how do I copy from DVD to DVD?

[Daniel L. Belton]

tnom@mucks.net wrote:

The commercial DVD's are usually 8.7 gigs because they include
both wide screen and standard screen versions of the same movie
plus all the extra menus.


No... The commercial DVD's are 8.7 gigs because they use dual layering
technology


? No to what ? It doesn't matter how they get 8.7 gigs. The
fact remains that if a movie uses the full 8.7 gigs it's usually
(not always) because there are two complete copies of the
movie on the disc.


that most home burner units can't do. Some movies are more
than the 4.7 gig and they have only one format on the disc.

It all depends on the original encoding of the disc...


Dual layering is most often used to include two movie formats,
therefore most movies can be copied without any quality loss.

I have seen some that have only one format on the disc, yet require dual

layering to fit it all on the disc. These discs probably would cause
some quality loss when copied to a single layer disc with lower capacity.

 

[Daniel L. Belton]

DarkMatter wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:


On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
and composed:


On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:37:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:


They have no such rights. In civilised countries such as Australia, we
have legislation to ensure that prices are set by fair competition.


Look, ya dumbfuck! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to piss and moan about. The movie
is MINE TO SELL, and mine alone.

I don't disagree with that. It's *how* you sell it that is at issue
...


If I want ten thou from you and only one thou from another customer,
that is MY choice, and I have a right to price MY work at whatever
price I want.

If the buyer thinks it too high, the buyer should take a fucking
hike!

I will agree with you here... If I produce a product, I can sell it for
whatever I want. I might not sell any, but I can price it however I
wish to. it is up to the purchaser to decide if they want to pay my
price or not. However, most people wishing to sell a product will try
to price it so that it does sell, but they don't have to.

 

[rstlne]

"Mark Spatny" <vfxproducer@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a621a225021f9f1989977@news.west.earthlink.net...

Not sure what post was more of a laugh, his or yours..
I mean, Just look at the 3 LOTR films
a MASSIVE 500+ mil usd to make the film and bring it to the market.

Your analysis is all wrong. What you have to remember is that the movie
studios make hundreds of movies each year, and most do not turn a profit
for many, many years. The blockbuster successes like LOTR keep people
employed while all the other films break even or generate red ink. You
have to examine the buisiness as a whole, and think about how all the
various profitable and not-profitable movies combine.

Looking at the annual reports of the various studios will give a clearer
picture.

Lets not forget that they have got their payment JUST from sales.. When
this
film makes 30bn and gives it's 300mil to the RIAA to stop people who
want to
make their own DVD for 3$ then I guess you can feel happy that your able
to
buy your food..

This is the part that proves you really don't know what you are talking
about. The RIAA has nothing to do with movies. As long as you assume
that it does, any other facts or analysis you try to represent will be
suspect.

Wrong.. the MPAA does movies and the RIAA does music. All good and well IF
you leave it there..
DVD = Media Format..
Now since you can get a recordable DVD then it falls under the RIAA, why,
cause you could record music on it..
So go back to my origianal post.. A portion of all DVD cost will go back to
the RIAA to stop piracy..
Belive it if you will... I dont care, Email the RIAA and see where all of
thir funding comes from..

 

Dual layering is most often used to include two movie formats,
therefore most movies can be copied without any quality loss.

I have seen some that have only one format on the disc, yet require dual
layering to fit it all on the disc. These discs probably would cause
some quality loss when copied to a single layer disc with lower capacity.

With variable bit rate encoding you would be hard pressed to see the
difference.

 

[TCS]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:15:11 -0500, tnom@mucks.net <tnom@mucks.net> wrote:

Dual layering is most often used to include two movie formats,
therefore most movies can be copied without any quality loss.

I have seen some that have only one format on the disc, yet require dual
layering to fit it all on the disc. These discs probably would cause
some quality loss when copied to a single layer disc with lower capacity.

With variable bit rate encoding you would be hard pressed to see the
difference.

All DVD's are variable bit rate, so what was your point again?


Unless you system is absolutely garbage, perhaps a window on a computer monitor
or a 13" tv, halving the bitrate will most defineately produce a rather
noticeable difference.

 

[Tim Auton]

TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:15:11 -0500, tnom@mucks.net <tnom@mucks.net> wrote:
Dual layering is most often used to include two movie formats,
therefore most movies can be copied without any quality loss.

I have seen some that have only one format on the disc, yet require dual
layering to fit it all on the disc. These discs probably would cause
some quality loss when copied to a single layer disc with lower capacity.

With variable bit rate encoding you would be hard pressed to see the
difference.

All DVD's are variable bit rate, so what was your point again?

Unless you system is absolutely garbage, perhaps a window on a computer monitor
or a 13" tv, halving the bitrate will most defineately produce a rather
noticeable difference.

That depends on how you compress it. Using MPEG-4 instead of MPEG-2
you can easily halve the bitrate with no noticeable loss of quality.


Tim
--
The .sig is dead.

 

[Mark Spatny]

rstlne,.@. says...

Now since you can get a recordable DVD then it falls under the RIAA,

It doesn't "fall under anything", except the DVD consortium.

Belive it if you will...

No thanks. I prefer to beleive the truth.

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

"Tim Auton" <tim.auton@uton.[group sex without the y]> wrote in message
newsnthvv0lac7grc3r5pqf6rq16iv472fgp7@4ax.com...

TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:15:11 -0500, tnom@mucks.net <tnom@mucks.net
wrote:
Dual layering is most often used to include two movie formats,
therefore most movies can be copied without any quality loss.

I have seen some that have only one format on the disc, yet require
dual
layering to fit it all on the disc. These discs probably would cause
some quality loss when copied to a single layer disc with lower
capacity.

With variable bit rate encoding you would be hard pressed to see the
difference.

All DVD's are variable bit rate, so what was your point again?

Unless you system is absolutely garbage, perhaps a window on a computer
monitor
or a 13" tv, halving the bitrate will most defineately produce a rather
noticeable difference.

That depends on how you compress it. Using MPEG-4 instead of MPEG-2
you can easily halve the bitrate with no noticeable loss of quality.

You could just as easily end up with a result unworthy of comparison by
halving the bitrate in this comparison...from what I have seen, MPEG-4 is
not much to get excited about if you are interested in quality. Of course,
it depends on the content...


--
Leonard Caillouet

....I'd like to find you inner child and kick its little ass. Get over it...
(The Eagles)

 

[vanpall]

Dark Brain, your using that garbage can mouth of yours again.

Brooks

DarkMatter wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:55:12 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
OhNoSPAM@pacbell.net> Gave us:

1) Time-shifting: "The basic concept behind the home-use VCR is to free the
public from the constraints of television scheduling, in other words, to
allow people to watch programs at their own convenience." Note that this
does *not* use the word broadcast. This is a very important omission
because there is a HUGE difference between cable and broadcast and Sony
wanted to win based on the ability to time-shift *any* content.

No. They wanted to make the distinction to show that cable
"transmissions" should be included, not "any" content. This was to
define cable as a form of "broadcast" even though it was on a closed
system. It is STILL ONLY about scheduled programming, not some
asswipe's rental or whatever your bent fuck'd perceptions define it
as.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[Justin]

vanpall wrote on [Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:14:11 -0800]:

Dark Brain, your using that garbage can mouth of yours again.

And you're a top posting arsehole.

 

[Richard C.]

"MR_ED_of_Course" <OhNoSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BC1DCBB7.2CD63%OhNoSPAM@pacbell.net...
: in article 3ff84f41$0$84057$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com, Richard C. at
: post-age@spamcop.net wrote on 1/4/04 9:37 AM:
:
: >
: > "MR_ED_of_Course" <OhNoSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
: > news:BC1C9D7F.2CC8A%OhNoSPAM@pacbell.net...
: > :
: > : Unless you can cite a precedent for any of this, the fact of the matter is
: > : that much of this is untested in the courts.
: > :
: > : In regards to time-shifting a copy of a rented VHS tape, I'd really like to
: > : know under what basis this would be considered illegal. Specifically where
: > : do you draw the line under what constitutes time-shifting.
: > :
: > =====================
: > "time-shifting" applies ONLY to broadcasts of TV signals.
:
: It absolutely does NOT apply ONLY to broadcasts of TV signals. I believe
: you're confusing two different arguments that Sony used in its defense.
: Sony's Akio Morita is credited with coining the phrase time-shifting and the
: court accepted it (then lost on appeal, then won in the Supreme Court). The
: two defenses were:
:
: 1) Time-shifting: "The basic concept behind the home-use VCR is to free the
: public from the constraints of television scheduling, in other words, to
: allow people to watch programs at their own convenience." Note that this
: does *not* use the word broadcast. This is a very important omission
: because there is a HUGE difference between cable and broadcast and Sony
: wanted to win based on the ability to time-shift *any* content.

=================
What part of "television scheduling" do you not understand?
===============
:
: This leads to the second (less central) defense:
:
: 2) Broadcast is public domain: "The huge volume of information transmitted
: over the airwaves by television stations is in the public domain." This
: argument had been used several times in other situations and has never
: really been fully resolved...it probably never will be due to digital
: encryption make the issue moot.
:
: The fact that it *is* legal to record *cable* television is a result of Sony
: winning the case based on the first argument and not the second. Had the
: courts ruled that you could time-shift broadcast-only content because
: broadcasting it over the airwaves put it in the public domain, it would've
: meant that you could not record cable television. Not only that, but it
: would've meant that you could do whatever you wanted with any content that
: was ever broadcasted...as in make copies and sell them.
:
: In other words, the courts agreed (based on surveys) that time-shifting of
: content had no financial effect on the copyright holders, it simply
: facilitated the watching of the content. They won only on the first
: argument.
:
: This is why it is legal to time-shift any content whether it be broadcast,
: cable, satellite, Pay-Per-View, or video rental.
:
========================
That does not follow..........................

 

[DarkMatter]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:14:11 -0800, vanpall
<brooks_van_pall@hotmail.com> Gave us:

Dark Brain, your using that garbage can mouth of yours again.

Brooks

Your E-1 grade, retarded assessments are par for the course for a
top posting, Usenet retard. Get a clue, dipshit.

 

[Daniel L. Belton]

Mark Spatny wrote:

rstlne,.@. says...

Now since you can get a recordable DVD then it falls under the RIAA,



It doesn't "fall under anything", except the DVD consortium.

I believe that if you are using DVD to record AUDIO that the RIAA holds
the rights for, then it would fall under the RIAA. Movies would fall
under the MPAA. DVD recording in general would fall under neither one.
The DVD consortium I believe is what sets the standards for DVD. I
don't think they control what is recorded.

Belive it if you will...


No thanks. I prefer to beleive the truth.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:56:37 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
and composed:

If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
allowed to sell it, or copies of it.

AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.

So. Market forces shouldn't be involved at all? Or the fact that the
group selling the product in Market A is not the same company as is
selling it in Market B. And these companies price according to their
markets.

Of course market forces should be involved. My contention, and that of
Australia's competition watchdog, is that region coding interferes
with these market forces in such a way that the market is no longer
free. The same applies to restrictions on the parallel importation of
software and books.

Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?

If you believe that there are genuine cost differences in producing
products for two different markets, then build this cost into the
price and let the consumer decide whether he wants to pay the higher
price. Don't restrict his choices using artificial means.

Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.

If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
freedom of choice.

And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
a region free DVD player.

VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
real justification for the latter.

Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
countries.

Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
practices.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Justin]

Franc Zabkar wrote on [Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:03:31 +1100]:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:56:37 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar wrote on [Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100]:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
and composed:

If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
allowed to sell it, or copies of it.

AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.

So. Market forces shouldn't be involved at all? Or the fact that the
group selling the product in Market A is not the same company as is
selling it in Market B. And these companies price according to their
markets.

Of course market forces should be involved. My contention, and that of
Australia's competition watchdog, is that region coding interferes
with these market forces in such a way that the market is no longer
free. The same applies to restrictions on the parallel importation of
software and books.

Actually, the region coding ruling was about lack of content as much as
anything else. Price is comparable. I can get a DVD from ezydvd for
about the same price as most places in the US

Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?

If you believe that there are genuine cost differences in producing
products for two different markets, then build this cost into the
price and let the consumer decide whether he wants to pay the higher
price. Don't restrict his choices using artificial means.

So, the people in the originating area should carry the cost for
importing into another?

Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.

If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
freedom of choice.

You have it.

And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
a region free DVD player.

VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
real justification for the latter.

PAL/NTSC conversion is a real technical difference. Not all players can
do the conversion.

Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
countries.

Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
practices.

Discriminatory? Have you tried to distribute a movie? Do you know the
costs involved? Often one area release helps pay the distribution to
another. If the DVD were available locally then the theatre distribution
would be hurt.

Besides, it's up to the licensee as to when and how they release a
product, not you.

BTW, it's much more tedious going the other way. Finding a decent DVD
player that will do good PAL->NTSC conversion, including Anamorphic PAL
is hit or miss.... or expensive. Magnitudes of expensive.

 

[Mark Spatny]

Daniel L. Belton,abuse@spam.gov says...

I believe that if you are using DVD to record AUDIO that the RIAA holds
the rights for, then it would fall under the RIAA.

The RIAA doesn't hold the rights to anything. It is merely a trade
organization representing the interestes of the member major record
lables and producers. The record labels own the rights to the recordings
they distribute, and the song writers and composers hold the rights to
the lyrics and music, respectively. This is why royalties are paid to
song writers & composers through organizations like BMI, ASCAP, etc.
When you want to license a piece of music or a song, you contact the
appropriate rights holder, which is NEVER the RIAA.

The DVD consortium I believe is what sets the standards for DVD. I
don't think they control what is recorded.

Exactly. They control the format, which is the only control in the
system. Nobody "controls" the content. Control is an odd word in this
context. Anyone is free to record any property they own own the rights
to on DVD, without consulting with either the MPAA or RIAA.

This is why the so called "screener ban" imposed by the MPAA was
basically dismissed by courts, because the MPAA doesn't have the
authority to tell producers and distributors when and how they can
freely distribute the movies they created. The same goes for the RIAA.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:17:24 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:56:37 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar wrote on [Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100]:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
and composed:

If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
allowed to sell it, or copies of it.

AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.

So. Market forces shouldn't be involved at all? Or the fact that the
group selling the product in Market A is not the same company as is
selling it in Market B. And these companies price according to their
markets.

Of course market forces should be involved. My contention, and that of
Australia's competition watchdog, is that region coding interferes
with these market forces in such a way that the market is no longer
free. The same applies to restrictions on the parallel importation of
software and books.

Actually, the region coding ruling was about lack of content as much as
anything else. Price is comparable. I can get a DVD from ezydvd for
about the same price as most places in the US

Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?

If you believe that there are genuine cost differences in producing
products for two different markets, then build this cost into the
price and let the consumer decide whether he wants to pay the higher
price. Don't restrict his choices using artificial means.

So, the people in the originating area should carry the cost for
importing into another?

I'm not sure what you mean here. If by "cost of importing" you mean
freight costs, then doesn't the end user ultimately pay for this
anyway?

Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.

If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
freedom of choice.

You have it.

Only if I can defeat region coding.

And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
a region free DVD player.

VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
real justification for the latter.

PAL/NTSC conversion is a real technical difference. Not all players can
do the conversion.

So make PAL and NTSC versions of your DVD titles and give me the
option of buying either. No need to use region coding.

Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
countries.

Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
practices.

Discriminatory? Have you tried to distribute a movie? Do you know the
costs involved? Often one area release helps pay the distribution to
another. If the DVD were available locally then the theatre distribution
would be hurt.

So distribute the movie, make your money, and then release the DVD. No
need to resort to region coding.

Besides, it's up to the licensee as to when and how they release a
product, not you.

That's just fine for American viewers. However, Australia gets short
shrift when it comes to product releases.

BTW, it's much more tedious going the other way. Finding a decent DVD
player that will do good PAL->NTSC conversion, including Anamorphic PAL
is hit or miss.... or expensive. Magnitudes of expensive.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Justin]

Franc Zabkar wrote on [Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:52:06 +1100]:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:17:24 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?

If you believe that there are genuine cost differences in producing
products for two different markets, then build this cost into the
price and let the consumer decide whether he wants to pay the higher
price. Don't restrict his choices using artificial means.

So, the people in the originating area should carry the cost for
importing into another?

I'm not sure what you mean here. If by "cost of importing" you mean
freight costs, then doesn't the end user ultimately pay for this
anyway?

My response was a bit.... weird.

OK, from your argument I took it to mean that you meant to build the
costs of producing the product for two different markets, then both of
those markets should cover the cost fo the second market.

Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.

If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
freedom of choice.

You have it.

Only if I can defeat region coding.

And that's fairly trivial.

And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
a region free DVD player.

VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
real justification for the latter.

PAL/NTSC conversion is a real technical difference. Not all players can
do the conversion.

So make PAL and NTSC versions of your DVD titles and give me the
option of buying either. No need to use region coding.

You have it.

Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
countries.

Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
practices.

Discriminatory? Have you tried to distribute a movie? Do you know the
costs involved? Often one area release helps pay the distribution to
another. If the DVD were available locally then the theatre distribution
would be hurt.

So distribute the movie, make your money, and then release the DVD. No
need to resort to region coding.

So, let's take a smaller "big" movie, like Underworld, and see how this
works. This movie hasn't been released in Australia yet, but is on DVD
today. I'm assuming it's being released in Aus in January because it's a
"summer" movie, meaning something to entertain people in the air
conditioning in the summer heat. The US release of the DVD should be
held up because of this? Or the worldwide release should be?

Besides, it's up to the licensee as to when and how they release a
product, not you.

That's just fine for American viewers. However, Australia gets short
shrift when it comes to product releases.

True enough. Australia get's the short shrift on everything else, too.

 

[No Time]

Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<7a3lvv08oq1s08oo3jopoml47302505cg0@4ax.com>...

Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.

If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
freedom of choice.

You have it.

Only if I can defeat region coding.

Nice try. You have the choice to buy the product at whatever price the
market is charging in whatever the form the market is offering it, or
you don't. Isn't capitalism grand?

And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
a region free DVD player.

VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
real justification for the latter.

PAL/NTSC conversion is a real technical difference. Not all players can
do the conversion.

So make PAL and NTSC versions of your DVD titles and give me the
option of buying either. No need to use region coding.

No, sorry, they don't have to cater to you. You'll probably feel
better when you realize the world doesn't revolve around you.

Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
countries.

Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
practices.

Discriminatory? Have you tried to distribute a movie? Do you know the
costs involved? Often one area release helps pay the distribution to
another. If the DVD were available locally then the theatre distribution
would be hurt.

So distribute the movie, make your money, and then release the DVD. No
need to resort to region coding.

Except they're the ones who want to and it's their material. When you
actually produce a new media type, you can choose to make it more
accomodating to people who whine on usenet. Until then, you're out of
luck.

Besides, it's up to the licensee as to when and how they release a
product, not you.

That's just fine for American viewers. However, Australia gets short
shrift when it comes to product releases.

Then move. Simple enough. While you're getting your seed money
together, try to come to terms with the fact that you have no rights
whatsoever to other people's property; they make the rules and you can
either abide by them and attain their products or don't and not. Your
choice.

BTW, it's much more tedious going the other way. Finding a decent DVD
player that will do good PAL->NTSC conversion, including Anamorphic PAL
is hit or miss.... or expensive. Magnitudes of expensive.


- Franc Zabkar

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:27:10 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:17:24 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?

If you believe that there are genuine cost differences in producing
products for two different markets, then build this cost into the
price and let the consumer decide whether he wants to pay the higher
price. Don't restrict his choices using artificial means.

So, the people in the originating area should carry the cost for
importing into another?

I'm not sure what you mean here. If by "cost of importing" you mean
freight costs, then doesn't the end user ultimately pay for this
anyway?

My response was a bit.... weird.

OK, from your argument I took it to mean that you meant to build the
costs of producing the product for two different markets, then both of
those markets should cover the cost fo the second market.


Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.

If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
freedom of choice.

You have it.

Only if I can defeat region coding.

And that's fairly trivial.

Even if that were true, the point is that the consumer should not have
to resort to defeating artifical restrictions.

Have a look at this non-trivial region coding hack for a Sony
DVP-NS300 DVD player:

http://www.dvdrhelp.com/dvdhacks.php?select=Sony+DVP-NS300

To hack this player, one requires a special remote control. And even
if one does complete the convoluted process of converting this player
for multiregion use, there is still RCE to contend with.

And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
a region free DVD player.

VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
real justification for the latter.

PAL/NTSC conversion is a real technical difference. Not all players can
do the conversion.

So make PAL and NTSC versions of your DVD titles and give me the
option of buying either. No need to use region coding.

You have it.

No. Region coding prevents me from playing European PAL titles in my
Australian PAL player, for example.

Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
countries.

Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
practices.

Discriminatory? Have you tried to distribute a movie? Do you know the
costs involved? Often one area release helps pay the distribution to
another. If the DVD were available locally then the theatre distribution
would be hurt.

So distribute the movie, make your money, and then release the DVD. No
need to resort to region coding.

So, let's take a smaller "big" movie, like Underworld, and see how this
works. This movie hasn't been released in Australia yet, but is on DVD
today. I'm assuming it's being released in Aus in January because it's a
"summer" movie, meaning something to entertain people in the air
conditioning in the summer heat. The US release of the DVD should be
held up because of this? Or the worldwide release should be?

I see your point. However, in this case there are two competing
interests, mine and theirs. I don't accept that my free access to DVD
titles should be forever thwarted by the studio's desire for an
orderly release. In any case, how did the studios survive when the
only format was region free VHS?

Besides, it's up to the licensee as to when and how they release a
product, not you.

That's just fine for American viewers. However, Australia gets short
shrift when it comes to product releases.

True enough. Australia get's the short shrift on everything else, too.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.