Re: Throwaway DVD Question

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Scot Gardner, Sep 1, 2003.

  1. Scot Gardner

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "Charles Tomaras" <> wrote in message
    news:D...

    <<Quite frankly I don't understand what all the fuss is over it. These
    companies should be able to market their products in any fashion they
    see fit. If you don't like there are many other alternatives. I see this
    as giving us more choice and not hampering us in any way.>>


    There are no alternatives to a throwaway DVD if it is an exclusive
    title that is not available as a normal DVD. Throwaway DVD will give you
    less choice, not more. The first throwaway disk came from Circuit City,
    which introduced the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format. Some of the
    DIVX titles were exclusive to the DIVX format and not available as
    Region 1 DVDs.

    To give you an idea of just how destructive exclusive DIVX titles were,
    below is a list of 140 Region 1 titles that DIVX held captive when it
    went out of business, after 11 months, in 1999.

    The appearance of an exclusive DIVX title on this list does not
    necessarily mean that a Region 1 version would have been released if
    DIVX had never existed. However, when the title in question has an open
    DVD version in another region, it seems likely that DIVX is to blame for
    the omission of a Region 1 version. Here is a nearly complete list of
    what were originally exclusive DIVX titles:

    8 Heads In A Duffel Bag
    12 Angry Men
    48 Hours
    54
    6th Man, The
    Air Bud: Golden Receiver
    Albino Alligator
    Alice in Wonderland
    Another 48 Hours
    Apartment, The
    Baby Boom
    Bachelor Party
    Bad Girls
    Barton Fink
    Before and After
    Best Men
    Best of the Best: Without Warning
    Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
    Blackjack
    Bridge At Remagen
    Brothers McMullen, The
    Brubaker
    Bullets Over Broadway
    Buffalo '66
    Cadillac Man
    Chain Reaction
    Children of the Revolution
    Cocoon
    Commitments, The
    Cool, Dry Place, A
    Courage Under Fire
    Crucible, The
    Dead Man
    Deceiver
    Desperately Seeking Susan
    Dirty Work
    Distinguished Gentleman, The
    Dumbo
    Dunston Checks In
    Dying Young
    Ed Wood
    Edward Scissorhands
    End of Violence, The
    Everyone Says I Love You
    Evidence Of Blood
    Father Of The Bride Part II
    FernGully: The Last Rainforest
    First Kid
    Fled
    Fly, The
    French Kiss
    From Dusk Till Dawn 2
    Gang Related
    Gone Fishin'
    Great White Hype
    Guadalcanal Diary
    High Art
    Hot Shots!
    House Of Yes
    Houseguest
    I Love You Don't Touch Me!
    I'm Gonna Git You Sucka
    It Came From Outer Space
    Jack
    Jackie Brown
    Jumpin' Jack Flash
    Jungle 2 Jungle
    Kiss Or Kill
    Krippendorf's Tribe
    Last Dance
    Last of the Mohicans, The
    Lenny
    Life Less Ordinary, A
    Little City
    Locusts, The
    Longest Day, The
    Love and Death on Long Island
    Madness Of King George
    Marked for Death
    Marnie
    Married To The Mob
    Miami Rhapsody
    Mighty Quinn
    Misfits, The
    Mo' Better Blues
    Monument Ave.
    Mrs. Doubtfire
    Mulholland Falls
    My Cousin Vinny
    Next Stop Wonderland
    Night and the Moment, The
    Nightwatch
    Nixon
    Office Killer
    One Fine Day
    Operation Condor 2: The
    Paperback Romance
    Picture Perfect
    Planet of the Apes
    Point Break
    Preacher's Wife, The
    Price Above Rubies, A
    Prophecy II, The
    Pure Luck
    Rage, The
    Raising Arizona
    Rapid Fire
    Retroactive
    Rocketman
    Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion
    Senseless Shall We Dance?
    She's So Lovely
    Since You've Been Gone
    Six Degrees Of Separation
    Sleeping With the Enemy
    Soldier's Daughter Never Cries, A
    Some Like It Hot
    Spaceballs
    Stargate SG-1
    Stealing Beauty
    Sudden Death
    Summer Fling
    That Thing You Do!
    This World, Then The Fireworks
    Three Musketeers, The
    Throw Momma From The Train
    Topaz
    Truce, The
    Truth About Cats and Dogs, The
    Turner & Hooch
    TwentyFourSeven
    Two For The Road
    Ulee's Gold
    Up Close & Personal
    Verdict, The
    Walk In The Clouds, A
    Walking And Talking
    Wall Street
    War Of The Roses, The
    Washington Square
    Welcome To Sarajevo
    Who Framed Roger Rabbit
    Wide Awake
    Working Girl
    World Of Henry Orient, The
    Young Frankenstien
     
    Scot Gardner, Sep 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Scot Gardner" <> wrote in message
    news:20030901113746.844$...
    > "Charles Tomaras" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    >
    > <<Quite frankly I don't understand what all the fuss is over it. These
    > companies should be able to market their products in any fashion they
    > see fit. If you don't like there are many other alternatives. I see this
    > as giving us more choice and not hampering us in any way.>>
    >
    >
    > There are no alternatives to a throwaway DVD if it is an exclusive
    > title that is not available as a normal DVD. Throwaway DVD will give you
    > less choice, not more. The first throwaway disk came from Circuit City,
    > which introduced the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format. Some of the
    > DIVX titles were exclusive to the DIVX format and not available as
    > Region 1 DVDs.



    Where have you seen mention that these discs will be exclusive? Where have you
    seen mention that they will supplant full non-degrading DVD's? I really think
    the market will take care of itself just as it did with DIVX and I don't think
    this is an apples to apples comparison with DIVX anyway, which was a coalition
    of hardware, software and retailer.

    You also have to acknowledge that DIVX came to market at a time when DVD was new
    and the motion picture companies were withholding titles for a variety of
    reasons as they watched to see what would happen. The DVD market today is
    extremely profitable and I doubt that the motion picture companies are really
    betting that people will buy a disposable DVD more than one time. I think the
    secondary market for used DVD's is a drop in the bucket compared to new sales
    and I doubt that is their motivation either. This really just gives them a whole
    new marketing approach for rental priced DVD's because they can enlist numerous
    new outlets which have neither the wish nor the ability to deal with the
    logistics of rentals and returns.
     
    Charles Tomaras, Sep 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Scot Gardner

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "Charles Tomaras" <> wrote in message
    news:p...

    <<Where have you seen mention that these (throwaway) discs will be
    exclusive? Where have you seen mention that they will supplant full
    non-degrading DVD's?>>

    So far, there has been no mention of this possibility. Actually, the
    throwaway disks are being promoted a single-layer, movie-only,
    featureless product. However, DIVX, the first throwaway format, had lots
    of exclusive titles. Undoubtedly, Circuit City was attempting to destroy
    the DVD market and replace it with DIVX. The Circuit City goal was to
    totally reverse its earlier strategy of selling DVD players with the
    DIVX feature. Their ultimate goal was to sell DIVX players with the DVD
    feature.

    <<I really think the market will take care of itself just as it did with
    DIVX ...>>

    Yes -- finally. However, some of the formerly-exclusive DIVX titles took
    over 4 years to get released in Region 1. And a few titles, such as
    _Dying Young_, _Ed Wood_, _Mulholland Falls_, _Paperback Romance_ and
    _Rocket Man_ have still not been released as Region 1 DVDs. The fact is
    that the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format tried to steal from the
    DVD format and the new throwaway disks will try to do the same thing.

    The proposed new self-destructing, throwaway DVD format will probably
    try to jump-start itself by creating some exclusive titles. This
    scenario is not that far fetched, because it has happened before.
     
    Scot Gardner, Sep 1, 2003
    #3
  4. "Scot Gardner" <> wrote in message
    news:20030901152342.533$...
    > "Charles Tomaras" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >
    > <<Where have you seen mention that these (throwaway) discs will be
    > exclusive? Where have you seen mention that they will supplant full
    > non-degrading DVD's?>>
    >
    > So far, there has been no mention of this possibility. Actually, the
    > throwaway disks are being promoted a single-layer, movie-only,
    > featureless product. However, DIVX, the first throwaway format, had lots
    > of exclusive titles. Undoubtedly, Circuit City was attempting to destroy
    > the DVD market and replace it with DIVX. The Circuit City goal was to
    > totally reverse its earlier strategy of selling DVD players with the
    > DIVX feature. Their ultimate goal was to sell DIVX players with the DVD
    > feature.
    >
    > <<I really think the market will take care of itself just as it did with
    > DIVX ...>>
    >
    > Yes -- finally. However, some of the formerly-exclusive DIVX titles took
    > over 4 years to get released in Region 1. And a few titles, such as
    > _Dying Young_, _Ed Wood_, _Mulholland Falls_, _Paperback Romance_ and
    > _Rocket Man_ have still not been released as Region 1 DVDs. The fact is
    > that the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format tried to steal from the
    > DVD format and the new throwaway disks will try to do the same thing.
    >
    > The proposed new self-destructing, throwaway DVD format will probably
    > try to jump-start itself by creating some exclusive titles. This
    > scenario is not that far fetched, because it has happened before.



    We shall just have to see what happens. Thanks for the civil discussion.
     
    Charles Tomaras, Sep 1, 2003
    #4

  5. >The proposed new self-destructing, throwaway DVD format will probably
    >try to jump-start itself by creating some exclusive titles.


    As far as exclusivity of throwaway disc titles, Is there any reason to
    believe people won't be able to copy them and make DVD-R's out of them? If
    so, seems the idea might turn around and bite Disney from the get-go.
     
    privacy.at Anonymous Remailer, Sep 1, 2003
    #5
  6. Scot Gardner

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "privacy.at Anonymous Remailer" <> wrote in
    message news:...

    >The proposed new self-destructing, throwaway DVD format will probably
    >try to jump-start itself by creating some exclusive titles.


    <<As far as exclusivity of throwaway disc titles, Is there any reason to
    believe people won't be able to copy them and make DVD-R's out of them?
    If so, seems the idea might turn around and bite Disney from the
    get-go.>>


    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:

    *** *** ***

    Cyber Cynic: Self Destructive DVDs and New Business Models
    By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols -- 30 May 2003

    Walt Disney's home video unit Buena Vista division, using Flexplay
    Technologies technology, is going to start selling DVDs that
    self-destuct after two days in August. It's both an incredibly good and
    an incredibly stupid idea

    The technology, ez-D, is elegant and simple. The discs stop working
    because they change from a DVD-readable red to an unreadable black
    because of oxidation. You open them up, letting the oxygen in, watch
    them and in 48 hours you have a coaster instead of a DVD.

    Buena Vista has two motives for these novel DVDs. The business is that
    since buyers don't have to return DVDs, they can sell DVDs pretty much
    anywhere. While Buena Vista isn't telling, it's clear from their
    language that they're going to be pricing these disposable DVDs at close
    to current rental rates.

    For idiots like me who waste money by being cogently unable to get a DVD
    back to Blockbusters in time, 'rental' DVDs make perfect sense. Better
    still for Disney, there are enough people like me, or people who'd pick
    up a DVD as an impulse buy if it were three to five bucks at the local
    7-11, that this technology will almost certainly give the financially
    struggling mouse a financial boost. That's the good idea.

    The bad idea, the incredibly stupid idea, that some people at Disney,
    not Flexplay, has is that ex-D is somehow an anti-cracker technology. Oh
    please!

    The fact that the disc has a limited lifespan because of a chemical
    reaction instead of a software based Digital Rights Management (DRM)
    scheme somehow will stop hackers from getting at its contents is
    nonsense. With 48 hours to crack the DVD, and anti-cracking and DVD
    copying software commonplace, ez-D is no more a effective copy
    protection than the shrink-wrap the DVD comes in.

    Besides, even though legal action against DVD encryption and copying
    software companies like Internet Enterprises Inc, RDestiny LLC,
    HowtocopyDVDs.com, DVDBackupbuddy.command DVDSqueeze.com is heating up
    with multiple law suits from Paramount and Twentieth Century Fox, the
    studios don't seem to understand that breaking copy protection per se
    isn't really the problem. The DVD copying companies claim that they're
    simply enabling legal owners of a DVD ability to make backup copies of
    their DVDs. The studios reply that breaking a DVD's copy protection
    under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is illegal
    regardless of the copy's use.

    Of course, the real problem is that technology has fundamentally broken
    the business model of high-priced restricted access to copyright
    material. No copy protection scheme will stand against copy cracking
    efforts. No law suits will then stop the copy protection breaking
    software from spreading.

    Technology has opened Pandora's copyright protection box forever.
    Neither technology or the law can close it.

    There is another way though. Embrace the new models. Sound impossible?
    Think again and see Napster Reborn for the details.

    http://www.practical-tech.com/business/b0529003.htm
     
    Scot Gardner, Sep 1, 2003
    #6
  7. Scot Gardner

    keved Guest

    in article , Charles Tomaras at
    wrote on 9/1/03 10:00 AM:

    >
    > "Scot Gardner" <> wrote in message
    > news:20030901113746.844$...
    >> "Charles Tomaras" <> wrote in message
    >> news:D...
    >>
    >> <<Quite frankly I don't understand what all the fuss is over it. These
    >> companies should be able to market their products in any fashion they
    >> see fit. If you don't like there are many other alternatives. I see this
    >> as giving us more choice and not hampering us in any way.>>
    >>
    >>
    >> There are no alternatives to a throwaway DVD if it is an exclusive
    >> title that is not available as a normal DVD. Throwaway DVD will give you
    >> less choice, not more. The first throwaway disk came from Circuit City,
    >> which introduced the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format. Some of the
    >> DIVX titles were exclusive to the DIVX format and not available as
    >> Region 1 DVDs.

    >
    >
    > Where have you seen mention that these discs will be exclusive?


    This comes from knowledge about the industry. Initially few if any would be
    exclusive. I would bet that Flexplay will be a failure, but...if the
    studios could have their way, disposable DVDs would be successful enough
    that titles could be released exclusively in this format. Disney is company
    #1 in terms of wishing there was a mass-accepted expirable format that they
    could use as the sole means of releasing their formats. Coincidence that
    they were the first one to sign up for Flexplay?

    > Where have you
    > seen mention that they will supplant full non-degrading DVD's? I really think
    > the market will take care of itself just as it did with DIVX and I don't think
    > this is an apples to apples comparison with DIVX anyway, which was a coalition
    > of hardware, software and retailer.


    Actually, it was the coalition that was a disadvantage to Divx. It meant
    that early adopters had to buy into the format...however early DVD adopters
    at the time were fanatically opposed to the concept of Divx. Go through the
    archives of the usenet postings at the time and you'll see the thing we
    feared most was that if DVD manufacturers all got on board along with the
    studios before Joe S. Pack did, that critical mass could be achieved.

    Disposable DVDs can market straight to Joe S. Pack without getting early
    adopters to accept the format. This makes disposable DVDs a greater threat
    than Divx to conventional DVDs.
     
    keved, Sep 2, 2003
    #7
  8. "keved" <> wrote in message
    news:BB792C25.1CAAA%...
    > > Where have you
    > > seen mention that they will supplant full non-degrading DVD's? I really

    think
    > > the market will take care of itself just as it did with DIVX and I don't

    think
    > > this is an apples to apples comparison with DIVX anyway, which was a

    coalition
    > > of hardware, software and retailer.

    >
    > Actually, it was the coalition that was a disadvantage to Divx. It meant
    > that early adopters had to buy into the format...however early DVD adopters
    > at the time were fanatically opposed to the concept of Divx. Go through the
    > archives of the usenet postings at the time and you'll see the thing we
    > feared most was that if DVD manufacturers all got on board along with the
    > studios before Joe S. Pack did, that critical mass could be achieved.


    I remember, I was there. I'm sure my anti-DIVX posts are recorded for posterity!


    >
    > Disposable DVDs can market straight to Joe S. Pack without getting early
    > adopters to accept the format. This makes disposable DVDs a greater threat
    > than Divx to conventional DVDs.


    I really have to say that I think it is the right of the motion picture
    companies to market their products as they wish and it is the right of the
    market place to respond. I don't think it will fly further than a convenience
    item as I've mentioned before.
     
    Charles Tomaras, Sep 2, 2003
    #8
  9. Scot Gardner

    Kevin Scholl Guest

    Scot Gardner wrote:

    > <<Where have you seen mention that these (throwaway) discs will be
    > exclusive? Where have you seen mention that they will supplant full
    > non-degrading DVD's?>>
    >
    > So far, there has been no mention of this possibility. Actually, the
    > throwaway disks are being promoted a single-layer, movie-only,
    > featureless product. However, DIVX, the first throwaway format, had lots
    > of exclusive titles. Undoubtedly, Circuit City was attempting to destroy
    > the DVD market and replace it with DIVX. The Circuit City goal was to
    > totally reverse its earlier strategy of selling DVD players with the
    > DIVX feature. Their ultimate goal was to sell DIVX players with the DVD
    > feature.


    Sheesh, Scot, you're like a broken record whenever Divx comes up.
    "Circuit City was attempting to destroy the DVD market" -- total
    nonsense. There was never even any implication of what you claim above,
    much less proof. Quite the contrary, Circuit stated their objectives
    from day one of announcement, and never did anything negative to deviate
    from that. In fact, the only significant change to the Divx model
    throughout its run was the elimination of the proposed DivxGold, because
    once it was apparent that DVD had caught on beyond the niche collector
    market, there was no reason for it.

    I find this fantasy -- "ultimate goal was to sell DIVX players with the
    DVD feature" -- to be paritcularly amusing. Since in terms of playback
    Divx was nothing more than encrypted DVD format streams, you had to have
    DVD playback in order to have Divx. In other words, take away DVD
    capability, there was no Divx playback.

    Oh, and for your information, Divx wasn't intended to be "throwaway".
    While that was certainly possible, the intention was for those who
    bought the discs to keep them, in the event they wished to view them in
    the future.

    > <<I really think the market will take care of itself just as it did with
    > DIVX ...>>
    >
    > Yes -- finally. However, some of the formerly-exclusive DIVX titles took
    > over 4 years to get released in Region 1. And a few titles, such as
    > _Dying Young_, _Ed Wood_, _Mulholland Falls_, _Paperback Romance_ and
    > _Rocket Man_ have still not been released as Region 1 DVDs. The fact is
    > that the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format tried to steal from the
    > DVD format and the new throwaway disks will try to do the same thing.


    How did Divx try to "steal" anything? Please explain this very general,
    and very strange, accusation.

    > The proposed new self-destructing, throwaway DVD format will probably
    > try to jump-start itself by creating some exclusive titles. This
    > scenario is not that far fetched, because it has happened before.


    If by "it has happened before" you mean with Divx, you again show your
    lack of knowledge. Divx never had any exclusivity contracts with any
    studios for any titles. None. Indeed, Divx was not even responsible for
    what titles were made available as part of the Divx system. The STUDIOS
    made those decisions, and will likely do so with the proposed throwaway
    disc. The difference now is that the studios now see the great lucrative
    potential of DVD. I can't see them limiting their selections at this point.

    But by all means, feel free to continue your ranting, however delusional
    your reasoning may be.

    --

    *** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

    ==================================================
    Kevin Scholl

    ==================================================
     
    Kevin Scholl, Sep 2, 2003
    #9
  10. Scot Gardner

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "Kevin Scholl" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    Scot Gardner wrote:

    <<But by all means, feel free to continue your ranting, however
    delusional your reasoning may be.>>

    I have read your rebuttal with interest and I am still convinced that
    DVD would have been even more successful even sooner had there been no
    DIVX. By its very existence, DIVX created confusion and thereby, stole
    initial consumer acceptance away from DVD. I am not alone in this
    viewpoint. Below is a post that I made on Monday, May 17, 1999 8:18 PM,
    in which Warren Lieberfarb (President of Warner Home Video) made an
    astonishing prophesy: "Due to its speculative economic and marketplace
    assumptions, Divx will fail, leaving Divx consumers tricked again by a
    consumer-electronics gimmick. As a doomed-for-failure, competing
    technology, Divx clearly does not help the DVD format."


    Here is my post:

    My June issue of Stereo Review's Sound & Vision arrived today. On page
    98 there is a point/counterpoint article featuring Richard L. Sharp
    (Chairman and CEO of Circuit City Stores and Digital Video Express) and
    Warren Lieberfarb (President of Warner Home Video.)

    Richard Sharp reiterated the supposed advantages of the Divx format: No
    expensive DVDs to buy, no late fees and no return trips to the video
    rental store. The primary argument made by Mr. Sharp is largely
    defensive: "The Divx feature is growing demand for DVD players as much
    as it is for DVD discs. Every DIVX-enhanced player sold represents
    another customer for DVD, one more household to help the format succeed.
    And we at Divx hope that DVD does succeed. After all, Divx is not
    competing with DVD, we are complementing it."

    Warren Lieberfarb is not impressed by Mr. Sharp's explanation of the
    supposed advantages of the DIVX format, and he is particularly
    unimpressed by Sharp's proclaimed love of DVD. To quote Mr. Lieberfarb:

    "The Divx concept was developed in 1993 to confront two issues. First,
    it tried to address the inability of existing video-rental business
    models to satisfy consumer demand for new blockbuster movies for home
    viewing. This dissatisfaction was caused both by the initial slow
    rollout of NVOD (near-video-on-demand) by cable operators and by the
    unacceptable out-of-stock position of new releases in video stores.
    Second, Divx was attempting to satisfy the studio's desire to
    participate in retail rental revenues as the VHS business exploded."

    "Due to 1) current widespread revenue-sharing programs in video stores,
    2) attractively priced DVDs for purchase and rental, and 3) the growth
    of NVOD through cable and satellite, the issues for which Divx was
    created have dissipated. This makes Divx irrelevant and a solution to
    problems that no longer exist."

    "Despite what Divx claims, about being complementary, Divx is a
    competing technology. Divx disks will only work in Divx players; they
    will not work in the more than 1.4 million DVD players or the 6 million
    DVD-ROM drives that are already in consumer's homes. In the end, the
    only service Divx provides is to cause consumer confusion. Due to its
    speculative economic and marketplace assumptions, Divx will fail,
    leaving Divx consumers tricked again by a consumer-electronics gimmick.
    As a doomed-for-failure, competing technology, Divx clearly does not
    help the DVD format."

    "Of course, DVD will continue to succeed as a convergent breakthrough
    technology that has redefined packaged home entertainment for sale and
    rental - - despite Divx. However, I can't help but wonder how well it
    would have done if fairly represented in Circuit City stores. Come to
    think of it, I wonder how well DVD would have done without the consumer
    confusion introduced by Divx in the first place."

    Circuit City is clearly playing out of its league when it attempts to
    outsmart those who are truly experts in the home video game. I feel that
    there is a great deal of validity in what Warren Lieberfarb has said on
    the subject of DIVX. Apparently other movie studios, such as Paramount,
    Fox, Dreamworks, Universal, MGM, Miramax etc. are coming around to
    Warren Lieberfarb's way of thinking.


    *** *** ***

    Previous conversation:

    > <<Where have you seen mention that these (throwaway) discs will be
    > exclusive? Where have you seen mention that they will supplant full
    > non-degrading DVD's?>>
    >
    > So far, there has been no mention of this possibility. Actually, the
    > throwaway disks are being promoted a single-layer, movie-only,
    > featureless product. However, DIVX, the first throwaway format, had
    > lots of exclusive titles. Undoubtedly, Circuit City was attempting to
    > destroy the DVD market and replace it with DIVX. The Circuit City
    > goal was to totally reverse its earlier strategy of selling DVD
    > players with the DIVX feature. Their ultimate goal was to sell DIVX
    > players with the DVD feature.


    Sheesh, Scot, you're like a broken record whenever Divx comes up.
    "Circuit City was attempting to destroy the DVD market" -- total
    nonsense. There was never even any implication of what you claim above,
    much less proof. Quite the contrary, Circuit stated their objectives
    from day one of announcement, and never did anything negative to deviate
    from that. In fact, the only significant change to the Divx model
    throughout its run was the elimination of the proposed DivxGold, because
    once it was apparent that DVD had caught on beyond the niche collector
    market, there was no reason for it.

    I find this fantasy -- "ultimate goal was to sell DIVX players with the
    DVD feature" -- to be paritcularly amusing. Since in terms of playback
    Divx was nothing more than encrypted DVD format streams, you had to have
    DVD playback in order to have Divx. In other words, take away DVD
    capability, there was no Divx playback.

    Oh, and for your information, Divx wasn't intended to be "throwaway".
    While that was certainly possible, the intention was for those who
    bought the discs to keep them, in the event they wished to view them in
    the future.

    > <<I really think the market will take care of itself just as it did
    > with DIVX ...>>
    >
    > Yes -- finally. However, some of the formerly-exclusive DIVX titles
    > took over 4 years to get released in Region 1. And a few titles, such
    > as _Dying Young_, _Ed Wood_, _Mulholland Falls_, _Paperback
    > Romance_ and _Rocket Man_ have still not been released as
    > Region 1 DVDs. The fact is that the DIVX proprietary, digital disk
    > format tried to steal from the DVD format and the new throwaway
    > disks will try to do the same thing.


    How did Divx try to "steal" anything? Please explain this very general,
    and very strange, accusation.

    > The proposed new self-destructing, throwaway DVD format will probably
    > try to jump-start itself by creating some exclusive titles. This
    > scenario is not that far fetched, because it has happened before.


    If by "it has happened before" you mean with Divx, you again show your
    lack of knowledge. Divx never had any exclusivity contracts with any
    studios for any titles. None. Indeed, Divx was not even responsible for
    what titles were made available as part of the Divx system. The STUDIOS
    made those decisions, and will likely do so with the proposed throwaway
    disc. The difference now is that the studios now see the great lucrative
    potential of DVD. I can't see them limiting their selections at this
    point.

    But by all means, feel free to continue your ranting, however delusional
    your reasoning may be.

    --

    *** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

    ==================================================
    Kevin Scholl

    ==================================================
     
    Scot Gardner, Sep 2, 2003
    #10
  11. Scot Gardner

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "Kevin Scholl" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    Scot Gardner wrote:
    > The fact is that the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format tried to
    > steal from the DVD format...


    <<How did Divx try to "steal" anything? Please explain this very
    general, and very strange, accusation.>>

    DIVX was a monkey on the back of DVD. Circuit City's DIVX format was
    presented as being nothing more than dolled up DVD, when in fact, it was
    a completely separate, incompatible, competing format. To me, this is
    the same as stealing. DIVX came along after all of the expensive DVD
    research and development had resulted in a successful video disk system
    and then DIVX tried to share or "steal" DVDs glory. Circuit City pushed
    the following concept: DVD is DIVX and DIVX is DVD. Nothing could have
    been farther from the truth.

    Circuit City did everything possible to obscure the fact that DIVX was
    not DVD. This was done in spite of the fact that the DVD logo did not
    appear anywhere on DIVX software boxes or disks. Very few Circuit City
    customers noticed this. The main goal of Circuit City was to confuse
    customers to the point that they would believe that DIVX and DVD were
    one and the same.

    Circuit City was well aware of consumer reaction to the word
    "format" - - particularly when the format involved was the bastardized
    DVD format known as DIVX. Therefore, the con artists at DIVX did
    everything they could to disguise the fact that DIVX was, without a
    doubt, a proprietary, digital format that was in direct competition with
    DVD.

    It was obvious that DIVX was a FORMAT since DIVX disks would not play in
    all DVD players. But Digital Video Express would never admit to that.
    The deceptive wording of the official DIVX web site carefully avoided
    using the "F" word when describing DIVX. Notice how they totally avoided
    the format issue in the following alphabetical list of DIVX euphemisms
    which were found on its website:

    DIVX is DVD: "Thanks to digital video technology, *Divx/DVD* delivers
    far and away the best color, sharpness and clarity in home video."

    DIVX is an ENHANCEMENT: "Since Divx is a DVD *enhancement*, we thought
    you'd also like some details about DVD in general."

    DIVX is a FEATURE: "Divx is a DVD *feature*."

    DIVX is a PLATFORM: "The Divx/DVD *platform* is helping to bring movie
    theater excitement into millions of homes."

    DIVX is a SYSTEM: "All of these additions combine to help make the Divx
    *system* work."

    DIVX is TECHNOLOGY: "The Divx *technology* for DVD allows movie studios
    to authorize physical ownership of a movie disc for a suggested retail
    price of $4.49."

    (All links below are dead.)

    http://www.divx.com/about_divx_divxtechnology.htm

    The admission by Digital Video Express that DIVX is a format is located
    at the address below under the Press Release dated 09/08/97. This is the
    only place that DIVX placed this disclaimer.

    http://www.divx.com/about_divx_pressroom.htm

    "Divx will license film productions from the major studios, distribute
    those products in a proprietary, digital format and authorize access to
    those movies via its host computer system. Divx also will license its
    proprietary hardware architecture to consumer electronics manufacturers,
    enabling DVD players to incorporate the Divx capability. International
    plans are under development."
     
    Scot Gardner, Sep 2, 2003
    #11
  12. Scot Gardner

    Kevin Scholl Guest

    Scot Gardner wrote:

    >>The fact is that the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format tried to
    >>steal from the DVD format...

    >
    > <<How did Divx try to "steal" anything? Please explain this very
    > general, and very strange, accusation.>>
    >
    > DIVX was a monkey on the back of DVD. Circuit City's DIVX format was
    > presented as being nothing more than dolled up DVD, when in fact, it was
    > a completely separate, incompatible, competing format. To me, this is
    > the same as stealing. DIVX came along after all of the expensive DVD
    > research and development had resulted in a successful video disk system


    Not true. At the time of Divx's introduction and early marketing, there
    was no guarentee that DVD would extend beyond the niche collector's
    market. Divx was one means to help extend DVD beyond that. You have to
    remember, Divx was aimed primarily at the rental market, not the collector.

    > and then DIVX tried to share or "steal" DVDs glory. Circuit City pushed
    > the following concept: DVD is DIVX and DIVX is DVD. Nothing could have
    > been farther from the truth.


    Herein lies the thrust of the problem with the "format" issue -- it
    depends on one's definition of "format". Divx utilized all the same
    technology for creating, storing, and playing back the content on the
    disc. Where Divx differed was in encrypting the byte stream, and
    requiring an additional piece of hardware to decrypt it. However, none
    of this altered the format per se; it merely added an extra step. In
    that sense, Divx was in fact DVD in the general definition of format.

    > Circuit City did everything possible to obscure the fact that DIVX was
    > not DVD. This was done in spite of the fact that the DVD logo did not
    > appear anywhere on DIVX software boxes or disks. Very few Circuit City


    The arguement of Divx not having the DVD logo is largely insignificant.
    Divx discs could technologically have had that logo. They did not carry
    it because one of the big players in the consortium which created DVD
    (if memory serves, Warner Bros., though my recollection here is a little
    fuzzy) would not approve it. This should be no surprise given
    Leiberfarb's misguided abhorrence of Divx in general, and his desire to
    push his own VOD scheme as an alternative to renting digital movies.

    > customers noticed this. The main goal of Circuit City was to confuse
    > customers to the point that they would believe that DIVX and DVD were
    > one and the same.


    Perhaps you could explain, then, why Divx was always careful in its
    marketing to stress that Divx was an enhancement to DVD. That if one
    intended to watch a movie many times, they should purchase the DVD. That
    it was not intended for the collector. These kinds of topics were always
    forefront in the discussions as well as marketing and selling. Rather
    contrary to your claim of trying to gray the lines.

    > Circuit City was well aware of consumer reaction to the word
    > "format" - - particularly when the format involved was the bastardized
    > DVD format known as DIVX. Therefore, the con artists at DIVX did
    > everything they could to disguise the fact that DIVX was, without a
    > doubt, a proprietary, digital format that was in direct competition with
    > DVD.


    See above. Quite the opposite.

    > It was obvious that DIVX was a FORMAT since DIVX disks would not play in
    > all DVD players. But Digital Video Express would never admit to that.


    Again, see above regarding "format". As a similar example, take Flash --
    if a Flash movie is created using Flash 6, it won't play using the Flash
    5 player, because there are elements within that cannot be interpretted
    by the Flash 5 player. Is that movie any less Flash? Of course not, it
    just needs the proper player, with the capability to decipher the bytes
    correctly.

    > The deceptive wording of the official DIVX web site carefully avoided
    > using the "F" word when describing DIVX. Notice how they totally avoided
    > the format issue in the following alphabetical list of DIVX euphemisms
    > which were found on its website:
    >
    > DIVX is DVD: "Thanks to digital video technology, *Divx/DVD* delivers
    > far and away the best color, sharpness and clarity in home video."
    >
    > DIVX is an ENHANCEMENT: "Since Divx is a DVD *enhancement*, we thought
    > you'd also like some details about DVD in general."
    >
    > DIVX is a FEATURE: "Divx is a DVD *feature*."
    >
    > DIVX is a PLATFORM: "The Divx/DVD *platform* is helping to bring movie
    > theater excitement into millions of homes."
    >
    > DIVX is a SYSTEM: "All of these additions combine to help make the Divx
    > *system* work."
    >
    > DIVX is TECHNOLOGY: "The Divx *technology* for DVD allows movie studios
    > to authorize physical ownership of a movie disc for a suggested retail
    > price of $4.49."


    Nowhere in the above are any words used in strange manner. Everything
    fits the prose. Replacing any of your highlighted words with "format"
    would make the lines read strangely. This idea of deceptive wording is a
    stretch used by the anti-Divx folks to try to make an issue where none
    existed. Simple as that.

    > (All links below are dead.)
    >
    > http://www.divx.com/about_divx_divxtechnology.htm
    >
    > The admission by Digital Video Express that DIVX is a format is located
    > at the address below under the Press Release dated 09/08/97. This is the
    > only place that DIVX placed this disclaimer.
    >
    > http://www.divx.com/about_divx_pressroom.htm
    >
    > "Divx will license film productions from the major studios, distribute
    > those products in a proprietary, digital format and authorize access to
    > those movies via its host computer system. Divx also will license its
    > proprietary hardware architecture to consumer electronics manufacturers,
    > enabling DVD players to incorporate the Divx capability. International
    > plans are under development."


    Divx was proprietary, and Divx was digital. There is no untruth there.
    Nowhere in the above is there any "admission" that Divx is not
    technologically DVD by format. Again, a play on the words to try to
    support an incorrect notion.

    As I said before, you're welcome to your ascertions. However, you've
    presented no information beyond inventive perception to really support
    those ascertions. I've seen nothing more than the unsubstantiated
    arguements used by the anti-Divx folks way back when. Those arguements
    remain no more factual now than they were when Divx was around.

    --

    *** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

    ==================================================
    Kevin Scholl

    ==================================================
     
    Kevin Scholl, Sep 2, 2003
    #12
  13. Scot Gardner

    Kevin Scholl Guest

    BTW, Scot, I appreciate the cordial debate. In the past, there have been
    those that have resorted to personal attacks and flames when this topic
    is broached, because they get so adamant, even infuriated. Agree or
    disagree, thanks for keeping things light-hearted and on topic.

    Scot Gardner wrote:

    > "Kevin Scholl" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > Scot Gardner wrote:
    >
    >>The fact is that the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format tried to
    >>steal from the DVD format...

    >
    >
    > <<How did Divx try to "steal" anything? Please explain this very
    > general, and very strange, accusation.>>
    >
    > DIVX was a monkey on the back of DVD.


    [snip]

    --

    *** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

    ==================================================
    Kevin Scholl

    --------------------------------------------------
    Web Development and Graphic Design
    http://www.interimag.com/~kscholl/professional/
    --------------------------------------------------
    We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers
    of the dreams...
    ==================================================
     
    Kevin Scholl, Sep 2, 2003
    #13
  14. Scot Gardner

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "Kevin Scholl" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Scot Gardner wrote:
    >
    > >>The fact is that the DIVX proprietary, digital disk format tried to
    > >>steal from the DVD format...


    <<As I said before, you're welcome to your ascertions. However, you've
    presented no information beyond inventive perception to really support
    those ascertions. I've seen nothing more than the unsubstantiated
    arguements used by the anti-Divx folks way back when. Those arguements
    remain no more factual now than they were when Divx was around.>>

    In that case, I've run out of arguments.

    In any event, DVD format or not, DIVX failed.
     
    Scot Gardner, Sep 2, 2003
    #14
  15. Scot Gardner

    Scot Gardner Guest

    "Kevin Scholl" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > BTW, Scot, I appreciate the cordial debate. In the past, there have
    > been those that have resorted to personal attacks and flames when
    > this topic is broached, because they get so adamant, even infuriated.
    > Agree or disagree, thanks for keeping things light-hearted and
    > on topic.


    Thank you, too.
     
    Scot Gardner, Sep 2, 2003
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mischa van Dinter

    Re: Throwaway DVD Question

    Mischa van Dinter, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    461
    Mischa van Dinter
    Sep 2, 2003
  2. Pug Fugley

    Re: Throwaway DVD Question

    Pug Fugley, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
    Pug Fugley
    Aug 31, 2003
  3. Impmon

    Re: Throwaway DVD Question

    Impmon, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    394
    Impmon
    Sep 1, 2003
  4. Charles Tomaras

    Re: Throwaway DVD Question

    Charles Tomaras, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    505
    Charles Tomaras
    Sep 2, 2003
  5. Scot Gardner

    Re: Throwaway DVD Question

    Scot Gardner, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    64
    Views:
    1,662
Loading...

Share This Page