UltraViolet Could Mean You'll Really 'Own' That Movie

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Since we haven't had a discussion on this topic yet, why don't you all chime in with your thoughts on UltraViolet. Thanks to Monkey34 for the link.

The system is supposed to work like this: Starting this summer, participating companies like Netflix and Best Buy will start selling DVDs and digital downloads marked with the UltraViolet logo. Consumers are supposed to go home, set up a free UltraViolet account online and register their new purchase there, perhaps with a numerical code. That creates their UltraViolet "digital locker" -- a place where information is stored about each creative work they own. Each household will be able to register up to six people to a digital locker. They must also register up to 12 hardware devices where they will be able to play their UltraViolet movies and TV shows.
Click to expand...
 
If I can change the 12 devices myself and no charge for changing devices. Maybe. Will have to mull this over for a bit and see what their angle is. I dont trust anyone. Their has to be something negative I havent thought of yet. ;)
 
This plan sounds like typical corporate board-room thinking. This just makes more work for the consumer by making them jump through hoops to prove their "ownership" of materials they have already purchased. The consumer will also be indirectly funding the Ultraviolet servers operational costs, bandwith, and monitoring by administrators though higher prices for merchandise.

This seems like a lose, lose, lose Orwellian proposition.
 
El Barto said:
This plan sounds like typical corporate board-room thinking. This just makes more work for the consumer by making them jump through hoops to prove their "ownership" of materials they have already purchased. The consumer will also be indirectly funding the Ultraviolet servers operational costs, bandwith, and monitoring by administrators though higher prices for merchandise.

This seems like a lose, lose, lose Orwellian proposition.
Click to expand...

Bing, we have a winner /endthread
 
just means I'll never buy a movie from netflix or best buy.

there's a mention of could mean you REALLY own it... that's one angle, the other is you really don't own it and you lease the movie for a period of time, at which point you need to renew the lease. It'll probably start something like the lease costs the same as buying a dvd today, if you want to REALLY own it you pay three times as much.... and it could balloon from there
 
For the MPAA this is a huge stretch and a tiny little step in the right direction. But, the fundamentals are still the same, it will not stop piracy and will still put a unnecessary layer of inconvenience for the purchaser. I do agree with what has been said by others ... if this type of system had been implemented much sooner then less people may not have gotten used to downloading via torrents, but it may be too late now to put the cat back in the bag.

If this goes off seamlessly then I can see it getting some traction but otherwise they will just have to skip right to the inevitable DRM free model that music has taken.
 
Here's the problem: I like to watch my movies with VLC or MPC-HC. Neither are going to implement this DRM technology, as open source applications certainly cannot implement proprietary DRM code, so I won't be able to watch the movies I purchase the way I want to watch them. Apple is probably not going to implement UltraViolet in QuickTime X or on its iDevices, leaving me totally boned there. I'm not going to be able to freely transcode these files from, say, 1080p down to iPad resolution.

So what's the point to all of this? This isn't going to get me to buy movies or TV shows digitally.
 
This is not ownership. When ultraviolet's servers die, you no longer own your videos. That means you never owned it in the first palce.
 
Netflix is broadening their streaming efforts by adding more titles. At some point, the majority of movie will be available for streaming. Why would I 'buy' a movie when I have access to it through Netflix streaming?
 
If I own it I should be able to edit the shit out of it and post it on Youtube without somebody screaming "Copyright Infringement"
Try that with Ultra-fucking-Idiocy and see what happens.
Ergo, you still won't fucking own the shit you paid for, and neither will the artists and actors.
 
Again you are making people who actually pay money for your movies to have to go through all these additional steps. Pirates will still pirate the movie and be able to play them in a much simpler fashion.
 
I can think of a ton more than 12 devices that I would want to watch movies on that I can now thanks to being able to rip Blu-rays and being able to take the disc with me. This is another bad idea from an industry to fails to come to grips with reality. :rolleyes:
 
Darth Millennial said:
I can think of a ton more than 12 devices that I would want to watch movies on that I can now thanks to being able to rip Blu-rays and being able to take the disc with me
Click to expand...
What they mean is that you can authorize up to 12 devices at a time. That does not mean it will support only 12 different devices. It's like the iTunes computer limit: You can only authorize five machines at a time.
 
They must also register up to 12 hardware devices where they will be able to play their UltraViolet movies and TV shows.
Click to expand...

So basically you're allowed to "rent" the movies for a couple of years. Eventually you'll have gone through 12 devices, especially if you're a big family where everyone likes to stay up to date with new tech.
 
Oddly enough (for someone as anti-DRM as myself), I find this to be a step in the right direction. If I understand this correctly, one would still own the original physical media, as well as the theoretical right to view that content via any means that one chooses? So instead of having to say, make a compressed rip of a BluRay that I own to view on my netbook/laptop/portable device, I would own the rights to that content and could just stream it to wherever I happen to be? Although that begs the question of where the stream would come from and what they would charge for it....

Actually I have changed my mind after typing that, it does sound like it could end up being kinda wack. Getting closer though! ;)
 
Modred189 said:
Steam for movies? I'm in.
Click to expand...

I want real Steam for movies, or maybe Valve should start adding a movie section to Steam.

Let me log into an account and purchase and any movie that I would be able to in a brick and mortar store. I should be able to download those movies on to any device that runs the steam for movies software, once I log in. I should also be able to leave these movies downloaded onto the devices that I have logged in to for an indefinite period of time. If my friends come over and log into their steam for movies account on my devices, they should be able to download any movie they have already purchased, and if we both have the same movie, they shouldn't have to redownload it.

This is how Steam currently works, and I don't see why it wouldn't work for movies (other than greedy movie studios).
 
How about I continue buying movies and do whatever I want with it (besides P2P "sharing")? Yeah, I think I'll still do that.
 
TheBluePill said:
They tried this with Divx 10 years ago on DVD.. Aint going to happen.
Click to expand...

BlindedByScience said:
Another flavor of DRM. Pass.....
Click to expand...

vengence said:
This is not ownership. When ultraviolet's servers die, you no longer own your videos. That means you never owned it in the first palce.
Click to expand...
You guys basically said what I was going to say. So.. QFT

wizdum said:
This is how Steam currently works, and I don't see why it wouldn't work for movies (other than greedy movie studios).
Click to expand...
As much as I'd like to see some sort of resolution to the piracy problem, you answered your doubts at the end of the same sentence. I just don't think they are able to do it.
 
That creates their UltraViolet "digital locker" -- a place where information is stored about each creative work they own.
Click to expand...

Uh, thanks but no thanks. First off there is no need for a third party to track what I own or not. I'm perfectly capable of managing my own belongings, thank you very much.

Give me a disk. I don't want "virtual" ownership. I want physical ownership.


Each household will be able to register up to six people to a digital locker. They must also register up to 12 hardware devices where they will be able to play their UltraViolet movies and TV shows.
Click to expand...

Why should I voluntarily let some third party tell me what devices I'm allowed to play content I paid for on? I'll make that decision, not you.


That creates their UltraViolet "digital locker" -- a place where information is stored about each creative work they own. Each household will be able to register up to six people to a digital locker. They must also register up to 12 hardware devices where they will be able to play their UltraViolet movies and TV shows.
Click to expand...

I don't want to, scratch that...... I won't register for some third party to grant me permission how and where I can used things I purchased.

IMO, the minute you let someone restrict your rights with what you can do with your own personal belongings, you are no longer an owner, you are a steward.

Let me guess, they won't let you sell your digital copy that you so call "own" either right? Yeah, that's what I thought. If you can't sell it, do you really own it? Call a spade a spade. This isn't customer ownership, it's stewardship program.

These corporate cocksuckers, want to control what you do with what you own. It's nothing but a power grab for them. Stop being so eager to give up your rights because it might save you 20 seconds by not putting a little disk in a player.
 
wizdum said:
I want real Steam for movies, or maybe Valve should start adding a movie section to Steam.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you never have the desire to transcode your PC games (because, well, why would you?). Being able to transcode movies and TV shows down for mobile devices is a necessity for me and quite a few other people as well.

Now, if the studios actually would do the transcoding for us, that'd be a horse of a different color, but the issue of device support would still remain. Steam supports every recent Windows PC or Intel Mac, so device support is really never a problem (unless you're a Linux or BeOS user or what have you).
 
Modred189 said:
Steam for movies? I'm in.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. Honestly, I'm surprised the folks behind Steam haven't jumped on this market given Netflix's success with the internet distribution. Tons of computers already have Steam anyway, all they'd have to do is create an app and get OEM support for TVs and such, much the same way Netflix has.
 
BobSutan said:
That's what I was thinking. Honestly, I'm surprised the folks behind Steam haven't jumped on this market given Netflix's success with the internet distribution. Tons of computers already have Steam anyway, all they'd have to do is create an app and get OEM support for TVs and such, much the same way Netflix has.
Click to expand...

Well they know now. I'm sure there are a couple of Steam branded lurkers here.
 
I will only buy into if it also get the music industry also involved AND the option of lossless is available. If I buy an album on amazon's mp3 section, I should be able to register that album with this service and then be able to download a FLAC version of it.

It's all about the audio/video quality for me.
 
Laughable, instead of trying to change their business model they continue to try to push DRM.
 
Why, oh why, would you name a movie service after THE SECOND WORST MOVIE EVER (the first being Ecks vs Sever)?????
 
El Barto said:
This plan sounds like typical corporate board-room thinking. This just makes more work for the consumer by making them jump through hoops to prove their "ownership" of materials they have already purchased. The consumer will also be indirectly funding the Ultraviolet servers operational costs, bandwith, and monitoring by administrators though higher prices for merchandise.

This seems like a lose, lose, lose Orwellian proposition.
Click to expand...

As El Barto suggests, we could simply not do any of this.
 
All im saying is if i pay for something, i should be able to play it on what ever device i want to with out some telling me its not on my 12 device list. Instead of this do it like steam where i can put it on what ever machine i want i just have to log in to be able to play it. Thats more reasonable, as far as drm goes. But i am opposed to drm in the first place so meh.... i wont be doing anything with this service
 
crashbox said:
All im saying is if i pay for something, i should be able to play it on what ever device i want to with out some telling me its not on my 12 device list. Instead of this do it like steam where i can put it on what ever machine i want i just have to log in to be able to play it. Thats more reasonable, as far as drm goes. But i am opposed to drm in the first place so meh.... i wont be doing anything with this service
Click to expand...

Well, you'll never get NO DRM, so there is going to have to be a compromise somewhere. Something to make the studios feel good while not getting in the way of the customer. Imagine buying a dvd, registering it, and then being able to stream it anywhere, or be able to convert it to a mobile format, etc. Would be nice.
 
This an attempt to kill the secondary market for movies. Just like Steam you can purchase a physical copy second hand, Ebay, garage sale etc.
you just can't use it. I found this out the hard way. If we have to tie our movies to a specific account they will be of use to that account only. No thanks. I'll vote with my wallet, any company that uses this will get nothing from me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top