BD Managed Copy Launches in 2010, New Player Required (http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2894)

We reported early this week that the recently-approved final AACS license included Managed Copy, enabling consumers to make one copy of any Blu-ray Disc they buy. Now additional details on the acquisition procedure and on the actual rollout of this feature have arisen. Soon, the vast majority of BDs will support Managed Copy, but studios will be able to charge for it, and new players will be needed.

Video entertainment site Video Business has contacted the chairperson of the AACS Licensing Authority, Michael Ayers, who confirmed that virtually all Blu-ray discs released after the first quarter of 2010 will offer consumers the ability to make one full-resolution backup copy. There are some exceptions where the studio won't be required to offer Managed Copy, such as for small distributors and when the content owner may not have all the necessary rights to allow copying.

Content owners will be in tight control of the backups made, and will be free to charge for the copy.

Managed copies are possible on to various media: burned to writeable BDs or DVDs, downloaded on a Windows Media DRM-compatible portable player, hard drive or memory card, or as a bound copy, such as a digital copy file on the disc. Surprisingly, the AACS-LA has not received a submission from Apple to make Blu-ray copies to Apple devices, and thus downloads to iPods, iPhones and other Apple devices are not approved at this time.

When managed copy is operational, the disc menu on the BD will include an option to make a managed copy, or the consumer will access copy through the player controls. Then, the player will connect online to an authorization center (run by a studio, supplier or the AACS-LA), which will give the go-ahead to make a copy. Discs are serialized, so that the authorization centers can tell whether a copy has already been made off a given disc.

Existing BD players and devices don't support Managed Copy, so in all likelihood a new player will be needed. Hardware manufacturers aren't expected to get new players out until the first or second quarter of 2010 at the very earliest. Managed Copy support won't become a requirement in the Blu-ray specification, so it is up to the individual manufacturers to include it in their players or not. And if they do, they will have to add additional content protections, safeguarding copies from piracy.

Ayers said he expects hardware manufacturers will add Managed Copy because it's something consumers have indicated they want. “We think that consumers really do want the ability to use their content flexibly,” he said.

Andy Parsons, U.S. chairman of the BDA Promotions Committee and senior VP of product planning at Pioneer Home Entertainment, agreed. “There's enough interest in the consumer community that there should be enough incentive in the hardware community to do this,” he said.

Parsons said he hasn't heard of any hardware manufacturers including managed copy features in players on the market now or those that have been announced. It's unlikely that the feature could be added to players already on the market. “It doesn't seem likely as a firmware upgrade because the specs weren't done,” he said. “Hardware guys don't like building stuff that might not be done.”Looks like the BDA is "resetting", just like the DVD Forum did.

BD Managed Copy Launches in 2010, New Player Required (http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2894)


Existing BD players and devices don't support Managed Copy, so in all likelihood a new player will be needed. Hardware manufacturers aren't expected to get new players out until the first or second quarter of 2010 at the very earliest. Managed Copy support won't become a requirement in the Blu-ray specification, so it is up to the individual manufacturers to include it in their players or not. And if they do, they will have to add additional content protections, safeguarding copies from piracy.


I believe the one exception (again) will be the PS3.

http://exophase.com/ps3/future-ps3-firmware-to-support-managed-copy-4083.htm

But in a recent interview with Japanese site Impress Watch, Sony engineers revealed that an upcoming firmware update will also bring support for Managed Copy.

With Managed Copy, PS3 owners will be able to pop-in a Blu-ray disc and legally rip it straight to their PS3’s hard drive.

Final Specifications (http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/)

InterestingBD Managed Copy Launches in 2010, New Player Required (http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2894)

Looks like the BDA is "resetting", just like the DVD Forum did.Managed copy doesn't directly relate to either the BDA or the DVD Forum. Managed copy is a feature required by the AACS Final Adopter Agreement and the documents on the AACS website explain in detail about managed copy and how it relates legally and technically to AACS protected content. Also about the updates of the AACS books for HD DVD I would mention that managed copy is only required on AACS protected content that is released after the AACS Final Adopter Agreement goes into effect. As such there is no legal requirement that managed copy be supported with AACS protected content released before 2010.

My only other claim to fame in BD comes true finally :).

Hopefully something good comes out of it...

BTW, I don't know why folks keep talking about "players" supporting managed copy. Players don't need to have such support because they have no place to put the copy. You need to have a server type device with storage, new type of copy protection for the copy, and user interface to retrieve your content for it to make sense.

"Managed copy"


What's that? :p

"Managed copy"


What's that? :p

Another opportunity for the studios to charge you for something they shouldn't? :p

My only other claim to fame in BD comes true finally :).

Hopefully something good comes out of it...

BTW, I don't know why folks keep talking about "players" supporting managed copy. Players don't need to have such support because they have no place to put the copy. You need to have a server type device with storage, new type of copy protection for the copy, and user interface to retrieve your content for it to make sense.

So what you are really saying Amir is that we need a player that:

1. Has an ethernet connection
2. Has an HDD/storage of some kind
3. Has a BD burner it in ( to transfer the file from the storage to a BD disc)
4. All in one STB

All that to be considered a "new" player.

Sounds like a Japanese SAT BD DVR.

Is that right?

So what you are really saying Amir is that we need a player that:

1. Has an ethernet connection
2. Has an HDD/storage of some kind
3. Has a BD burner it in ( to transfer the file from the storage to a BD disc)
4. All in one STB
Correct although #3 would be optional.

All that to be considered a "new" player.

Sounds like a Japanese SAT BD DVR.

Is that right?
I guess semantically I wouldn't call anything that 'recods' a player :). But yes, BD recorders with hard disks would be one way of building such a device. But the more normal model would be a server much like we have for music and folks who rip DVDs (and BDs).

i don't need Managed Copy, i can do my copy right now and i don't need any especial player to play the movie

i don't need Managed Copy, i can do my copy right now and i don't need any especial player to play the movieTrue, but with managed copy you can do this legally and it will also be easier to do since products will be released by CE companies specifically designed for it. Of course whether managed copy will be a popular feature will depend greatly on what the studios charge for the first managed copy (free, small fee, or large fee).

I believe the one exception (again) will be the PS3.

http://exophase.com/ps3/future-ps3-firmware-to-support-managed-copy-4083.htm

That's a great feature to have on the PS3, especially given that you can attach any hard drive via a usb cable. Just what Sony needs right now. Another group of users to buy the PS3 for non gaming purposes :)

So how difficult would it be to add a USB port on a BD player so you could attach a HDD?

Maybe a new USB 3.0:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#USB_3.0

So how difficult would it be to add a USB port on a BD player so you could attach a HDD?

Maybe a new USB 3.0:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#USB_3.0

Ask Oppo. They have two on their player. ;)

Ask Oppo. They have two on their player. ;)

Dual USB Ports - Two USB 2.0 high speed ports are provided, one on the front panel and one on the back. Users can enjoy high definition video, high resolution photos and music directly from their USB drives.

http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-83/

Those look like inputs as opposed to outputs. (?)

http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-83/

Those look like inputs as opposed to outputs. (?)

The concept of inputs or outputs don't really apply to USB ports because connected devices can send and receive information.

From what I have been reading, if you want to make a copy to hard drive then you HAVE to be running windows. Any one using a mac or Linux can PFO. Is that correct amirm?

The concept of inputs or outputs don't really apply to USB ports because connected devices can send and receive information.

Can they restrict USB to a receive only situation?

The requirement that studios include managed copy on Blu-ray discs means that virtually all Blu-ray discs released after the first quarter of 2010 will offer consumers the ability to make one full-resolution backup copy,

So what about all the previous BD's released since June 2006?

From what I have been reading, if you want to make a copy to hard drive then you HAVE to be running windows. Any one using a mac or Linux can PFO. Is that correct amirm?
Definitely not true. There is no system dependency whatsoever.

Having said this, one must prove that the output copy protection is robust. That will likely rule out Linux as an open platform (embedded/inside a CE product is probably fine). But Mac is not an issue any more than Windows is.

To expand, there is really not much here. AACS simply stipulates how you get permission to make a copy. And that is with simple web protocol. Once there, it is totally up to the implementor to write code to decrypt AACS and store the data in the server (with new copy protection). Since there is no code on disc for any of this, there is no dependency on the operating system.

Let me know if this is not clear and I can explain more.

So what about all the previous BD's released since June 2006?
It is pretty bad news I am afraid. My understanding is that a lot of discs are not serialized which means they cannot be used to make managed copies.

This is one of the reasons I am disappointed in the final outcome. The current library cannot be copied which for most people, takes away a lot of the value and disappoints the early adopters.

Of course, studios could choose to allow the copy to occur anyway but that is not likely from all the studios.

a lot of discs are not serialized which means they cannot be used to make managed copies.

Doesn't microsoft allow copying from CD without all this fuss of connecting to servers on the internet, and asking for permission to make a copy of something you bought? Shouldn't this all fall under fair use etc? Why are things different for video than they are for audio?

I wouldn't worry about MC on earlier BR titles. It doesn't even need to come off a BR disc. All they need to do is sell a highly compressed version of it to you on a dvd disc that contains the code to allow MC on supported players (gummy stick this dvd right on the existing br product, even). If it really is a high-demand feature, people will fall all over themselves to pick these discs up, right? The market demand will determine the studio attention, right? Better yet, just digital download it, right? The notion of a tech-saavy MC customer w/o a 10 Mb/s line going to their home is nonsense, right?

...but it won't be the same as the real br encode, right? Hasn't it been hammered into our heads in endless discussions that such a customer interested in MC is more interested in convenience (of portable copies) over ultimate quality? There ya go!

...and if you believe they do care about quality, that matter also has been broached in past discussions. There are some who believe that premium quality hd is absolutely possible at low teens bitrates and even lower. They are not concerned with inefficient lossless audio, either. So give'em what they want, eh? 10 Mb/s vc-1 TDK with DD+ audio transportable to their media center!!! Hooray! :D I think we would then finally see all sorts of posts of people who are glad to pick the disc up as a proper replacement to their older hdvd release. ;) It's a match made in heaven, eh?

Doesn't microsoft allow copying from CD without all this fuss of connecting to servers on the internet, and asking for permission to make a copy of something you bought? Shouldn't this all fall under fair use etc? Why are things different for video than they are for audio?

It looks like the Fair Use "doctrine" was ammeded with this:

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

Wiki seems to have summed up Managed Copy for BD pretty well:

Possible scenarios for Managed Copy include (but are not limited to):


Create an exact duplicate onto a recordable disc for backup
Create a full-resolution copy for storage on a media server
Create a scaled-down version for watching on a portable device*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_Copy#Managed_Copy

* Which appears to be 415K resolution

Page 139 forward:

http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf

Which is better than DVD quality (345.6K resolution)

Doesn't microsoft allow copying from CD without all this fuss of connecting to servers on the internet, and asking for permission to make a copy of something you bought? Shouldn't this all fall under fair use etc? Why are things different for video than they are for audio?

The Compact Disc format was created long before there was a way for consumers to copy it. When the time came that it could be copied, there wasn't much they could do to protect it without breaking compatibility with the millions of players out there. They didn't implement copy protection from the beginning because there was no need to do so.

I've had MMC for what a year now...It's called AnyDVD.:D
No pesky DRM molestations/infestations to cause playback incompatability problems.
Thank you though, but I wont be shelling out a fortune for MPAA sanctioned MC, as Slysoft beat them to market and provdes a superior product.

I've had MMC for what a year now...It's called AnyDVD.:D
No pesky DRM molestations/infestations to cause playback incompatability problems.
Thank you though, but I wont be shelling out a fortune for MPAA sanctioned MC, as Slysoft beat them to market and provdes a superior product.
You are stating one of the main arguments I made to AACS founders on why managed copy (for free) should have been there from day one.

But folks were in a hurry to ship products, interim agreement was put together and this detail left out for 3 years. So here we are...

It had gone on so long with interim agreements I had become convinced they were at an impasse and there was NEVER going to be a final AACS agreement. Anybody know what finally broke that log jam?

- Tom

You are stating one of the main arguments I made to AACS founders on why managed copy (for free) should have been there from day one.

But folks were in a hurry to ship products, interim agreement was put together and this detail left out for 3 years. So here we are...

Yes, but this goes back to the root of the problem. They will still be charging money for an inferior product (albeit, legal).

Wonder if managed copy had been included from day one, how would that effected Slysoft. Because the need for Slysoft wouldnt be as big as it is now.

They also want to disable analog outputs (http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2849). They just don't get it.

Wonder if managed copy had been included from day one, how would that effected Slysoft. Because the need for Slysoft wouldnt be as big as it is now.
I suspect someone would have broken the system regardless. But you are absolutely correct that the commercial motivation may not have been there for someone to make a business out of it. And in this case, do a better job at it than the hackers.

The game is not a one-time event due to renewal. It is clear the Slysoft has the resources to play the hand with weekly and monthly updates. Not clear if hackers would have especially if the claim to fame would not have been as large, due to commercial software making copies.

Imagine if iTunes, WMP, etc. had BD ripping capability already. How many people would go and buy Slysoft product?

Just to clear up a few points:

1) ANY Blu-ray disc (including old ones) can be made availablefor managed copy, but only the Final license agreements make it a requirement on studios to do so. Which means the avialability of managed copy on pre-2009 discs is at the studios' discretion.

2) A Blu-ray managed copy can be made at any resolution desired by the user, with the restriction that certain protection technologies have an upper limit (415k). So if your portable device has a certain desired resolution the product that makes the copy can transcode it to whatever is best.

3) The "needs new hardware" press is somewhat overstated -- the point is that in general most hardware-based blu-ray players will need new hardware/software to support managed copies. It is perfectly acceptable (and aniticpated) that recorders, game consoles, and software players may be upgraded to support the making of copies.

Just to clear up a few points:

1) ANY Blu-ray disc (including old ones) can be made availablefor managed copy, but only the Final license agreements make it a requirement on studios to do so. Which means the avialability of managed copy on pre-2009 discs is at the studios' discretion.

2) A Blu-ray managed copy can be made at any resolution desired by the user, with the restriction that certain protection technologies have an upper limit (415k). So if your portable device has a certain desired resolution the product that makes the copy can transcode it to whatever is best.

3) The "needs new hardware" press is somewhat overstated -- the point is that in general most hardware-based blu-ray players will need new hardware/software to support managed copies. It is perfectly acceptable (and aniticpated) that recorders, game consoles, and software players may be upgraded to support the making of copies.

Thank you for clearing some things up. It's nice to read something that isn't all doom and gloom.

Ironic that most of the people giving their opinions in this thread also were quite vocal and "concerned" that the addition of BD-Live would cause all kinds of problems with older players not being able to play discs, the masses would storm in protest over this travesty, and BD was digging it's own grave. They were wrong then, and in most probability, are wrong here. Most people who buy into this format will probably not even use managed copy, and for those that want to, will use the available software out now that can do the exact same thing with very little fuss. Much ado about nothing I think, other than giving ammunition to the few who are always looking for negative aspects of the format.

Just to clear up a few points:

1) ANY Blu-ray disc (including old ones) can be made availablefor managed copy, but only the Final license agreements make it a requirement on studios to do so. Which means the avialability of managed copy on pre-2009 discs is at the studios' discretion.

2) A Blu-ray managed copy can be made at any resolution desired by the user, with the restriction that certain protection technologies have an upper limit (415k). So if your portable device has a certain desired resolution the product that makes the copy can transcode it to whatever is best.

3) The "needs new hardware" press is somewhat overstated -- the point is that in general most hardware-based blu-ray players will need new hardware/software to support managed copies. It is perfectly acceptable (and aniticpated) that recorders, game consoles, and software players may be upgraded to support the making of copies.

How did managed copy finally get implemented? Does it ever rely on any sort of phone-home DRM for the copy that would cease to play without ongoing online servers or DRM updates?

- Tom

Ironic that most of the people giving their opinions in this thread also were quite vocal and "concerned" that the addition of BD-Live would cause all kinds of problems with older players not being able to play discs, the masses would storm in protest over this travesty, and BD was digging it's own grave. They were wrong then, and in most probability, are wrong here. Most people who buy into this format will probably not even use managed copy, and for those that want to, will use the available software out now that can do the exact same thing with very little fuss. Much ado about nothing I think, other than giving ammunition to the few who are always looking for negative aspects of the format.

Sorry but who is "most" in your view? I already corrected the notion earlier in the thread that this was a player issue.

The negatively comes from the fact that this feature has come way late in the process, after others have hacked the system wide open and hence, provide an easier to use system than anything managed copy can accomplish at this point. As the guy who cooked up this feature, it pains me to point these things out. But I don't know how with a straight face to do otherwise as the facts are in front of everyone to examine.

Still, I think there is some hope for commercial companies to make this a worthwhile feature. There is hope that studios won't charge for the copies. There is hope that studios allow more than one copy. There is hope that people design output copy protection systems that are portable and invisible. And there is hope that content owners build back-end systems that are easy and reliable to use to authorize such copies. :)

My frustration therefore is the fact that a well intended and worthwile feature, now is saddled with so many obstacles.

You mention BD-Live. That brings up another issue of how easy it is to make copies. With BD-J playing the role of even simple menus, it makes the job of making copies much harder. Surely no one expects typical smartphone to interpret and render BD-J. So we are left having to figure out how to perform a simple function of playing a movie and being able to turn subtitles on and off when we copy it to something that is not a BD player. If managed copy was there from start, maybe people would have thought through these things earlier.

While I am typing this, let me thank Richard for his tireless work over the last 4 years trying to making all of this happen (and then some) in AACS. I went to maybe 4-6 meetings at the start. I think he must have gone to next 400 to 600 :). Managed copy almost didn't make it but through his and effort and that of select few, it finally came to fruition. I am sure he has countless scars to show for it :).

Just to clear up a few points:

1) ANY Blu-ray disc (including old ones) can be made availablefor managed copy, but only the Final license agreements make it a requirement on studios to do so. Which means the avialability of managed copy on pre-2009 discs is at the studios' discretion.

So how would this work?

AFAIK - you place the disc in a non MC compatible BD player. It is missing the menu selection that tells the BD player to contact the AACS server. How are you going to make a legal copy when there is no choice to do so?

2) A Blu-ray managed copy can be made at any resolution desired by the user, with the restriction that certain protection technologies have an upper limit (415k). So if your portable device has a certain desired resolution the product that makes the copy can transcode it to whatever is best.

There are selections to change the resolution when ordering a copy from AACS?

From Wiki on MC:

Possible scenarios for Managed Copy include (but are not limited to):


Create an exact duplicate onto a recordable disc for backup
Create a full-resolution copy for storage on a media server
Create a scaled-down version for watching on a portable device


3) The "needs new hardware" press is somewhat overstated -- the point is that in general most hardware-based blu-ray players will need new hardware/software to support managed copies. It is perfectly acceptable (and aniticpated) that recorders, game consoles, and software players may be upgraded to support the making of copies.

This is now the 3rd time that a new BD SAL player is introduced with a new major feature that requires one to buy a new SAL player to take advantage of it (Bonus View, BD-Live and now Managed Copy). And BD is just 3 years old.

And we have 2 more major features waiting in the wings that will also require yet another SAL player to be purchased - Deep Color and 3D (if Panasonic has their way)

What? Buy a new BD player every year? :p

It is pretty bad news I am afraid. My understanding is that a lot of discs are not serialized which means they cannot be used to make managed copies.Were HD DVD discs "serialized"?

This is one of the reasons I am disappointed in the final outcome. The current library cannot be copied which for most people, takes away a lot of the value and disappoints the early adopters.

Of course, studios could choose to allow the copy to occur anyway but that is not likely from all the studios.Why have DVD and HD DVD final AACS specifications been issued? Seems like it costed a lot of money to include HD DVD in those specs. Is the DVD Forum re-engaging now that Managed Copy is enacted? Where does DVD Download SL and DL fit in (i.e. will blu-ray managed devices write to DVD Download discs)?

Were HD DVD discs "serialized"?

Why have DVD and HD DVD final AACS specifications been issued? Seems like it costed a lot of money to include HD DVD in those specs. Is the DVD Forum re-engaging now that Managed Copy is enacted? Where does DVD Download SL and DL fit in (i.e. will blu-ray managed devices write to DVD Download discs)?

Mike:

IMO - they included HD DVD in the specs because of the Chinese HD format CBHD, which is licensed from the DVD Forum. Owners of CBHD discs may also want to make a legal copy (now there's a laugh - the land of piracy - China)

Just a "shot in the dark."

Mike:

IMO - they included HD DVD in the specs because of the Chinese HD format CBHD, which is licensed from the DVD Forum. Owners of CBHD discs may also want to make a legal copy (now there's a laugh - the land of piracy - China)

Just a "shot in the dark."I'd have to say that shot misses the mark. If you look at the specification page, there is a clear differentiation between HD DVD and CBHD.

http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/

For instance there is a "CBHD Pre-recorded Book rev. 0.90" and an "HD DVD and DVD Pre-recorded Book Rev 0.95".

http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/AACS_Spec_CBHD_Prerecorded_0.90_20081007.pdf

And if you read the final adopter agreement there are dozens of references to HD DVD (and BD); the CBHD agreement will be available in the "near future".

Bottom line please... will discs with this managed copy whatever on it play in my current Blu Ray player? And will my current collection play on any new player? What if I'm not interested in this feature in the first place. All I want to do is put a disc in and watch it! I'll catch up on my time preferably.

Jeff

I'd have to say that shot misses the mark. If you look at the specification page, there is a clear differentiation between HD DVD and CBHD.

http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/

For instance there is a "CBHD Pre-recorded Book rev. 0.90" and an "HD DVD and DVD Pre-recorded Book Rev 0.95".

http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/AACS_Spec_CBHD_Prerecorded_0.90_20081007.pdf

And if you read the final adopter agreement there are dozens of references to HD DVD (and BD); the CBHD agreement will be available in the "near future".

Mike:

It's a moot point. They don't make HD DVD's any more.;)

Bottom line please... will discs with this managed copy whatever on it play in my current Blu Ray player? And will my current collection play on any new player? What if I'm not interested in this feature in the first place. All I want to do is put a disc in and watch it! I'll catch up on my time preferably.

Jeff

No reason why they shouldn't.

Don't Bonus View equipped discs play in profile 1.0 players? And don't BD-Liive discs play in 1.0 and 1.1 players?

I don't know if this is even related to Managed Copy. Does this mean I will legally be able to copy 2 songs from my Heart Blu-Ray concert disc, 3 songs from the Moody Blues Blu-Ray, and intermix them so I can watch them in the order I want? I would like to be able to do this with all my concert BDs and form my own greatest hit.

This is now the 3rd time that a new BD SAL player is introduced with a new major feature that requires one to buy a new SAL player to take advantage of it (Bonus View, BD-Live and now Managed Copy). And BD is just 3 years old.

And we have 2 more major features waiting in the wings that will also require yet another SAL player to be purchased - Deep Color and 3D (if Panasonic has their way)

What? Buy a new BD player every year? :p

Are you also disgruntled that your HDTV isn't 1080p (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10759111&postcount=12)? But newer models are?

Or that your HDTV can't do 120/240 Hz (LCD)....600 Hz (Plasma)? But newer models do?

Or that your HDTV can't stream YouTube or Netflix? But newer models can?

And I am sure we have X more major features waiting in the wings that will also require yet another HDTV to be purchased - Deep Color and 3D (if Panasonic has their way).

What? Buy a new HDTV every year? :p

It's called consumer electronics - every year they typically release a new model that is "better" than the last model in some way. Usually the newer models are backwards compatible too. It is how they sustain the industry.

My first iPod couldn't play video. Now I have one that is a phone AND plays video. But my mp3's played the same on the old model up through to the new model. Imagine that.

The "threat" of new/evolving features didn't prevent you from buying a HDTV. Nor did it prevent you from buying a HD DVD player.

And judging by your sig...shouldn't you know all of this?

Or are you just singling out the evolution of bluray, while ignoring the fact that most other modern electronics have the same exact progression?:confused:

Are you also disgruntled that your HDTV isn't 1080p? But newer models are?

Or are you just singling out the evolution of bluray, while ignoring the fact that most other modern electronics have the same exact progression?:confused:
Evolution of a format is VERY different than evolution of rendering device. Imagine if ATSC format had been 720p first and then changed to 1080p last year. Do you think that would have been just fine?

The industry takes format creation very seriously. BD (and HD DVD) took four years of work on this front as to avoid changes. But when changes come, I think grumbling from consumers is normal and expected.

To wit, we should not have two-stepped AACS. Trying to justify that based on displays getting better doesn't work even though it gives me an excuse to hide behind just the same :).

I was convinced it would never happen, and was ready to bet money on it.
I guess I was wrong. Lets just see how inept the studios are though in implementing it.

Hey-maybe CE manufacturers will update their firmware's and add this feature? Its about time Sammy got off their duffs and fixed several disc playback issues on my 1400, so why not add MC.

One nice things about having the original discs and AnyDVD, is that when you lose a Terabyte drive full of ripped BD's, you just re-rip them!
Goodbye Hitachi, should have bought Seagate (usually buy Seegate drives).

I just snagged a new HD-XA2 (for backup) and will hook it up tonight and update to 4.0.
Of all my BD & HD-DVD players, I like the XA2 the best. Its build like a tank.

I cannot wait for the Dune HD Base 2.0 to be released for network playback of my backups.
It would be nice if they added HD-DVD backup playback support-though I'm not holding my breath.

Now to search for a good Region B BD player. Pesky region codes. Picked up CSI Season 8 from Amazon.de.

It had gone on so long with interim agreements I had become convinced they were at an impasse and there was NEVER going to be a final AACS agreement. Anybody know what finally broke that log jam?

- Tom

It had gone on so long with interim agreements I had become convinced they were at an impasse and there was NEVER going to be a final AACS agreement. Anybody know what finally broke that log jam?

- Tom
Yes we know. I think you meant to ask if anyone is willing to kiss and tell, and that won't be me :).

Evolution of a format is VERY different than evolution of rendering device. Imagine if ATSC format had been 720p first and then changed to 1080p last year. Do you think that would have been just fine?

My point was first generation devices in any industry will lack features of, say, a seventh generation device.

If every device had all of the features it would ever have on day one, no one would ever buy another model (pending breakage). It would be like the everlasting gobstopper of electronics.

If everyone waited to buy a device until XYZ features were implemented, the consumer electronics industry would have likely collapsed on itself by now.

The industry takes format creation very seriously. BD (and HD DVD) took four years of work on this front as to avoid changes. I am sure every product is taken seriously. But we can see that newer models of devices typically have newer features and/or other changes to improve upon the previous model. Even if some of those features were intended to have been implemented on day one (but weren't for whatever reason).

But when changes come, I think grumbling from consumers is normal and expected. Kind of like how the first gen xbox360 lacked an HDMI port...but now even the base model has one?

Usually the grumblings come from someone that has an older model and sees the newer model with newer/better features.

Not someone that never owned a model in the first place.

To wit, we should not have two-stepped AACS. Trying to justify that based on displays getting better doesn't work even though it gives me an excuse to hide behind just the same :).

I understand things could have probably been handled better/smoother, but I think it is a little unrealistic to expect a CE device to be so "future-proof" as to negate the new for the release of new models with new features, etc..

Should the formats have been delayed for the x% of people that desire "managed copy"?

I for one am sure glad they weren't.

Are you also disgruntled that your HDTV isn't 1080p (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10759111&postcount=12)? But newer models are?

At the time I purchased my HDTV (Jan. 2007) I had my mind set on a PDP. The only 1080P PDP at that time was a VERY expensive Pioneer 50". I am very happy with my HDTV.

Or that your HDTV can't do 120/240 Hz (LCD)....600 Hz (Plasma)? But newer models do? Those features don't interest me in the least. I want my film based content to look like film based content - not like Discovery HD Theater.

Or that your HDTV can't stream YouTube or Netflix? But newer models can?

I can buy either a BD player or a seperate STB that incorporates that those features for far less than buying a new 50" HDTV

And I am sure we have X more major features waiting in the wings that will also require yet another HDTV to be purchased - Deep Color and 3D (if Panasonic has their way).

What? Buy a new HDTV every year? :p

I am sure that many people on these forums do buy a new HDTV every year or a new BD player every year. So what about everyone else - the masses?

It's called consumer electronics - every year they typically release a new model that is "better" than the last model in some way. Usually the newer models are backwards compatible too. It is how they sustain the industry.

Sure - I understand what you are saying - except IMO MC is different. It has been in the works for 3 years. If the CEM's had wanted to they could have incorporated the "part" that would alow MC with a FW UP. But they didn't now did they?

My first iPod couldn't play video. Now I have one that is a phone AND plays video. But my mp3's played the same on the old model up through to the new model. Imagine that.

:cool:

The "threat" of new/evolving features didn't prevent you from buying a HDTV. Nor did it prevent you from buying a HD DVD player.

Nope - but then MC has no appeal to me. But I can't speak for others now can I?

And judging by your sig...shouldn't you know all of this?

Been there - done that! :p

Or are you just singling out the evolution of bluray, while ignoring the fact that most other modern electronics have the same exact progression?:confused:

Seeing as how you mentioned it first and be it far from me to get into a pissing contest with you - the facts of the matter are that BD has been late to the party on a number of features like PIP and Web Enable. Of course it was not enough to stop BD's advance. And the AACS has nothing to do with the BDA other than some of the BDA member companies are also members of the AACS.

It is IMO, the timing:

6/06 - 1.0 players appear.
10/07 - 1.1 players mandated (should have been sooner but the BDA stalled the date)
Q1/08 - 2.0 players appear in quanity
Q1/10 - MC goes into effect
Q2/10 MC capable BD player to appear

We love to compare BD to DVD. And my memory is telling me the only change to DVD players was the addition of the DTS audio format which was done early in the life of the format because DTS missed the boat when the final specs were laid down for CEM's to build DVD players - DTS wasn't ready.

I think (?) that the only major change they made to VHS was the addition of HQ processing.

Now . . .

It is best to stick to the subject at hand BT - Managed Copy - and stay away from personal comments aimed at me. Just a word to the wise.;)

My point was first generation devices in any industry will lack features of, say, a seventh generation device.
I think we are talking past each other. I don't have an issue with devices improving as long as I am not forced to buy a new one because the format changed along the way.
Should the formats have been delayed for the x% of people that desire "managed copy"?
The delay to get managed copy was probably 1-3 months at the start. The urgency of getting the formats out, provided incredible motivation for all parties to agree to something sooner. Once we let both sides ship, the process ground to a halt, taking three years to finish.
I for one am sure glad they weren't.
Well, I and many others who want to have libraries of our HD DVDs and BDs on a server are not with you :). I keep our discs downstairs in the theater and hate going down there to pick something to watch in the living room.

If we had managed copy working already, there wouldn't have been so many titles which are hard to copy and make work.

And just think how much more reliable and better both HD DVD and BD would have been, if there was another three months of bake time!

OTOH-Maybe now I can use this as an excuse to retire the Sammy 1400 and move on to a faster player.
I hate the several minute player load times. (Regardless of format)
What the heck are these players doing - loading/compiling java code?
"Hold on honey-the BD player is compiling the discs menu's and crappy BD+ security layer. Let's go ahead and eat diner and by the time we are done the disc should be ready to watch"

Three more months would have resulted in Fully baked formats?

At the time I purchased my HDTV (Jan. 2007) I had my mind set on a PDP. The only 1080P PDP at that time was a VERY expensive Pioneer 50". I am very happy with my HDTV.

Those features don't interest me in the least. I want my film based content to look like film based content - not like Discovery HD Theater.

I can buy either a BD player or a seperate STB that incorporates that those features for far less than buying a new 50" HDTV

So you proved my point that you most people don't always wait to buy a product until each and every feature has been implemented.

I am sure that many people on these forums do buy a new HDTV every year or a new BD player every year. So what about everyone else - the masses?

The masses will do what they have always done...wait to buy things until relatively late in the life cycle of a device (after the early adopters have beared the growing pains), and get a mountain of features that took years to get to.

Sure - I understand what you are saying - except IMO MC is different. It has been in the works for 3 years. If the CEM's had wanted to they could have incorporated the "part" that would alow MC with a FW UP. But they didn't now did they? Why didn't the first xbox 360 have an HDMI port? HDMI was already established - they could have incorporated the "part" that would allow HDMI out. But they didn't now did they?

Just like the Wii now comes out with Wii Motion Plus. An extra layer of sensitivity. They could have incorporated the "part" that would allow HDMI out. But they didn't now did they?

There are tons of products that have "new" features unveiled that could have been in place since day 1 but weren't.

For a variety of reason$ I am sure.

Nope - but then MC has no appeal to me. You seem pretty interested...

Seeing as how you mentioned it first and be it far from me to get into a pissing contest with you - the facts of the matter are that BD has been late to the party on a number of features like PIP and Web Enable. Of course it was not enough to stop BD's advance. And the AACS has nothing to do with the BDA other than some of the BDA member companies are also members of the AACS.

It is IMO, the timing:

6/06 - 1.0 players appear.
10/07 - 1.1 players mandated (should have been sooner but the BDA stalled the date)
Q1/08 - 2.0 players appear in quanity
Q1/10 - MC goes into effect
Q2/10 MC capable BD player to appear

We love to compare BD to DVD. And my memory is telling me the only change to DVD players was the addition of the DTS audio format which was done early in the life of the format because DTS missed the boat when the final specs were laid down for CEM's to build DVD players - DTS wasn't ready.

So just like my Xbox and Wii comparisons above, DTS probably should have been their since day 1 but wasn't. Could be for purely technical reasons, could have also been for $$ reasons.

The overall point is this "trend" of delaying/holding back features, for whatever reason(s), is not uncommon in the world of CE.

God Blu-ray is such a horrible format. This makes me furious. I read in there that you need a NEW PLAYER with ethernet connection (which most of them do have) to read your copy discs. You can make a copy via PC but the license keys that get tied to that copy (register with AACS server) will be a checkpoint for a BD player to play that copy.

I have 3 Blu-ray player now and I'm furious that I will have to buy new players for this, one of the reasons why I supported the other guys (HD DVD) as they had their stuff thought out and implemented to support from start. This is catastrophic really as it's not something like picture in picture extras on a disc. This is pretty much a big deal.

I want to make copies of my discs legally and in full quality and this plainly sucks.

I'm really ticked off right now.

I think we are talking past each other. I don't have an issue with devices improving as long as I am not forced to buy a new one because the format changed along the way.

So then I guess you have yet to buy a receiver capable of decoding the lossless audio codecs? That was a change that required people to buy a new model, right?

Unless of course they bought a player with analog outs.

The point remains that as things advance sometimes new HW will be required.

Bluray isn't the first product to do it and surely won't be the last.

I am pretty sure my iPhone 3G can record video (as the jailbreak community has already proven). But yet Apple is "reserving" that feature for the iPhone 3Gs. Why? They may say because the 3G iPhone is "too slow" to reliably record video - or they could just want people to buy their latest and greate$t iPhone.;)

The delay to get managed copy was probably 1-3 months at the start. The urgency of getting the formats out, provided incredible motivation for all parties to agree to something sooner. Once we let both sides ship, the process ground to a halt, taking three years to finish. Well, if managed copy was seem as being so significant it seems something would have been worked out. Since it wasn't, it seems as if the feature wasn't very high up on the list of priorities. especially if 1-3 months would have solved it.

Well, I and many others who want to have libraries of our HD DVDs and BDs on a server are not with you :). I keep our discs downstairs in the theater and hate going down there to pick something to watch in the living room.

If we had managed copy working already, there wouldn't have been so many titles which are hard to copy and make work.

And just think how much more reliable and better both HD DVD and BD would have been, if there was another three months of bake time!

I am all for more features. I would be interested in checking out managed copy.

But I also realize that to get access to them my HW may need to be updated. Either for technical reasons, or for the fact that company XYZ just wants to make more money.

It's happened before and will happen again. It's not the most consumer friendly practice, but to a certain extent it comes with the territory of "bleeding edge" CE.

God Blu-ray is such a horrible format. This makes me furious. I read in there that you need a NEW PLAYER with ethernet connection (which most of them do have) to read your copy discs. You can make a copy via PC but the license keys that get tied to that copy (register with AACS server) will be a checkpoint for a BD player to play that copy.

I have 3 Blu-ray player now and I'm furious that I will have to buy new players for this, one of the reasons why I supported the other guys (HD DVD) as they had their stuff thought out and implemented to support from start. This is catastrophic really as it's not something like picture in picture extras on a disc. This is pretty much a big deal.

I want to make copies of my discs legally and in full quality and this plainly sucks.

I'm really ticked off right now.

Can you point me to the HD DVD player that allowed you to make a managed copy "from start"? I must have missed that one.

And are you equally "ticked off" that you can't make a "legal copy" of your HD DVDs, since no HD DVD player implemented this feature either?:confused:

The point remains that as things advance sometimes new HW will be required.

Only if a huge shift in the industry is happening to a different standard. Like AVRs supporting HDMI or lossless audio (that was unavailable) or similar.

When you need new hardware every year to incorporate new features that means that it's a clusterf**k of a format or technology and is poorly thought out.

Not one product I bought in my past or recently had this crap going on.

And when I compare this to all the stuff that people were saying how Blu-ray is finalized and I bit in and bought new players this is absolutely unforgivable.


Sorry for rants - I'm just pissed off that I have to buy new players when I bought new players end of last year and beginning of this year.

So you proved my point that you most people don't always wait to buy a product until each and every feature has been implemented.

No - of course not - but I don't see where I "proved your point" because in the 3rd example I CAN buy an inexpensive STB that will allow me to stream NF. From Rokou.

On a lighter note - why in the world would anyone want YouTube? Cripes! It looks terrible on my 19" PC monitor!:D

The masses will do what they have always done...wait to buy things until relatively late in the life cycle of a device (after the early adopters have beared the growing pains), and get a mountain of features that took years to get to.

Oh - OK - so you do admit that this inclusion IS a case of "screwing over" the early adopter . . . once again.

Why didn't the first xbox 360 have an HDMI port? HDMI was already established - they could have incorporated the "part" that would allow HDMI out. But they didn't now did they?

That one does befuddle me. But they were able to use the VGA connection to pass high definition.

Just like the Wii now comes out with Wii Motion Plus. An extra layer of sensitivity. They could have incorporated the "part" that would allow HDMI out. But they didn't now did they?

Is that something you attach to a Wii or is that a whole new Wii?

There are tons of products that have "new" features unveiled that could have been in place since day 1 but weren't.

For a variety of reason$ I am sure.

Yes - could be money - and it could be an engineering roadblock like PIP was to BD - getting the SoC to work.

True - but we all know that having the legal ability (with the studios blessing) to copy an optical disc has been a desire for a long time. Long before HDM ever hit the media.

You seem pretty interested...

It is an interesting subject to discuss on the forums.

So just like my Xbox and Wii comparisons above, DTS probably should have been their since day 1 but wasn't. Could be for purely technical reasons, could have also been for $$ reasons.

Purely technical.

The overall point is this "trend" of delaying/holding back features, for whatever reason(s), is not uncommon in the world of CE.

True, but in the case of MC - we all want an answer to the question that peaks our interest - unfortunately said answer will probably never come about . . .

"What took so long?"

Can you point me to the HD DVD player that allowed you to make a managed copy "from start"? I must have missed that one.

And are you equally "ticked off" that you can't make a "legal copy" of your HD DVDs either, since no HD DVD player implemented this feature?

It was mandatory! You wouldn't need to buy new players. Stop being a blind defender please and let's discuss facts. It was just one of the great things HD DVD offered.

www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2005/051216a.html

"Previously, HP supported the Blu-ray Disc format exclusively. The company had requested the Blu-ray Disc Association adopt two customer-friendly technologies, Mandatory Managed Copy and iHD, which are already included in the HD-DVD format."

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/strange-but-true/legal-copying-of-hd-dvd-and-blu+ray-discs-huh-263313.php

"One studio said it's hoping this Managed Copy system will be in place for the 2007 holiday season. Meanwhile, the HD DVD Promotional Group added that ****Managed Copy will be backward compatible HD DVDs****, while it won't be on Blu-ray discs. No matter what, there will still be DRM slathered all over both formats."

http://www.blog.seanalexander.com/PermaLink,guid,6a55c911-1906-42e2-924f-8f43812fbe78.aspx (summarizing a MS/Intel announcement):

"Managed Copy – A First for DVDs: Managed Copy is a guaranteed feature within HD DVD that gives consumers the freedom to make copies of their discs to a hard drive or home server, including Media Center PCs, and enjoy them in every room of the house over their home networks. HD DVD discs also will allow copies of the movie to be played on portable devices."

www.hometheatermag.com/news/060107managedcopy/

"Managed copy is mandatory in HD DVD and optional in Blu-ray. That means the spec, when finalized, would work retroactively for all HD DVD discs in circulation. In Blu-ray the implementation would be more selective. In either case, whether (and how) the feature would actually be used would be decided by the studios on a title-by-title basis."

www.pcpro.co.uk/news/78287/intel-explains-hd-dvd-decision.html

"'The reason we provided support for HD-DVD is that basically it has committed to several features. Specifically, the mandatory managed copy,' said Donald McDonald, vice president and general manager of Intel's digital home group."

www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6899.cfm

"The HD-DVD camp has already committed to this feature in the upcoming format developed by Toshiba. "

Only if a huge shift in the industry is happening to a different standard. Like AVRs supporting HDMI or lossless audio (that was unavailable) or similar.

When you need new hardware every year to incorporate new features that means that it's a clusterf**k of a format or technology and is poorly thought out.

Not one product I bought in my past or recently had this crap going on.

And when I compare this to all the stuff that people were saying how Blu-ray is finalized and I bit in and bought new players this is absolutely unforgivable.

This just shows that HD DVD should've won and was a better format.. But brute force and money payoffs I guess was better to give us this clusterf**k of a format.



Sorry for rants - I'm just pissed off that I have to buy new players when I bought new players end of last year and beginning of this year.

But your HD DVD players don't do managed copy either. :confused:

Managed copy has been known about since the inception of both formats.

If such a feature was so desirable to you, maybe you should have waited until the feature was finalized. For BOTH formats...

It was mandatory! You wouldn't need to buy new players. Stop being a fanboy please. It was just one of the great things HD DVD offered.

It didn't offer anything since no HD DVD player allows for managed copy. If it was mandatory from day one - why weren't people using the feature in their HD DVD players??? Hmmmm....

deleted....

If such a feature was so desirable to you, maybe you should have waited until the feature was finalized. For BOTH formats...

It didn't offer anything since no HD DVD player allows for managed copy. If it was mandatory from day one - why weren't people using the feature in their HD DVD players??? Hmmmm....

AACS wasn't finalized which it wasn't the problem with HD DVD, but the point is that it was mandatory and because it was already implemented you wouldn't have to buy new hardware which i was really expecting from Blu-ray players too, especially since I bought the latest ones. What's so hard to understand?

It's what it means that a format is well thought out. I was aware I wasn't able to use managed copy earlier but it was a thing I was looking for and the fact that I have to buy new players now when I wouldn't have had to with HD DVD is what my point is.

But I guess you are unable to comprehend why I'm upset. I don't want to buy new hardware for a format every year.

Oh - OK - so you do admit that this inclusion IS a case of "screwing over" the early adopter . . . once again. Depending on your take of the CE industry...every product screwed over the early adopter, since every product was improved upon later.

I wonder if someone who bought a B&W TV the year before color TVs came out was p*ssed....

Is that something you attach to a Wii or is that a whole new Wii? It's an added remote attachment that could have very well likely been incorporated into the original remote.

True, but in the case of MC - we all want an answer to the question that peaks our interest - unfortunately said answer will probably never come about . . .

"What took so long?"
Similarly, if it was mandatory for HD DVD...why didn't they activate this feature on HD DVD players?

Wouldn't that have been a strong selling point over bluray?

"What took so long" indeed...

Depending on your take of the CE industry...every product screwed over the early adopter, since every product was improved upon later.

3 years into the format is not early adopter stage anymore. It's just unfinished format. And I can't remember any other hardware I bought that required me to buy new versions every year in order to use something that should have been working from the start.

3 years into the format is not early adopter stage anymore.

I think it is technically now "early majority"...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10169522-1.html

Still "early" though...

It's just unfinished format.
So, a "finished" format should never offer any new features then right? It should stay stagnant from day 1 of release until the technology dies? Is that your interpretation?

I sure hope you would have been equally upset had the HD A1 , for example, not been able to play those 51GB discs....

And I can't remember any other hardware I bought that required me to buy new versions every year in order to use something that should have been working from the start. Really? Cause you just mentioned one...

Only if a huge shift in the industry is happening to a different standard. Like AVRs supporting HDMI or lossless audio (that was unavailable) or similar.

Bozster:

Requirements Specification for HD DVD Video Application

5.12 Content Management

Starts Page 68

http://www.dvdforum.org/images/Requirements%20Specification%20for%20HD%20DVD%20Video%20Appl ication-July2005.pdf

Bozster:

Requirements Specification for HD DVD Video Application

5.12 Content Management

Starts Page 68

http://www.dvdforum.org/images/Requirements%20Specification%20for%20HD%20DVD%20Video%20Appl ication-July2005.pdf

I looked it over but I"m unsure that I understand it.

Care to tell me what you were highlighting? I saw that most of the stuff was already supported in those specs, even more then just playback it had seamless streaming and stuff.

Depending on your take of the CE industry...every product screwed over the early adopter, since every product was improved upon later.

Well that's one opinion.:p

I wonder if someone who bought a B&W TV the year before color TVs came out was p*ssed....

I strongly doubt it as the cost of the first RCA color TV? You could have bought a new compact car from Dodge instead.

It's an added remote attachment that could have very well likely been incorporated into the original remote.

Oh - so you don't have to buy a whole new Wll - just an add on. Like buying a wireless keyboard and mouse for a PC. Neither make your current "box" "obsolete" if that feature is desired now do they?

Similarly, if it was mandatory for HD DVD...why didn't they activate this feature on HD DVD players?

It was manadatory - I listed the link from the DVD Forum's website - the HD DVD Specifications of which MC was a requirement - the "hardware." All that was needed, like PIP, was a FW UP to activate it.

It was not activated because the AACS was not ready to make it available to consumers. Take it up with them - NOT the DVD Forum. They did their part.

Wouldn't that have been a strong selling point over bluray?

See above concerning the AACS. Nothing to do with the DVD Forum.

"What took so long" indeed...

We will probably never know.

I looked it over but I"m unsure that I understand it.

Care to tell me what you were highlighting?

That section that starts on page 68 deals with Content Management - notice that they keep mentioning COPYING.

Functional Requirements:

Provide machine-actionable access control of content and device resources for the purpose of authorized rendering, display, copying, and distribution of content.

Should stick with VHS or DVD then..

Wow what a great argument. So anyone who finds this attitude of buying new hardware every year, 3 years into format's existence, problematic and a ripoff, is whining?

Awesome!

That section that starts on page 68 deals with Content Management - notice that they keep mentioning COPYING.

Yeah.. I saw all those.. I was thinking you were linking to show that it wasn't. ;)

I know it was mandatory. It was one of the reasons why big name companies supported HD DVD. It was a great pro-consumer thing.

Now, we get that on Blu-ray which is OK, but the problem is that with every addition that is still catching up to HD DVD standards we have to buy new hardware.

If it was another PiP type of thing I wouldn't have cared but this is really a big deal for me and I bought all new BD-Live players because people and everyone was so sure that there would be no need to buy new hardware. That was it.

Now, we'll probably see next year something else they add where again you'll have to buy new players. I am simply going to stop buying everything Blu-ray and recommend to all my friends to do the same until they give an official notice that there won't be any BS like this anymore. Finish the damn format and then sell products!

Basically they keep screwing over consumers over and over again.

OBTW - Managed Copy is just one of 4 changes planned for BD. Here is an article that describes the other 3:

Final AACS Content Protection Specifications Include Managed Copy, Analog Sunset

The final version of the Advanced Access Content System license agreement for the DRM system used on Blu-ray Discs inlcude four basic features of AACS: Managed Copy, Digital Only Token, Audio Watermark and analog susnset.

All the above elements of the AACS copy protection scheme for the Blu-ray disc where not essential parts of the "interim" AACS licensing agreement, on which all the Blu-ray players were based until now.

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=25479

And we have 2 more major features waiting in the wings that will also require yet another SAL player to be purchased - Deep Color and 3D (if Panasonic has their way)When exactly did Panasonic state that Deep Color was going to be added to Blu-ray? The BDA made a task force on adding 3D capability to Blu-ray but I haven't heard anything from them about Deep Color.


What? Buy a new BD player every year?I bought the PS3 on launch day and have been enjoying Blu-ray movies since than. I remember that last year you said that you would wait (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=694139&postcount=63) and have you bought a Blu-ray player yet?


the facts of the matter are that BD has been late to the party on a number of features like PIP and Web Enable.Late to the party compared to what? HD DVD is dead so the only current video format I know of that supports those two features is Blu-ray. Also the fact that Blu-ray is alive is the very reason that it can now deal with the issues of 3D video capability and managed copy.


We love to compare BD to DVD. And my memory is telling me the only change to DVD players was the addition of the DTS audio format which was done early in the life of the format because DTS missed the boat when the final specs were laid down for CEM's to build DVD players - DTS wasn't ready.The DVD Forum announced this year that Sensio would be the official 3D video format for DVD (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16382930&postcount=41) which occured 13+ years after the first DVD player was released.

I know it was mandatory. It was one of the reasons why big name companies supported HD DVD. It was a great pro-consumer thing. Right...because we all know that HD DVD had more "big name" studio and CE support....wait...it didn't. In fact quite the opposite was true. Hmm.....

If it was another PiP type of thing I wouldn't have cared but this is really a big deal for me and I bought all new BD-Live players because people and everyone was so sure that there would be no need to buy new hardware. That was it. Um, who is "people and everyone"? :confused: If you knew about managed copy - why wouldn't you wait and see what developments took place when the agreement was actually finalized instead of buying so many players at the same time.

If you knew about the state of things (which you obviously DID)...seems you should have been a little more cautionary and not so influenced by "people and everyone".

If AACS wasn't even finalized, how can you expect any player to be 100% compatible? :confused: I don't care if it was "mandatory" or not - if a spec isn't even finalized how can you expect and existing product to meet that spec? Sure, a FW update could have probably enabled any changes - but how could we know for sure if AACS was just now finalized?

Now, we'll probably see next year something else they add where again you'll have to buy new players. I am simply going to stop buying everything Blu-ray and recommend to all my friends to do the same until they give an official notice that there won't be any BS like this anymore. Finish the damn format and then sell products!

Basically they keep screwing over consumers over and over again.

I understand why you feel the way you do, but you seriously seem like one of the most gullible/misinformed/unrealisitc consumers on this board.

If you expect any company to freely release their future product plans, I have a feeling you will be waiting a looooong time.

I mean, I am sure Apple would love to let all of their competitors know their next step...before they even officially take it. I am sure that will do them wonders!

I bought the PS3 on launch day and have been enjoying Blu-ray movies since than. I remember that last year you said that you would wait (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=694139&postcount=63) and have you bought a Blu-ray player yet? I can answer that for you.

He does not have a bluray player. Supposedly waiting for the Vizio...though that may be different now with all of the MC stuff....

Funny that people who dove face first into 1080i HD DVD players without DTS HD MA decoding now are sooooo picky when it comes to choosing a bluray player...

The DVD Forum announced this year that Sensio would be the official 3D video format for DVD (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16382930&postcount=41) which occured 13+ years after the first DVD player was released.
Good catch. But that...that doesn't count.;)

When exactly did Panasonic state that Deep Color was going to be added to Blu-ray? The BDA made a task force on adding 3D capability to Blu-ray but I haven't heard anything from them about Deep Color.

Deep Color is a feature that has been talked about for years now. It has nothing to do with Panasonic - you just misread (or I wasn't clear enough) what I wrote.

If it is every implemented - most of the BD SAL's can't handle it because their SoC is locked into 8 bits. Only now are SoC's becoming available than can handle both 10 bit and 12 bit Deep Color.

And as you know - there is nothing that says that Panasonic will be successful in their endeavors to sell their 3D system to the BDA. If Dolby wins - no new BD player required to have 3D.

I bought the PS3 on launch day and have been enjoying Blu-ray movies since than. I remember that last year you said that you would wait (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=694139&postcount=63) and have you bought a Blu-ray player yet?

The PS3 is an amazing CE product. It just goes to show how powerful and adaptable the Cell BE rerally is.

I am waiting for the Vizio BD player to be released. I like the features it has at the price I want to pay. And I like the "look" of it. All I care about is it's BD performance. My A2 does a bang up job upscaling my DVD's.

Late to the party compared to what? HD DVD is dead so the only current video format I know of that supports those two features is Blu-ray. Also the fact that Blu-ray is alive is the very reason that it can now deal with the issues of 3D video capability and managed copy.

True - HD DVD is dead. But we see that HD DVD was much further along in it's finality then BD ever was. All the changes that BD is going through (hardware wise) - PIP, Web Enable and Managed Copy - they were there from day one with HD DVD. Just a point - nothing more.

3D is something totally different. IMO - it is a brand new format. You and others may not agree with me. So be it.;)


The DVD Forum announced this year that Sensio would be the official 3D video format for DVD (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16382930&postcount=41) which occured 13+ years after the first DVD player was released.

Like I said above - 3D is a "new format." And I speak of the "new" 3D not the moldy old anaglyph 3D. And again - we do not know if a new BD player is required . . . . yet.

But speculating . . . .Panasonic is on the Steering Committee of the BDA and is a major patent holder in BD. Is Dolby?

So then I guess you have yet to buy a receiver capable of decoding the lossless audio codecs? That was a change that required people to buy a new model, right?
No. I can and still use a processor (D2) which does not handle any lossless formats since I do that decoding in the player.

Unless of course they bought a player with analog outs.
Or HDMI output.

The point remains that as things advance sometimes new HW will be required.
Everyone accepts "sometimes." When ATSC came about, we needed a new set. But from then on, we didn't have to keep buying new ones because they added surround sound, etc. Folks did all their arguing behind the scenes and then put out one format/standard.

The concept of a standard which keeps changing, completely invalides the whole concept behind a "standard."

Bluray isn't the first product to do it and surely won't be the last.
True. But that doesn't mean as consumers, we should defend such conduct. We have to take a stand that format changes are NOT good. There is no positive value for consumer. It simply indicates sloppy format making. Period.

I am pretty sure my iPhone 3G can record video (as the jailbreak community has already proven). But yet Apple is "reserving" that feature for the iPhone 3Gs. Why? They may say because the 3G iPhone is "too slow" to reliably record video - or they could just want people to buy their latest and greate$t iPhone.;)
There is no "format" in that equation. Again, you keep talking about device features as if they are the same as the format. They are not. Innovation is allowed in the device. But not in the format itself on the playback side.

Well, if managed copy was seem as being so significant it seems something would have been worked out. Since it wasn't, it seems as if the feature wasn't very high up on the list of priorities. especially if 1-3 months would have solved it.
Yup. You can't expect everyone to have the right vision. I remember many posters here saying that storage costs would remain so high as to leave no interest for anyone wanting to copy things. Fast forward just 3 years and we have 1.5TB drivers for $100 that can store 30 to 60 BD discs.

Those of us who came from computer industry understood these trends. Others didn't. Or didn't want to.

Yes we know. I think you meant to ask if anyone is willing to kiss and tell, and that won't be me :).

Amir -

You were on a roll filling up this thread with very interesting and useful comments.

And then you get to my question and have to stop. You are no fun at all. ;-)

- Tom (but it was worth a shot :D )

There is no "format" in that equation. Again, you keep talking about device features as if they are the same as the format. They are not. Innovation is allowed in the device. But not in the format itself on the playback side.

So you are actually telling me that innovation should not be allowed "in the format itself on the playback side"?

So I guess all work going towards improving VC1/AVC should be halted? I mean, how rigid is your above statement?

So you are actually telling me that innovation should not be allowed "in the format itself on the playback side"?

So I guess all work going towards improving VC1/AVC should be halted? I mean, how rigid is your above statement?

That is not what he is saying.

Go ahead and improve VC-1 and AVC all you want - up to the point that a new player is required to take advantage of the "improvement." Keep the improvements as FW UP's.

And there are people on other forums who do not see Managed Copy as an improvement - they see it as a change . . . for the worse.

So you are actually telling me that innovation should not be allowed "in the format itself on the playback side"?
Correct. Anything that breaks playback is a bad thing when it comes to standards.

So I guess all work going towards improving VC1/AVC should be halted? I mean, how rigid is your above statement?
My statement is VERY rigid. Both VC-1 and AVC are designed so that they can be imporved in a backward compatible way. That is why I used "playback" above. The encoder can keep changing but as long as the bits can be decoded, it is all goodness. But you better not cross the line of compatibility with existing players.

What if someone improved MPEG-2 and nothing showed up on HDTVs? Clearly there is not a person here who would defend that no matter what the improvement was. Consumer has certain expectation which should not be violated this way.

Of course, as technologists, we hate such a high bar. Standards by defintion, freeze innovation. That is the nature of the animal. The day we can have programmable devices that can do anything (the PC approximates this), then we don't need no stinking standard. :) Until then, when folks call something a "standard," it better match the real definition of it....

I don't get it, who cares if a standard player allows you to make a copy or not.

If you want to make a copy, stick it in your computer and burn a copy or download it to the hard drive.

But a regular Bluray player is designed to play the Bluray, like a DVD player is designed to play a DVD. Nothing has changed.

It was mandatory! You wouldn't need to buy new players.Note that mandatory managed copy had nothing to do with hardware and it was a software issue. The idea was that mandatory managed copy would require that the studios offer at least one managed copy on all the titles they release. Also note that the BDA agreed to mandatory managed copy back in 2005 (http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=60). Of course regardless of what the BDA and DVD Forum said it was the AACS that would make the rules for managed copy.


It was manadatory - I listed the link from the DVD Forum's website - the HD DVD Specifications of which MC was a requirement - the "hardware." All that was needed, like PIP, was a FW UP to activate it.The terms "copying" and "distribution of content" could refer to downloadable content such as bonus features. I don't see any evidence that the section was about managed copy and they don't even use the term "managed copy" in that section.


Deep Color is a feature that has been talked about for years now.When did the BDA say that they were going to add Deep Color to Blu-ray? I have never heard the BDA say anything like that so why do you think that Deep Color is going to be added to Blu-ray?


But speculating . . . .Panasonic is on the Steering Committee of the BDA and is a major patent holder in BD. Is Dolby?No, but there are 18 companies, including studios, on the BDA Board of Directors so it isn't clear at the moment which 3D method may be chosen.

It was manadatory - I listed the link from the DVD Forum's website - the HD DVD Specifications of which MC was a requirement - the "hardware." All that was needed, like PIP, was a FW UP to activate it.I doubt that managed copy was mandatory for HD DVD. If it was then it seems that the HD DVD releases should have had support for managed copy. Are you saying that they did, or that they would have had to at some point (in which case there should have been a date)?

--Darin

Amir, do the HD DVD specs require that stand alone HD DVD players be capable of making managed copies?

Amir, do the HD DVD specs require that stand alone HD DVD players be capable of making managed copies?Not to speak for Amir, but without hard drives or ways to get the stuff off I don't think the answer could be "Yes". But in a related question, did HD DVD specs require that HD DVD video releases (including those with AACS protection) support managed copy from day one, as long as somebody made a player that could deal with AACS? If so, why didn't Microsoft enable managed copy for HD DVD to help the format?

--Darin

When did the BDA say that they were going to add Deep Color to Blu-ray? I have never heard the BDA say anything like that so why do you think that Deep Color is going to be added to Blu-ray?

The BDA has not said they will add Deep Color to BD. As you know it is not in the specs. The feature exists. It can be added to BD if the BDA so chooses. In fact all that is missing is the content. We now have BD players that are DC compliant - we have HDMI 1.3 to carry the signal, and we have HDTV's that can both receive the signal and process and display it.

No, but there are 18 companies, including studios, on the BDA Board of Directors so it isn't clear at the moment which 3D method may be chosen.

If you were a betting man - which company would you bet on?

Amir, do the HD DVD specs require that stand alone HD DVD players be capable of making managed copies?
No. Per my earlier post, you need something more than a player to make copies.

I suspect the confusion in this regard comes from the article talking about managed copy menu option on disc. Not sure why that is stated as that is not my idea of how it would work. Why would every disc need to have such an option? What if a user on a current player selects it? The player would need to have some code to at least error out gracefully.

If you were a betting man - which company would you bet on?I don't even know how many different 3D methods are being considered by the BDA. If the choice though was just between the Dolby method and Panasonic method my guess would be the Dolby method.


Amir, do the HD DVD specs require that stand alone HD DVD players be capable of making managed copies?No. Per my earlier post, you need something more than a player to make copies.Amir, thank you for clearing up this issue.

I don't even know how many different 3D methods are being considered by the BDA. If the choice though was just between the Dolby method and Panasonic method my guess would be the Dolby method.

Have you seen this?

Will James Cameron's upcoming fantasy epic Avatar be the first Panasonic 3D Blu-ray?

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blogs/team+hcc/will+james+camerons+upcoming+fantasy+epic+avatar+be+first+pa nasonic+3d+blu+ray+03+03+

Have you seen this?I have never seen that article (http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blogs/team+hcc/will+james+camerons+upcoming+fantasy+epic+avatar+be+first+pa nasonic+3d+blu+ray+03+03+[/) before. It would not change my guess though since I doubt that James Cameron would actively oppose Avatar from being released using the Dolby method and the article itself is rather speculative.

How did managed copy finally get implemented? Does it ever rely on any sort of phone-home DRM for the copy that would cease to play without ongoing online servers or DRM updates?

- Tom

It needs to phone home to get permission to make the copy in the first place, but in general once the copy is made no more phoning is required to play that copy.

So how would this work?

AFAIK - you place the disc in a non MC compatible BD player. It is missing the menu selection that tells the BD player to contact the AACS server. How are you going to make a legal copy when there is no choice to do so?

If there is no disc menu, then you would use the menu from the copying product -- i.e. a manufacturer menu (similar to one where you would setup the player itself).


There are selections to change the resolution when ordering a copy from AACS?

Manufacturers can implement transcoding in whatever fashion they like, there is no special permission required from AACS, though it is possible for the content owners to charge different amounts based on the resolution of the copy.

While I am typing this, let me thank Richard for his tireless work over the last 4 years trying to making all of this happen (and then some) in AACS. I went to maybe 4-6 meetings at the start. I think he must have gone to next 400 to 600 :). Managed copy almost didn't make it but through his and effort and that of select few, it finally came to fruition. I am sure he has countless scars to show for it :).

Thanks, I think.

Having chewed on this for a while now I think every thing about this is going in the wrong direction. We should be forcing the studios to drop all this madness like what happened with music. Standing around cheering while your rights are trampled is just plain wrong. Americans are exempted from that statement as they have no rights.

For me having to loose even more rights by switching operating systems in order to do this just isn't worth it. As pointed out earlier there are other methods for making copies that aren't as problematic as this. For me every thing about this is useless.

I'm happy to hear that managed copy is finally read to roll! :)

A few questions to Richard/Amir:

(1) Do you think it's likely that European owners of imported USA Blu-Rays will be able to use managed copy?

(2) Just to make sure: Is there technically any way for the studios to prevent managed copy implementations to do a perfect 1:1 copy? I mean do studios have control over the copy quality?

(3) Do you have any estimation on expected cost for the first copy?

(4) Is allowing managed copies from rented discs (for a fee, of course!) part of the plan?

(5) Have studios thought about offering some kind of "managed copy through download" (of course with 1:1 quality)?

(6) Are prices going to be kind of similar world wide? I hate it how we Europeans sometimes (not always) have to pay SO much more for the same thing compared to you US guys...

(7) Have the studios been forced to do this against their will? Or are they kind of enthusiastic about the possibilities? I'm asking because that will probably play a big part in how well this all will work...

Thanks!!

Richard will have more authoritative answers as my data my be stale. I will take a shot just in case he doesn't.
(1) Do you think it's likely that European owners of imported USA Blu-Rays will be able to use managed copy?
I don't know. It will easy for them to perform the check (and just as easy to get around it :p) for them to do this.
(2) Just to make sure: Is there technically any way for the studios to prevent managed copy implementations to do a perfect 1:1 copy? I mean do studios have control over the copy quality?
They do not. And indeed, the primary use is to make 1:1 copy.

(3) Do you have any estimation on expected cost for the first copy?
I have heard everything from "free" to "make it so expensive so that no one will use it."

(4) Is allowing managed copies from rented discs (for a fee, of course!) part of the plan?
Richard can confirm but there is a way to exclude rental discs. Not doing so would have derailed the whole idea. How this occurs given the First Sale doctrine, I don't know.

(5) Have studios thought about offering some kind of "managed copy through download" (of course with 1:1 quality)?
I have not heard of a 1:1 offer. But yes, some people did talk about why we need managed copy if we could allow the user to download a copy.

(6) Are prices going to be kind of similar world wide? I hate it how we Europeans sometimes (not always) have to pay SO much more for the same thing compared to you US guys...
Unfortunately, there is nothing in AACS that talks about pricing. It is totally up to each content owner to set such prices. Hopefully competition will force reasonableness.

(7) Have the studios been forced to do this against their will? Or are they kind of enthusiastic about the possibilities? I'm asking because that will probably play a big part in how well this all will work...

Thanks!!
I would say some are very much in favor of it. Some are not.

Thanks Amir!

I have not heard of a 1:1 offer. But yes, some people did talk about why we need managed copy if we could allow the user to download a copy.
Maybe we should all forget about downloading. I mean, when offering download copies, the studios would have an interest in keeping file sizes low (to ease server load). I like it better if studios don't have any real motivation for *not* using full 50GB per movie.

Even 4 years after the discussions about MC, it doesn't seem likely that MC will be a widely used feature.

Aside from HTPC hobbyists, how many people are going to bother setting up servers with movies which approach 50 GB each? And lets face it, many of those who do are doing so because they're getting digital copies illegally.

Main reason to keep BD around is that it offers much higher bitrates than digital files from iTunes or any other likely digital stream or download, using the same codecs that any download/streaming/cable/satellite service is likely to use in the foreseeable future.

(Other thing is, those download/streaming service will be "on-demand" only for the latest hits. They won't keep back catalog online. Look at how Comcast OnDemand works. Will they always keep all seasons of The Sopranos online? Will they keep all seasons of all series or just the most popular ones?)

Even 4 years after the discussions about MC, it doesn't seem likely that MC will be a widely used feature.
From what I read, interested in unmanaged copies is way beyond anything even I predicted. Threads on this topic are almost always in the top few in the home theater PC section of this site. So if anything, we understimated the demand for the feature. No doubt, the super low cost of storage has something to do with it.
Aside from HTPC hobbyists, how many people are going to bother setting up servers with movies which approach 50 GB each? And lets face it, many of those who do are doing so because they're getting digital copies illegally.
I do not agree. Again, read up on the above threads. It is all about people with their own discs they want to put in a libary. If they want to steal bits, they wouldn't post here.

Also, the number of feature request for K seems to be BD support.

(Other thing is, those download/streaming service will be "on-demand" only for the latest hits. They won't keep back catalog online. Look at how Comcast OnDemand works. Will they always keep all seasons of The Sopranos online? Will they keep all seasons of all series or just the most popular ones?)
Comcast is not represenative of the type of archives we will see on-line as they have different dynamics. Indeed, the main benefit of internet on-demand would be to have much larger library than in a physical store.

It is all about people with their own discs they want to put in a libary.
Yep, there are some really nice content management systems out there which create gorgeous menus for all the movies you own. Browsing through your movie library with a great looking menu structure, which also makes trailers, posters, IMDB ratings etc available is really attractive. I would suppose that a good managed copy implementation will also offer this. I hope that studios see the benefit of such a system and thus provide posters and trailers on *every* Blu-Ray disc. Currently only some Blu-Rays even come with the movie's own trailer, sadly...

Ideally, it would be nice if there was a special directory on every Blu-Ray disc where art and trailers were stored with a standardized naming system, so that a managed copy implementation could automatically pull art and trailers from there for automatic integration into the movie library. But I guess nobody has thought of anything like that? :(

Also add if you drop the non important stuff from the avarage release, the movie will take alot less then 50gb storage.

It would be even more nice if they could implement that you rent a BD, and can buy the movie for an additional fee, with this system.

From what I read, interested in unmanaged copies is way beyond anything even I predicted. Threads on this topic are almost always in the top few in the home theater PC section of this site. So if anything, we understimated the demand for the feature. No doubt, the super low cost of storage has something to do with it.

I do not agree. Again, read up on the above threads. It is all about people with their own discs they want to put in a libary. If they want to steal bits, they wouldn't post here.


Exactly. I paid for my BDs, so I should be able to legally store them in hard drive arrays.

You're right, with the low cost of hard drive storage these days, this has become quite feasible. In an ideal situation, the discs that sit on my shelves would be mere backups.

I do not agree. Again, read up on the above threads. It is all about people with their own discs they want to put in a libary. If they want to steal bits, they wouldn't post here.

Also, the number of feature request for K seems to be BD support.

Well it should be possible to estimate the number of torrents of ripped BDs vs. actual sales of BDs right? And of those BD sales, which percentage are actually trying to copy and put movies on an HTPC.

Comcast is not represenative of the type of archives we will see on-line as they have different dynamics. Indeed, the main benefit of internet on-demand would be to have much larger library than in a physical store.

I hope you're right but really, the comparison should not be to a local store but to something like Netflix.

Even if Netflix got the rights to stream everything, would they put everything online and get rid of their physical inventory?

Forget the storage demands, can they afford the bandwidth?

Exactly. I paid for my BDs, so I should be able to legally store them in hard drive arrays.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998

Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying2 of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the
second.

This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

Page 4

Well it should be possible to estimate the number of torrents of ripped BDs vs. actual sales of BDs right? And of those BD sales, which percentage are actually trying to copy and put movies on an HTPC.
I was not trying to address the level of piracy. I don't know what that number is. My point was the people who are interested in making copies of discs, obviously don't fall in that category. If they can get a copy on the net, they obviously are not interested in any type of disc copying.

On your last question, one simply needs to visit the slysoft forum and that HTPC here to see that the interest is quite high, and it is not coming from anyone wanting to get bits from a Torrent. They are people like me who want to make a library of their movies and own the discs.

Even if Netflix got the rights to stream everything, would they put everything online and get rid of their physical inventory?
I can't disclose why but Netflix will never get all the movies as long as they offer it as part of subscription service.

Forget the storage demands, can they afford the bandwidth?
Netflix has not disclosed the economics but somehow, they have managed to pay for all that bandwidth without charging people one cent. And their business keeps growing. Their net income grew 45% in Q4 for example.

Bandwidth is another thing that has been getting cheaper as of late....

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998



http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

Page 4

I'm well aware of the legal restrictions in place. My point was simply about what I deem is right.

But, I do respect the law. Therefore, you won't see me using AnyDVD with my currently owned discs. :/

For Richard Doherty

As I understand it the studios will vote on mandatory managed copy. If true, what happens to AACS if the studios reject mandatory managed copy? Could voluntary use of managed copy be implemented by studios wishing to do so?

For Richard Doherty

As I understand it the studios will vote on mandatory managed copy. If true, what happens to AACS if the studios reject mandatory managed copy? Could voluntary use of managed copy be implemented by studios wishing to do so?
If I may answer for Richard :), that is not how the process works.

AACS has three studios on its board (Disney, Sony and Warner), all of whom have approved this provision.

The other studios have a choice:

1. Use AACS to publish BD content in which case, they must obey its obligations including managed copy just like people making players.

2. Don't use AACS and hence, no more titles in BD.

Does this answer your question?

Netflix has not disclosed the economics but somehow, they have managed to pay for all that bandwidth without charging people one cent. And their business keeps growing. Their net income grew 45% in Q4 for example.

Bandwidth is another thing that has been getting cheaper as of late....

Bandwidth may be getting cheaper but i suspect many people are with internet providers which limit your bandwidth. I am with Zen internet in the UK and i am limited to 25 gigabyte a month. Not much and not enough for lots of high quality movie downloads per month.

Of course thats the UK and maybe in America the infrastructure is better and can support downloading but i have serious doubts about that and i think it's a good five or more years away before the situation improves.

I am really interested in 3D in the home and would prefer the Panasonic system as the Dolby does not actually do 3D at full resolution.

Would 3D require a brand new player and also a projector capable of 120hz or more ?

Bandwidth may be getting cheaper but i suspect many people are with internet providers which limit your bandwidth. I am with Zen internet in the UK and i am limited to 25 gigabyte a month. Not much and not enough for lots of high quality movie downloads per month.

Of course thats the UK and maybe in America the infrastructure is better and can support downloading but i have serious doubts about that and i think it's a good five or more years away before the situation improves.

I am really interested in 3D in the home and would prefer the Panasonic system as the Dolby does not actually do 3D at full resolution.

Would 3D require a brand new player and also a projector capable of 120hz or more ?

Not just in the UK. Hell, I live in Canada and we have quotas too. Unlimited plans went the way of the dodo a couple of year back.

We are digressing from the topic of managed copy :). If there is no more questions on MC front, we can certainly dig into these issues although I am not sure we will be saying something that has not been argued to death before :).

We are digressing from the topic of managed copy :). If there is no more questions on MC front, we can certainly dig into these issues although I am not sure we will be saying something that has not been argued to death before :).

I'm only interested in a type of copy that is managed by Joe Torre. He's the kind of person who can set things straight.

My comment was a bit off-topic, but I doubt anyone has ever made that argument before. Let's discuss. :p

Does this answer your question?Yes, thanks.

Now another for For Richard Doherty

The AACS web site News or Press sections have not been updated in two years. Are you aware of this. One would think there would be some mention of the latest developments on the official web site.

At any rate, thanks for posting here.

Bandwidth may be getting cheaper but i suspect many people are with internet providers which limit your bandwidth. I am with Zen internet in the UK and i am limited to 25 gigabyte a month. Not much and not enough for lots of high quality movie downloads per month.

:eek: . . . . I have Comcast IP and they have a 250GB/mo. cap

Of course thats the UK and maybe in America the infrastructure is better and can support downloading but i have serious doubts about that and i think it's a good five or more years away before the situation improves.

Each IP provider is setting their own caps here in the USA.

I am really interested in 3D in the home and would prefer the Panasonic system as the Dolby does not actually do 3D at full resolution.

Would 3D require a brand new player and also a projector capable of 120hz or more ?

If Panasonic wins and gets their 3D system accepted as the standard for 3D on BD by the BDA - then yes you will need a new BD player.

And it appears (not sure) that you will need a 3D ready display (PJ. PDP, RPTV, etc.) that has HDMI 1.4 and 120 Hz refresh rate (minimum).

If I may answer for Richard :), that is not how the process works.

AACS has three studios on its board (Disney, Sony and Warner), all of whom have approved this provision.

The other studios have a choice:

1. Use AACS to publish BD content in which case, they must obey its obligations including managed copy just like people making players.

2. Don't use AACS and hence, no more titles in BD.

Does this answer your question?

Amir,

Can studios opt to release titles under the old interim license?
Regardless, it does not matter, since a dissenting studio could simply derail the concept by offering a mandatory copy at such a high price that nobody would pay this price, effectively neutering the idea.
This is what happens when things are left vague and unfinished.

Can studios opt to release titles under the old interim license?No, which is probably why it took so long to finish the AACS final adopter agreement. That is why Amir said that either they have to follow the rules about managed copy or they have to stop releasing content protected with AACS.


Regardless, it does not matter, since a dissenting studio could simply derail the concept by offering a mandatory copy at such a high price that nobody would pay this price, effectively neutering the idea.Note that managed copy was discussed at length back in 2005 and a few people, including me, asked about this. I believe that Amir said something along the lines that if some of the major studios offered the first managed copy for free, or a small fee, that it would put pressure on the other major studios to do the same.

All dissapointment with new hardware requirments for Blu-ray players to use MC, to me managed copy is in essence, as it is, only acceptable for free.

It should be convenience to a consumer to be able to backup and protect their purchase not to monetize once more on the same thing. That's just unacceptable.

All dissapointment with new hardware requirments for Blu-ray players to use MC, to me managed copy is in essence as it is only acceptable for free.

What if the fee was somewheres between $1 and $2?

It should be convenience to a consumer to be able to backup and protect their purchase not to monetize once more on the same thing. That's just unacceptable.

But the content providers didn't want that. And they got their wish with the new copyright act passed and written into law in 1998.

And though it is a tangent to the subject of this thread - it still applies because MC was just one of 4 changes coming. The studios are successful in their effort to get rid of the analog HD connections (RGB and Component)

What if the fee was somewheres between $1 and $2?


I could live with a $1 or $2.. I mean I guess I could justify that by them incurring costs of the server and the infrastructure and so on. But any more then that would be them really making money which I don't want to support. Managed Copy is something that we needed from the DVD days especially with the Digital Millennium Act and was in essence totally anti-consumer thing and hurts the most those who legally buy content.

This was the reason why I was looking forward to HD DVD and Managed Copy support. It was a positive way of thinking allowing us, who bought the content, to back it up without risk of damaging our original discs. We pay for the license for the movie and it's only natural that we want to be able to protect that one thing we paid for.

As I noted above, if it's $1 to $2, I don't have a problem. I understand that some infrastructure costs money in order to provide this service but anything beyond that would be really ripping consumer off one more time for the same thing we already paid for. It should be our full right to backup the purchase. Not to mention the fact that we are unable to do this legal only grows hacking/pirate market because like anyone else I have to use software that will hack, circumvent or otherwise disable protection in order to legally backup content he/she bought, not to mention the fact that I want easy solution to transfer my Blu-ray content into NAS devices and be able to play them on different devices since with advancement in technology digital media servers are really not so rare these days.

What if the fee was somewheres between $1 and $2?
Personally, I think that is even too low. Look, for people who have a big server and (want to) store their movies on it, you could use the managed copy and then resell the physical disc on Ebay. Sure, when reselling it, you have to say that the first managed copy was already used. But many people will not mind, so you can sell for a really small money loss. Practically, if managed copy was for free, you could build up a big movie library for almost free. That is too good to be true, I think, so I have a hard time believing it will play out this way in the long run. But let's wait and see. I sure wouldn't mind being able to get legal movie copies for almost free... :)

Originally Posted by qz3fwd
Can studios opt to release titles under the old interim license?
No, which is probably why it took so long to finish the AACS final adopter agreement. That is why Amir said that either they have to follow the rules about managed copy or they have to stop releasing content protected with AACS.Actually, there is a "final content participant agreement" as part of the June 5th posting. But there is also an "Interim Content Provider Agreement" also "revised June 5th. It says "this document will be replaced with the final AACS Content Provider Agreement in the near future."

Maybe insiders can shed light as to what that Interim Content Provider agreement is all about.

IThis was the reason why I was looking forward to HD DVD and Managed Copy support. It was a positive way of thinking allowing us, who bought the content, to back it up without risk of damaging our original discs. We pay for the license for the movie and it's only natural that we want to be able to protect that one thing we paid for.I thought if it differently. I see Managed Copy as a Kaleidescape-like (http://www.kaleidescape.com/)whole house A/V system, at a small fraction of the price. Like a lot of people have found with audio, fumbling with plastic discs gets tiresome.

I remember many posters here saying that storage costs would remain so high as to leave no interest for anyone wanting to copy things. Fast forward just 3 years and we have 1.5TB drivers for $100 that can store 30 to 60 BD discs.Will will off the shelf external HDDs be allowed for MC storage on PCs/Macs/CE devices, or will there be some approval/logo process for use with AACS media?

What is HDEX? It is mentioned in the final Prerecorded Video Book (file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/mmorel/My%20Documents/AACS_Spec_Prerecorded_Final_0.95.pdf):

Format Specific Application

Refers to an application type specific to a format supported by this
specification (i.e., HDEX or BD-J).

The interim Prerecorded Video Book appears to refer to something else.

Raw drive mechanisms may be cheap but the people who will build their own media servers is a small percentage of the overall market of people who buy discs.

They really need an affordable off-the-shelf solution, nothing niche like Kaleida. Maybe player with say 1 TB of storage and a nice front-end for copying BD over to the hard drive and the ability to add more storage easily.

Otherwise, it remains in the realm of the niche. Will never get as widespread as people building up digital audio libraries.

All dissapointment with new hardware requirments for Blu-ray players to use MC, to me managed copy is in essence, as it is, only acceptable for free.

It should be convenience to a consumer to be able to backup and protect their purchase not to monetize once more on the same thing. That's just unacceptable.How is this in any way Blu-ray's fault as you keep on harping on about? It's the AACS LA, a separate organization.

Actually, there is a "final content participant agreement" as part of the June 5th posting. But there is also an "Interim Content Provider Agreement" also "revised June 5th. It says "this document will be replaced with the final AACS Content Provider Agreement in the near future."

Maybe insiders can shed light as to what that Interim Content Provider agreement is all about.

There are two documents for Content Licensees -- the Content Participant Agreement, and the Content Provider Agreement. Signing the Content Participant Agreement costs more (higher fees), but gives additional rights and protections. There is no difference in the Managed Copy requirement in the two agreements.

The different release dates of the two agreements is not significant, they are just being worked on in series.

Yes, thanks.

Now another for For Richard Doherty

The AACS web site News or Press sections have not been updated in two years. Are you aware of this. One would think there would be some mention of the latest developments on the official web site.

At any rate, thanks for posting here.

It's coming in the near future.

For Richard Doherty

As I understand it the studios will vote on mandatory managed copy. If true, what happens to AACS if the studios reject mandatory managed copy? Could voluntary use of managed copy be implemented by studios wishing to do so?

In order to use AACS, titles will be required to obey the managed copy requirements on the license agreement. Currently, AACS is required by the Blu-ray disc format license on all titles. These issues have already been agreed by their relative organizations, there is no future "vote" scheduled that I am aware of (though I am not an insider of the BDA).

There are, arguably, some ways an individual studio could avoid complying with the obligation:

1) They could price the MC price high. Note that the agreement forbids setting the price prohibitively high. Additionally, I personally believe that market price pressures will prevent any one studio from pricing wildly different than other studios who may charge reasonable prices.

2) They can leverage one of the limited exceptions in the agreements, which relate to the studio's rights to offer a digital copy.

3) They can simply breach the agreement, in which case they would be subject to damages listed in the agreement.

Will will off the shelf external HDDs be allowed for MC storage on PCs/Macs/CE devices, or will there be some approval/logo process for use with AACS media?
AACS would approve a copy protection system, not its specific components. It is perfectly fine for such a system to use of-the-shelf hard disks as long as it provides a means to stop copying such content from it.

Unfortunately, as soon as you apply copy protection to the bits, you limit how the file can be distributed around the home or on other devices as the industry lacks a standard on this front.

So I would say the first instance of this would be a black-box/CE device than an open PC platform as the latter is hard to make secure and compatible with other devices.

Does the owner have to retain the physical copy to validate the soft copy from time to time?

Can't help but wonder if this will increase the likelihood of a BD Add-on for the 360.

Is this DRM feature the one that will (or could) do what was feared from the outset - disable (lockup) any BD player that is found playing an unauthorized copy and requiring the offending player be sent to an authorized facility to be unlocked (for a fee of course)?

Is this DRM feature the one that will (or could) do what was feared from the outset - disable (lockup) any BD player that is found playing an unauthorized copy and requiring the offending player be sent to an authorized facility to be unlocked (for a fee of course)?

I think they updated that so that the player just explodes, in hopes the shards injure your illegal copy loving family members.

(Sony) Bluray is so evil.:rolleyes:

I can understand the basis for your suspicions (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13155461&postcount=50)...let me know when they start shutting down players, mmmK?

Does the owner have to retain the physical copy to validate the soft copy from time to time?
No unless the proposed copy protection for the target somehow involves that feature (doubtful).

To expand, AACS doesn't stipulate how the managed copy protection works. It only approves how well it should work.

Can't help but wonder if this will increase the likelihood of a BD Add-on for the 360.
It woudn't :).

Is this DRM feature the one that will (or could) do what was feared from the outset - disable (lockup) any BD player that is found playing an unauthorized copy and requiring the offending player be sent to an authorized facility to be unlocked (for a fee of course)?
One has to remember that the CE companies are not out to do more than the minimum required to comply with AACS license. They are in the business to make money after all :).

To that end, if there is no feature to stipulate what you state, then there is nothing to worry about. There is incredible liability for companies to disable their products in the field without due notice to consumer to say nothing of damaged reputation. So such fears are unfounded. :)

Having said this, there used to be additional requirement for screening illegal content being played on AACS compliant players. Perhaps Richard can comment on whether those provisions exist in this final agreement.

So how does MC work, it's going to decrypt and you're re-encoding and the resulting file has a DRM wrapper or you're getting the actual encode on the disc?

Amir or Richard,

What sort of DRM (if any) is applied to the 1:1 copy?

Can I take that copy, put that on the home media server and further make another copy in lower resolution for portable usage or is there DRM in place on the 1:1 copy preventing such?

What playback limitations will be imposed on the 1:1 copy?

Thanks.

So how does MC work, it's going to decrypt and you're re-encoding and the resulting file has a DRM wrapper or you're getting the actual encode on the disc?
Here is the process at high level:

1. Get authorization to make the managed copy.

2. Decrypt AACS just like you would to play the content (and persumably BD+).

3. Re-encrypt the content using the target copy protection system. This system would have to be approved in advance by AACS. AACS does not stipulate how this new system works. The only thing they care is that it does as much as AACS does (e.g. analog output control).

So yes, in this scenario, you are getting the exact same encoding as exists on disc. You are simply swapping out AACS(plus BD+ if it exists) for another copy protection and storing the bits on hard disk.

Optionally, you can choose to re-encode the content but AACS doesn't mandate that one way or the other.

Amir or Richard,

What sort of DRM (if any) is applied to the 1:1 copy?

Can I take that copy, put that on the home media server and further make another copy in lower resolution for portable usage or is there DRM in place on the 1:1 copy preventing such?
That is a good question. I don't know the answer :).

What playback limitations will be imposed on the 1:1 copy?
Same as AACS. For example, same restriction on analog control. At least this is the way it was when I was involved. Richard can confirm.

Would the mandatory copy retain all the interactivity and be a true 1:1 copy, or will it just be a DRM'ed transport/program stream for playback on authorized players.

Couldnt existing players with an ethernet port or usb easily add playback support with a firmware update? (Assuming they have the processing power and the DRM wrapper is compatible, and the CE companies dont just want to sell you a new device) Heck the CE companies could charge a nominal fee to add MC playback over the net/usb.

Interesting...I wonder, how are they going to serialize each disc in such a way that they are all uniquely identifiable? While I am no means an expert on the BD manufacturing process, if it is similar to how CDs are produced it seems that the serial number would have to be "burned" on the disc in some post-production manner after the master is "stamped" on the disc. I suppose this must not add a substantial cost to the production process, else they would not be doing it (or just passing the cost on to the people using the feature...?).

I would also guess the facility to "phone home" would supply the disc's identifer to the licensing server and then the server would discern whether a previous managed copy for that disc was performed and/or if that disc was sold to a rental agency. The server then replies with whatever the rules are regarding how that disc may be copied (fees/etc) and the player presents the results. I would further assume there is some digital signage in the protocol so the player can determine it has received a response from the licensing server (rather than, oh say, a local server just spitting out "ok to copy/no fees/no restrictions" answers for everything....).

Further, if the licensing servers are keeping track of the unique id's and all the copies made...what happens if I buy a disc, copy it, and my copy is destroyed (hard drive crash/corruption/whatever)? Can I make another? At what cost? I suppose that's up to the studio too, and me to "prove" that I no longer have a copy because it was destroyed....

Finally, what if I buy a disc second-hand from a rental agency, will they have the infrastructure in place to remove that disc's id from the set of "disallowed for copying" ids? Or do I buy any second hand disc under the assumption that, even though I now legally own it, I may not be able to copy it? This, of course, applies to other second hand discs whose first copy has been made already. Sort of puts the second-hand BD stock at a "questionable" level for anyone looking for a slightly cheaper managed copy library.

Meh...the whole thing seems sort of crappy and made more for the protection of the content owners than for the consumers. Not that I am surprised. Even so, I suppose it is nice for companies like K-scape and those that can afford their prices. I figure most will stick with the other already available, less restrictive, "less legal" (I suppose, illegal -- but...) copying "solutions". That is, unless much cheaper alternatives come out than the K...but I do not see many other companies offering anything like the K for DVDs, why do it for BDs, if there was such a big market would there not already be real competitors for the K? Is that because DVDs are "illegal" to copy, and now with "managed copy" more merchants can venture into these waters (for BD) without fearing legal ramifications (which I assume is the only reason there is not more "legit" solutions like the K for DVD)?

Meh...a lot of stuff in this post, I guess I shall shush up now... Interested in the insight of anyone who isn't asleep by now :).

So Managed Copies would have been free under HD-DVD too?

Interesting...I wonder, how are they going to serialize each disc in such a way that they are all uniquely identifiable? While I am no means an expert on the BD manufacturing process, if it is similar to how CDs are produced it seems that the serial number would have to be "burned" on the disc in some post-production manner after the master is "stamped" on the disc. I suppose this must not add a substantial cost to the production process, else they would not be doing it (or just passing the cost on to the people using the feature...?).

I would also guess the facility to "phone home" would supply the disc's identifer to the licensing server and then the server would discern whether a previous managed copy for that disc was performed and/or if that disc was sold to a rental agency. The server then replies with whatever the rules are regarding how that disc may be copied (fees/etc) and the player presents the results. I would further assume there is some digital signage in the protocol so the player can determine it has received a response from the licensing server (rather than, oh say, a local server just spitting out "ok to copy/no fees/no restrictions" answers for everything....).

Further, if the licensing servers are keeping track of the unique id's and all the copies made...what happens if I buy a disc, copy it, and my copy is destroyed (hard drive crash/corruption/whatever)? Can I make another? At what cost? I suppose that's up to the studio too, and me to "prove" that I no longer have a copy because it was destroyed....

Finally, what if I buy a disc second-hand from a rental agency, will they have the infrastructure in place to remove that disc's id from the set of "disallowed for copying" ids? Or do I buy any second hand disc under the assumption that, even though I now legally own it, I may not be able to copy it? This, of course, applies to other second hand discs whose first copy has been made already. Sort of puts the second-hand BD stock at a "questionable" level for anyone looking for a slightly cheaper managed copy library.

Meh...the whole thing seems sort of crappy and made more for the protection of the content owners than for the consumers. Not that I am surprised. Even so, I suppose it is nice for companies like K-scape and those that can afford their prices. I figure most will stick with the other already available, less restrictive, "less legal" (I suppose, illegal -- but...) copying "solutions". That is, unless much cheaper alternatives come out than the K...but I do not see many other companies offering anything like the K for DVDs, why do it for BDs, if there was such a big market would there not already be real competitors for the K? Is that because DVDs are "illegal" to copy, and now with "managed copy" more merchants can venture into these waters (for BD) without fearing legal ramifications (which I assume is the only reason there is not more "legit" solutions like the K for DVD)?

Meh...a lot of stuff in this post, I guess I shall shush up now... Interested in the insight of anyone who isn't asleep by now :).

This may provide some answers to your questions:

An illistration of how AACS works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AACS_dataflow.svg

Volume IDs

Volume IDs are unique identifiers or serial numbers that are stored on pre-recorded discs with special hardware. They cannot be duplicated on consumers' recordable media. The point of this is to prevent simple bit-by-bit copies, since the Volume ID is required (though not sufficient) for decoding content. On Blu-ray discs, the Volume ID is stored in the BD-ROM Mark.[3]

To read the Volume ID, a cryptographic certificate (the Private Host Key) signed by the AACS LA is required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System#Volume_IDs

Would the mandatory copy retain all the interactivity and be a true 1:1 copy, or will it just be a DRM'ed transport/program stream for playback on authorized players.
Unless something has changed, you can take the parts you want.

Couldnt existing players with an ethernet port or usb easily add playback support with a firmware update? (Assuming they have the processing power and the DRM wrapper is compatible, and the CE companies dont just want to sell you a new device)
Sure.

Heck the CE companies could charge a nominal fee to add MC playback over the net/usb.
I suspect they much like selling you a new device than enhance the old...

Off topic posts removed. Further format war posts will result in being banned from the thread. I like to call it "Managed Posting."

Amir.. since I respect your opinions here as well as your experience directly from within Microsoft I would like to ask for your opinion. Now when you reflect on everything and see also where everything is (including this Managed Copy) what are you thoughts on how far away are we from true home digital convergence of all of our devices and content?

Let's say that Managed Copy does work and we get to kind of get our all legally bought content into digital files format, do you think we are closer to having digital utopia where we can transfer legally all of our content to media server to be able to stream HD stuff to every part of our home without use of discs at all.

Do you think that this Managed Copy will allows us to do that or not? I know you are not involved as much but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I'm really hoping that this will resolved. I've been trying to simply backup all of my Blu-ray and similar content to hard drives and my NAS devices and have them be accessible to PS3, Xbox 360s (have 3 of them in the house) or basically even new Blu-ray players (that would support this managed copy thing). It is really my hope that I will be able to simply distribute all of my content throughout my house (as long as I have device that can network or supports the standard). Is Managed Copy (AACS) standard something that would allow us to get closer to this dream? And what are you thoughts on DECE. I have not heard a single thing about that and it was really discussed in the news briefly. Is that effort a no go?

Are we close to this? I mean legally. Cause using some software that is supposed to remove protections and then try to encode into 5 different formats is something that's definitely not painless and I'm really not happy to do.

Would Xbox 360 for example even support this Managed Copy thing, or even any other Microsoft product like (Windows Media Center with compatible devices)?


Thanks.

Digital utopia is networked media distribution?

Hmm, you can get that on a long-haul flight, but the screen was at best 10-inches or so.

Wasn't exactly utopia. Just made the flight more tolerable.

This may provide some answers to your questions:

An illistration of how AACS works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AACS_dataflow.svg

Volume IDs



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System#Volume_IDs

Is the volume ID unique per title or unique per disc? I thought it was the former. After a bit of research, I have mostly "reconvinced" myself it is, indeed, the former. I'd post the research, but most comes from "hacking" sites that I'm not sure are appropriate to post here.

Is the volume ID unique per title or unique per disc? I thought it was the former. After a bit of research, I have mostly "reconvinced" myself it is, indeed, the former. I'd post the research, but most comes from "hacking" sites that I'm not sure are appropriate to post here.
I can't speak for BD with authority but seem to recall DVD/HD DVD used BCA (Burst Cutting Area) for serialization. Searching, it seems that the same is true of BD but with different technique. Here is a patent application by Sony: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090022044

I can't speak for BD with authority but seem to recall DVD/HD DVD used BCA (Burst Cutting Area) for serialization. Searching, it seems that the same is true of BD but with different technique. Here is a patent application by Sony: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090022044
Seems the BCA area can either be stamped on or lasered on afterwards. I presume they must use the latter if they want to be able to store serial numbers on the discs, as a stamping would certainly not allow for uniqueness.

It seems for DVD this was never really employed because of the production costs. I suppose they are going to force factories to "suck it up" for BD discs to support managed copy. I wonder if they are outfitted for it yet.

It seems for DVD this was never really employed because of the production costs. I suppose they are going to force factories to "suck it up" for BD discs to support managed copy. I wonder if they are outfitted for it yet.
The cost estimate was "a few cents" when I last checked last year per disc.

Note that since managed copy is mandatory with the new license, if they do not serialize the discs, it only hurts them in not being able to ID the disc and detect fraud.

2) They can leverage one of the limited exceptions in the agreements, which relate to the studio's rights to offer a digital copy.I take this to mean that if a studio includes a digital copy of a BD title then they are not obligated to have “Managed Copy” for that title. Is this correct?

*snip*
Note that since managed copy is mandatory with the new license, if they do not serialize the discs, it only hurts them in not being able to ID the disc and detect fraud.
Yes, I realize that.... Do you think they will also devote blocks of serial numbers to rental outfits and use that to "blacklist" rental discs from being copyable?

I wonder what the biggest "piracy" concern is for the studios. I think copying rented discs must be high on the list. I bet there are a many people with a large copied disc collection garnered from Netflix. I would guess this is something the studios want to combat with managed copy.

Blu-ray's Managed Copy explained, a Movie Jukebox is possible

How to pay
At this point we don't expect many, if any, of these copies to be free. We're not exactly sure how this will work, but envision it'll be something like most online media stores. You'll go to a web site and enter your credit card information, then when you're ready to pay for a copy, you'll simply put in your user name and password and it will use the card on file. Hopefully they'll find an easier way to this than to try and enter a user name and password with a remote, just like many of the BD Live accounts are configured, but we'll have to wait and see. For the studios who don't want to procure their own online transaction server, the AACS-LA is in the process of ensuring a default server (safety net server) is available.

As to when discs might start supporting this -- the agreement went live about a week ago and as soon as a studios sign it, it can start making discs that will support Managed Copy even though the hardware isn't out yet. When the mandate goes into effect early next year every disc will support Managed Copy, but until then there will be a logo on the box so that you can tell which discs support it and which don't.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/06/19/blu-rays-managed-copy-explained-a-movie-jukebox-is-possible/

Interesting...I wonder, how are they going to serialize each disc in such a way that they are all uniquely identifiable? While I am no means an expert on the BD manufacturing process, if it is similar to how CDs are produced it seems that the serial number would have to be "burned" on the disc in some post-production manner after the master is "stamped" on the disc. I suppose this must not add a substantial cost to the production process, else they would not be doing it (or just passing the cost on to the people using the feature...?).

I would also guess the facility to "phone home" would supply the disc's identifer to the licensing server and then the server would discern whether a previous managed copy for that disc was performed and/or if that disc was sold to a rental agency. The server then replies with whatever the rules are regarding how that disc may be copied (fees/etc) and the player presents the results. I would further assume there is some digital signage in the protocol so the player can determine it has received a response from the licensing server (rather than, oh say, a local server just spitting out "ok to copy/no fees/no restrictions" answers for everything....).

Further, if the licensing servers are keeping track of the unique id's and all the copies made...what happens if I buy a disc, copy it, and my copy is destroyed (hard drive crash/corruption/whatever)? Can I make another? At what cost? I suppose that's up to the studio too, and me to "prove" that I no longer have a copy because it was destroyed....

Finally, what if I buy a disc second-hand from a rental agency, will they have the infrastructure in place to remove that disc's id from the set of "disallowed for copying" ids? Or do I buy any second hand disc under the assumption that, even though I now legally own it, I may not be able to copy it? This, of course, applies to other second hand discs whose first copy has been made already. Sort of puts the second-hand BD stock at a "questionable" level for anyone looking for a slightly cheaper managed copy library.

Meh...the whole thing seems sort of crappy and made more for the protection of the content owners than for the consumers. Not that I am surprised. Even so, I suppose it is nice for companies like K-scape and those that can afford their prices. I figure most will stick with the other already available, less restrictive, "less legal" (I suppose, illegal -- but...) copying "solutions". That is, unless much cheaper alternatives come out than the K...but I do not see many other companies offering anything like the K for DVDs, why do it for BDs, if there was such a big market would there not already be real competitors for the K? Is that because DVDs are "illegal" to copy, and now with "managed copy" more merchants can venture into these waters (for BD) without fearing legal ramifications (which I assume is the only reason there is not more "legit" solutions like the K for DVD)?

Meh...a lot of stuff in this post, I guess I shall shush up now... Interested in the insight of anyone who isn't asleep by now :).

This also could be done in the packaging or on an serial number sticker, just like Microsoft Windows operating system or Office sticker. It does not have to be serialized on the actual physical shiny disc.

Also a unique serial number key can be produced when a disc is inserted into a device using the feature.