Latest on DVD Ripping: RealNetworks, Control4, Crestron, Kaleidescape

If the DVDCCA, MPAA or other movie industry strong-arm dinosaurs ever actually start suing end users of these products, I wonder if they will include Spielberg, Bruckheimer, Cruise, Hanks, Afflack, Damon and a host of other hollywood Kaleidescape system owners in their suits?

Patrick,

Not being an attorney myself, I would agree with you.

There are solutions though which can protect the copyright of the content while at the same time allowing the consumer an improved experience and greater access to their legally purchased content.

Archive Formats exist which can make the immediate playback of a file on any other system impossible with out a lengthy conversion process, making it just as costly to “steal”. This would mitigate infringement, require no circumvention and use the current playback licenses offered upon playback.

The data could be safer in a media server than it is on the disk…

>>> Answers below:

“… a DVD, is sold at a price of $10/$20/$30 not $3.” Precisely, and much of this DVD price goes to the retail channel and distributors that serve it, not the studio nor its artists. 

>>  Actually, This is true.

DVD retailing adds very little, if any, value to the end user’s experience.  Yet it persists, due mainly to an inertia set in motion in 1997 before technology enabled far better ways of distribution.

>> There’s more here than that.  For one, who wants a download as a gift - you can’t wrap it- a DVD makes a nice gift.

Second, Walmart is an awful environment, I agree, but my local video store, a nice walk in a pretty neighborhood, where I often meet friends and neighbours, is not.  Amazon sells videos, you can get them delivered to your door, and Netflix rents (also no visit to Walmart).

“If collectors no longer bought DVDs (why woudl they if this service were available?) at $20, the movie industry would no longer be able to produce most movies.” If ten times as many bought them at $3 via legit, persistent download-to-disc storage - or server storage, bypassing discs altogether - they would make great money.  (This has already been achieved on the music side. Video technology is playing catch up but is almost there.)

>>  Here you re simply wrong.  Itunes and the like make almost no money for the recording industry, maybe %3 of CD sales pre-napster.  If the film industry took a � revenue hit, Los Angeles would be decimated, thousands of people (tens of thousands) would be out of work, and there would be no new movies.  You can’t make good movies without money.  You just can’t.  It’s not like a song that you can make with a few guys in a garage.  I mean, Blair Witch project was a fun novelty, but how many times can you watch that?  How would you like it if all movies were of that visual quality from now on?  It’s npot aboyt cameras, it’s about years of training to becoem a great actor, writer, cinematographer, etc., it’s about mopntsh finding THE perfect location, it’s about a lot of things that cost most of the budget.  heck, I have access to a pro HD Red One camera for free, the same one used by majopr studios, and to free lighting equipement.  That means id I want to shoot a movie I have 15% of my budget covered.  The rest is the valuable time of highly trained people, physical realities of travelling to locations, building/renting sets, etc.

Also, there is not a 10x market that would watch a film if only they didn’t have to go to Bluckbuster.  Research shows that people see all the films that interest them, sooner or later, and pay what they have to.  They are not impeded in any significant numbers from seeing movies because of the cost of in-store rentals, pay-per-view, or any other reasonably priced distribution channel.  As such, that $3 thing would directly eat away at existing channels.

“Few people realize that almost no theatrical releases are actually profitable. . .  It is a tough business.” Yes, and what you describe predates home video - the studios have had tough times since the 50’s when TV disrupted things, and later, videotape (at first) disrupted them, prompting the Betamax case.  Old story, but sexy new technology this time around.

>>  Except downloading is not really a profitable model, as proven by ITunes. 

“Hollywood is not the government, nor a charity.” Yet entrenched, powerful players in Hollywood’s current distribution model fight customer-pleasing technology   That ultimately will spur more movie content business than Hollywood ever dreamed.  Just like VHS did before DVD spurred more movie production and profits, even as they disrupted certain channels within the movie business

>>  NO.  First off, viewer free time is already saturated with content.  As mentionned, they are already able to see all movies they are interested in (in Western nations) and have time for, either in the theatre, home-video, TV, etc.  There are no consumers missing movies because they are not available for legal download via the Internet, so no sales are currenly being lost - should we reduce the price of these sales?  No. 

Secondly, we fight technology that has proven itself to only destroy profits, and to be incapable of generating significant revenue.  There is no download service out there that makes any real money, despite LOTS of support from Hollywood.  If consumers will be pleased by ad-free cost-free movies, then we cannot provide that.  We have rent too.  I’m sure consumers would also like free steaks and beer, or steaks and beer at 90% off.  Rent-and-Burn and downloading are not a business model, they are a charity model.

Many people will always want to go to the movies, even when software is free (with commercials) or $3 for a clean copy to watch at home when they feel like it.  Maybe $5 in HD. 

>>  Research shows that this is not true.  Soem people will, but there would be a huge market share lost.
Others will choose to watch it at home in a no-hassle way.  Forcing them to drive to the store, or wait for snail-mail delivery, just to support inefficient, unsatisfactory retail delivery channels is a misuse of government and courts. 

>>  We are protecting out copyrights, and our right to sell our whares (OUR whares, not publicly owned ones, or whares produced via tax dollars) any way we please, whether you or anyoen else thinsk we should be doing it soem other way or not.  Maybe some new models would be more efficient (although many people who makes statements have not read any market reserach, and assume that others are like them, which is wrong) but as a business, like any business, we have the right to chose any distribution model we want, and not be subjected to theft.  You cannot run a civilized nation if anytime people don’t like the business model or distribution habits of a corportaion they feel entitled to steal from them. 

Without laws to protect ideas, no one who has them could ever make money from them.  The only remaining jobs would eb manual labor.

“Let the market decide.  If people prefer the minimal value of browsing WalMart shelves for movies, waiting in a ten-minute checkout line behind mesomorph moms, and slicing fingertips penetrating clamshell cases protected by 3 levels of security tape and stickers, retail movie sales may indeed survive! But if they want lots of film content without the noise, sell them a great home theater system and a way to watch what they want to watch with no hassle and a sense they are getting what they pay for, no less. 

>>  This would be great, and works well, so far, only with pay-per view on HD recorder boxes.

Remember also that technology brings competition to movies - immediate thrills via a game, right now?  Or should we drive to Best buy to get a $20 video may want?  Hollywood might be shooting itself in the foot fighting downloads!

>>  Hollywood does not fight all downloads.  They fight teh ones that, looking at extensive market research and past experiments, lose potential revenue rather than augmenting it.

@ robruffo

You sound like the same studio executives that are completely clueless with the current technology and how to move yoru industry forward.

Open your eyes before you need a handout like the auto industries.

A DVD ripping war is set to escalate with Hollywood studio’s set to go head to head with technology Companies like RealNetworks and Kaleidescape in an effort to stop the copying of DVD’s to storage devices.
A DVD ripping war is set to escalate with Hollywood studio’s set to go head to head with technology Companies like RealNetworks and Kaleidescape in an effort to stop the copying of DVD’s to storage devices.Also being sucked into the fight are Companies like Control 4, AMX, Escient and Crestron all consumer electronics companies that have recently released DVD storage or ripping technology.Last night RealNetworks who recently released RealDVD, which is a suite of DVD copying software decided to take the fight right up to the DVD Copy Control Association who have been sniping from the sidelines by claiming that the Real Networks software is illegal.

how to lose weight fast

You gusy DO NOT WORK IN THE FILM INDUSTRY. 

You have no idea about how films are marketed, how consumers really behave, and so on.  You just want to not pay for content.

Dinosaur?  If wanting to get paid for my work makes me a dinosaur, fine.  But you gusy have NO CLUE about the realities of selling media not producing it.

That’s right- we don’t work in the Film Industry.
We actually have to re-invent ourselves- in advance of industry change to survive. We need to innovate, adopt and cater directly to our clients.
This is something the film industry has missed on for decades. So the comparison to dinosaurs is quite accurtate, and your undesrtanding of what we know is sorely misguided. Maybe you could release Bad Santa 5000 for the holidays on Blu Ray and HD HOORAY!!!