Walmart Entertainment’s Disc-to-Digital Service Powered by VUDU - Page 3

I was trying to make a point that you will never get as good quality of video and audio streaming from any of the on-line services compared to disk based content. With every internet service provider throtling bandwidth and employing their network management systems, you will never get a high resolution audio or video. The more people pay for these streaming services to watch "MOVIES" the less people are going to care about high quality sound and video. Sad really. I don't think many people realize the value of disk based high def content and how it can make a person view their content in a different way.

Sitcoms are crap audio and video anyways, so they can stream those all day long in my opinion. Most sitcoms are nothing but talking and 60hz NTSC video, so who cares. This is why I will pay HULU for my sitcom needs.

For me Vudu is about convienence. I still have 1200+ BD/HD DVD ISOs on my servers to watch with excellent HD audio and HD video quality. But I don't need every title in BD quality. Sometimes Vudu is the cheapest option as well as the quickest when I have a title I want to watch. If I wait to get the rental, then I might not be in the mood to watch it so it sits around and I return it unwatched because I was only in the mood to watch it that day.

I feel the same way. VUDU isn't my primary movie outlet, but sometimes I want to watch something right away, or Redbox doesn't have it (or only has the DVD, like J. Edgar.) Or I'm in the mood for something and Redbox's weekly offerings don't cut it for me (like this week's.) Forget about Blockbuster or the mom and pop stores. They're all virtually gone. Netflix... eh, they have their upside and downside.

Plus, the 99 cent daily movie is now under Redbox's prices. Sure, it's not always something I want to watch, but they're diverse enough that something interesting comes around.

That is the entire point: As a consumer I shouldn't need a studio to be party to me format shifting or transcoding my copy.

The entire point is the DMCA is now a tool for Studios and Walmart to now line their pockets 'again'.

Why do you keep bringing up 'infringing uses'? Not sure where you are pulling that from given the posts in this thread. I certainly haven't mentioned a use that infringes copyright


What is up with the 'infringing use' straw man you keep bringing up? Even in your own example you wouldn't be in court over breach of license or contract. It would be a Copyright offense. Not that it has one iota to do with what is being discussed.


Unauthorized is just a term to sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt by a copyright holder. It holds no water. Under Copyright, Fair Use, and Doctrine of First Sale there is no 'Unauthorized.

To give an example: The reason why selling your DVD on the used market is "unauthorized" is you failed to give notice to the studios that you are selling your copy.

See how that works? You don't need, nor are required, to seek the studios permission to format shift or transcode content. That copy of the movie is YOUR copy. Not a studios. Pixar/Disney doesn't own my copy of 'The Incredibles' any more than they own my house, my car, or my stereo system.


I am purchasing a copy of a movie that is granted specificity in the social and commercial framework that is Copyright. I am granted usage under the law. I have not entered into a license with Sony/Fox/TW etc. There is no Jurisdiction clause, there is no mediation clause, there is no contractual remedy clause, there is no implied warranty clause. There is none of that.

I'm a software developer. I am well aware of how this works. Even have taken two companies to court over Copyright infringement to the tune of $62K in attorney fees. Note to companies: if you are going to take the license we sell you and install it at other locations: Don't have them calling us up for technical support


The analogy stands on the face that I am purchasing "Pepsi". The can is just a necessary evil. If Pepsi Co. could save the cost of the can and beam their product directly to my gullet they would.

I purchased a movie. The shiny plastic disc is just a delivery mechanism. I purchased something that I can watch format shifted and transcoded.

This is a consumer issue. It's a mess. If I decide to pick up an cloud storage with a provider that has a big fat pipe like Single Hope or BroHost to store my media on the cloud. IMO I shouldn't have to grease palms that I have already.

Not saying that this is a bad service. I am saying that suing other providers that didn't include you in an additional revenue stream outside of the one you already have bears some legal scrutiny.

Again, it seems to be a semantics issue. The "license" to a DVD/CD/book/whatever is when you buy a copy, you're given the unlimited license to view the work. The unauthorized part is when you copy it without notifying the copyright holder. It's not a gotcha that will land you in legal hot water or fearmongering. It is what it is, and defining things like that the right way is an important part of establishing what you can and cannot do, and would go a long way into enabling Joe Average to understand these legalities. You can copy copyrighted stuff for your personal use as much as you wish. The licensing legal part only kicks in when you start to distribute it.

You can call it "violation of copyright" if you want. I know software uses a specific EULA in regards to copying, but copyright serves the same purpose.

As for streaming/cloud/ultraviolet, your Pepsi analogy does not hold up:


Yes, but you're not entitled to get that Pepsi beamed to your gullet for free just because you bought a can of Pepsi in the past. Pepsi would certainly charge you for the privilege, just as the studios would.

And Pepsi is a consumable. Once you've drank it and peed it out, it's gone. The DVD and the stream both stick around for as long as you use it. You've bought more than one can of Pepsi in your life, right?

In my case, I think I will have some of my DVD's converted to VUDU's HDX format.....However, one needs to be aware that not all titles are available, only what is available on VUDU can be converted....I.E. you won't find Star Wars or Jurassic Park, etc.....Also, films like the Lord of the Rings trilogy(theatrical and extended versions) are in SD only....So you have to see what is on VUDU before you trot down to your friendly, neighborhood Walmart....

Another must for me is the ability to download my purchased films to my NAS....If this happens, THEN it will be the ultimate service, IMO....I do not wish to view films on anything other than my scope HT system, movies have too much artistic value to view on a tiny screen.....

Supposedly this will be possible with Ultraviolet too....One can download their films to local storage, but still have them available in the cloud to download again if there is an issue with your storage......

Can you provide me any case law that backs up your position? I don't think you are correct.

Even that FBI warning at the beginning of a movie is for 'un-authorized' usage as it relates to copyright. It is a copyright notice. Not a EULA that I entered into with a studio.


1. The jury is still out on making a non-infringing copy as it regards to circumvention of DRM.

2. WHY do you keep bringing up these straw men arguments about 'distribution'?


We have the protections of copyright regardless of if we made the user click through acceptance of a EULA. The customer has fair use in the boundaries of copyright regardless of what our EULA says. See how it works now? Copyright supersedes us as a company or the end user.



Your comprehension of what I typed is falling short. I'm not going try explaining again. What I said is in English even.


What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China? If you can't separate the fact that the can or the shiny plastic disc is simply a delivery mechanism and that the content is the ACTUAL product then we can't have a rational conversation. It doesn't matter if the content is a one shot deal or not.

Thanks for the insult instead of addressing my issue. It appears you're unwilling to conduct this conversation as an adult, which also explains a lot of your misunderstanding of this issue.

Welcome to my ignore list. I don't waste my time with people like you. And no, it's not that I can't answer your questions (though in your mind you'll rationalize that it is), it's that you're unable to continue this conversation without ad hominem attacks. Bye.

I'd actually wait until someone else has done the upgrade. In reading the press releases, some have interpreted the upgrade to only be their "HD" quality, i.e., 720p. Someone emailed VUDU and they seemed to confirm it, though we don't know if that person knew for sure.

On the VUDU forums they mentioned that is was HDX. Of course if a title is only available in HD or SD, then there would be no way to get an HDX version.


http://forum.vudu.com/showthread.php?t=82421

You're the one that doesn't want to address the fact that you are buying content, not a shiny plastic disc.

Unfortunately I always feel I am wasting my time with people like you.

Yea, that sounds reasonable. In the DVD forum, they were wondering which it would be. HD only (as opposed to HDX) would be a deal breaker for a lot of people.

I would wager that you have purchased a physical disc that includes a license to view the content it contains in a home setting. Most movie disc that I have viewed exclude commercial use (public viewing). Sell or transfer the ownership of that disc and you no longer have a right to the content on that disc.

Below is an excerpt from one of the first license that popped up in Google search:


As I see it UV is the managed copy that was talked about for Blu-ray. From the outset it was known the studios could charge a fee for managed copy. Does not matter to me because it is unlikely any of the UV titles will have bit rates that average 30 mbps and above + lossless 7.1 audio. Have had that for sometime now with Blu-ray titles.

The bulk of my purchases are as you described. The covenant is still one of copyright. Not an explicit license agreement between me and a Studio.

Look, if people want to harp on the fact that copyright infringement is not theft then I can reasonably argue that I am not in an explicit license agreement with a studio on my DVD's. My uses are legal since I use inside the confines of copyright, fair use, first sale.

BTW I have purchased public use licenses (that was an explicit agreement). $600 a pop.

I still haven't mentioned a single use that falls outside of the home/personal viewing setting.

The part that should be upsetting just about anyone is the presumption that I need the permission of a studio to store my copy in a Cloud somewhere. When comparing what Wal.mart is doing vs K-Scape and Real Networks.

That two companies were sued and one company was not. That the only real difference is in one case Studios have money going into their pockets AGAIN. That this stifles a truly competitive free market system (which is all corporations can talk about until it doesn't serve their interest any longer). That I somehow need Papal dispensation to put my copy of The Incredibles on my own private cloud, for my own personal viewing.

The entire notion is absurd.

Look, we both know that illegal copying of all kinds is rampant and on a worldwide basics. That is the real concern of the studios. IMO, if you want to rip your own disc for your personal use that is your business. But we both know folks rip rented, borrowed, purchased (then sold) disc which is not OK.

As a point of reference Kaleidescape has been in litigation > 7 years and the matter is still not settled. So I doubt we will settle anything in a thread, on a BBS somewhere on the internet .

I can see some enterprising kid making hundreds of clear, temporary stick-on rings for the center of the disc. Walmart will stamp it and the disc owner will remove the stick-on ring

Agreed. And Wa.lmart could technically do what they are doing w/o the Studios being in the revenue stream. The works would be protected the same either way. It is market fixing. Plain and simple.

So it is NOT about R cubed. It is not about purchasing a DVD, ripping it and then selling it.

It is about abuse of a copyright system. It is about suing companies for doing what is close to be effectively the same thing but since the Studios aren't making a buck (where they have no real business making one anyways)...

Only a few are seeing the bigger picture here. Do you think there is going to be a truly free market competitive service to this?

No they can not. Vudu is a member of UV therefore most likely will follow the UV rules. If the studios expand this project to include Best Buy (UV member) I bet the same conditions will apply.

I wish the studios would/would have converted all my LaserDisc, DVDs and D-Theater tapes to Blu-ray for $10.00

LOL. You do not get it... Studios have green lighted this because they are paid off.

So you are telling me that I could start a service that utilized an exact protection scheme like UV, exclude the studios in the money stream, and as a company I will be left alone?

If you don't see the issue with having to beg for a studio's permission to exercise fair use/copyright/first sale doctrine then I don't know what to tell you. Are the studios going to go after every cloud service out there that someone could upload their movies to?

I'm not arguing that there isn't use and utility to what Walm.art is doing. I am debating the entire notion that I need the nod of Studio execs to do so. That is a serious problem because the copy of the DVD I purchased is my copy. Not theirs. If I distribute it, If I put on a public performance of it, then there are remedies for them.

I was thinking the same thing when I first heard this. On new electronics you usually have all of that sticky clear plastic covering borders and LCD displays and such, peel that stuff off and cut out some rings. Bingo.

Of course that is a lot of work just to have to still pay more money to get a digital version.

I don't see this service being popular enough to lead someone to take such measures.

You are confused, this is not a Walmart initiative, this is a UV initiative. If UV views this operation a success then I fully expect UV to expand this operation to Best Buy because they (BB) are a member of UV. You do not seem to grasp the whole concept UV. Love it or hate it, it is what it is. Want to play, you have to pay.

I suggest you go to the UV site and read the TOS. As I said earlier, I'm not affected by this because I have no interest in UV.

Forgot to add, don't bother showing up with your Disney disc because they are not a UV member therefore none of their titles can be converted to UV titles. Same with iTunes titles.

Do you believe that UV is the only legal way for you to copy your DVD/BR title?

I grasp what UV is:

That's my whole point. You shouldn't have to join the mob protection racket to run a legitimate cloud. Again I am not debating utility. I am debating the gangster like approach.

Why would I enter into a TOS for something that doesn't need to be bound by it for my legitimate use.

And I also disagree that if I want to play I have to pay. With something like Verizons 25/25 FIOS service you can just roll your own. Because 2.5MB / second transfer rate is WAY more than you need for streaming.

As a side note: How is Walma.rt going to over the years pay for the bandwidth for $2?

I could see an enterprising group just take a single DVD in and when they go to bed queue up the movie and let it play. Is it going to operate like an insurance plan?

There still seems to be a lot of misconception in this thread that Walmart will rip your DVDs and Blu-rays and convert them to a digital file for you. That's not the case at all. Walmart doesn't "convert" anything to anything.

Disc-to-Digital is a simple rebate program. If you prove ownership of a movie on a disc format, the studio is offering a discount on another copy of that movie in a new format - the new format being internet streaming. This is a separate product from the DVD/Blu-ray. If you want that new format, you have to pay for it. You do not have any special entitlment to receive a new copy of the movie just because you own an old copy. They will give you a discount, however.

In the marketing world we call that 'spin'. I posted this earlier but what the underlying tenant that is going to be presented at some point when the DCMA exemptions come around for their period scrutiny by the L.O.C is that the Studios are going to roll out that that blanket exemption from the DCMA for non-infringing use not be allowed. They made it fly once when movies where still available on VHS. But that ship has done sailed. So they need a new 'boat'. Guess what that is?

This is part of the the next play on behalf of the studios. Again I don't have a problem with the utility that is being provided. It is a problem however when big industry tries to paint it as they are 'allowing' people to do something that they aren't perfectly entitled to already.

All you have to do is think 5 years down the line where this is going. The main question being: Did I purchase content or did I purchase delivery media?

BTW format is not equal to delivery mechanism. Format is resolution, aspect ratio, A/V bit rate, even extras and enhanced packaging. I actually enjoy buying discs initially sold to the rental markets due to the potential that it doesn't have all the other stuff on it which I generally find of dubious value.

Not so sure about that:


http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/walm...gital-service/

It appears some type of exclusivity is involved.

In the real world, we call it a big fat "Duh!"


This is a definition that exists only in your own mind.

Your understanding is a bit misguided.

Format certainly isn't a digital download or DVD... It's funny when you buy a stack of DVD blanks you 'Format' them and then place data on them.

To actually believe that same byte size / bit rate / encoding 16:9 movie with DTS-HD encoding is one format on DVD/BR, another format if streamed, another format if delivered on a USB key (Spiderman and few other movies where delivered this way). It's good for a chuckle I guess. Couple that with the fact that taking this mistaken understanding and as a Studio trying to parlay this into some form of 'Redemption' just to have the same exact content stored in another way... If people actually believe that then they deserve the fleecing they receive for not having a real understanding of what it going on.

Well Walmart certainly has exclusive rights to Vudu. That article makes the same mistake many others have made. There is no converting of DVD or Blu-ray disc to the Vudu format.

If Best Buy should become involved in this process I feel certain it would be the CinemaNow (RoxioNow) format.