweaking to fit everything on a 4.7gb disc.
That's going to put them into the low-fi category for a lot of picky
videophiles. I've compressed dual layer discs down to one DVD -R and the loss of
quality is fairly apparent on the ones I've tried it on.

in article , Charles Tomaras at
wrote on 9/1/03 10:03 PM:

>
> "keved" <> wrote in message news:BB7931BB.1CAC3%>
>> I think most people are having problems *learning* how to copy DVDs, and
>> that it has more to do with the issue involving dual-layer DVDs. The
>> Flexplay DVDs are single-layer and thus much easier to produce bit-perfect
>> back ups before they expire.
>
>
> Even without the extras, it seems that the longer feature Flexplay discs will
> need some additional compression tweaking to fit everything on a 4.7gb disc.
> That's going to put them into the low-fi category for a lot of picky
> videophiles. I've compressed dual layer discs down to one DVD -R and the loss
> of
> quality is fairly apparent on the ones I've tried it on.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Flexplay discs will be single
sided DVD-5 which hold 4.38GB or (4.7 billion bytes). This is the same as
DVD-R. So even the longest Flexplay DVD disc will fit bit perfectly on a
DVD-R. No need for further compression.

Or are you saying the long titles on Flexplay will be horrendously
compressed in order to fit? If so, yes, this will definitely be the case,
along with very few if any extras.

"keved" <> wrote in message
news:BB797771.1CC1A%. ..
> in article , Charles Tomaras at
> wrote on 9/1/03 10:03 PM:
>
> >
> > "keved" <> wrote in message
news:BB7931BB.1CAC3%>
> >> I think most people are having problems *learning* how to copy DVDs, and
> >> that it has more to do with the issue involving dual-layer DVDs. The
> >> Flexplay DVDs are single-layer and thus much easier to produce bit-perfect
> >> back ups before they expire.
> >
> >
> > Even without the extras, it seems that the longer feature Flexplay discs
will
> > need some additional compression tweaking to fit everything on a 4.7gb disc.
> > That's going to put them into the low-fi category for a lot of picky
> > videophiles. I've compressed dual layer discs down to one DVD -R and the
loss
> > of
> > quality is fairly apparent on the ones I've tried it on.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Flexplay discs will be single
> sided DVD-5 which hold 4.38GB or (4.7 billion bytes). This is the same as
> DVD-R. So even the longest Flexplay DVD disc will fit bit perfectly on a
> DVD-R. No need for further compression.
>
> Or are you saying the long titles on Flexplay will be horrendously
> compressed in order to fit? If so, yes, this will definitely be the case,
> along with very few if any extras.

Yes, I'm saying the latter.