Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Media Movies Piracy

Goodbye, HD Component Video 469

glogger writes "Jim Willcox, the video expert at Consumer Reports, bids farewell to our ability to get high-definition video via the analog component-video connections on Blu-ray players. Thanks to Hollywood pirate-paranoia, potentially millions of law-abiding viewers will have their choices restricted. Quoting: 'Hollywood studios now have the right to insert an ICT "flag" into a Blu-ray movie; if it detects that a player is using an analog connection that doesn't support HDCP, it downconverts the video's 1080p (1920 by 1080) native resolution to 960 by 540 (540p): better than DVD quality but only about one-quarter of full HD quality. This ensures that high-def video is available only through the copy-protected HDMI outputs.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Goodbye, HD Component Video

Comments Filter:
  • Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anrego ( 830717 ) * on Friday February 18, 2011 @04:16PM (#35247774)

    So... this prevents someone copying a BD disk with a VCR? Or a TV capture card?

    I’m actually confused here. Do people actually copy digital media this way any more? What does this prevent?

    This kind of sounds like something that has been in the works for a while and is now irrelevant (now that AACS has been dealt with), but the guy’s at the top are two stupid (or afraid of getting fired) to stop it.

  • by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt@nerdfl[ ]com ['at.' in gap]> on Friday February 18, 2011 @04:26PM (#35247906) Journal

    They are doing this supposedly doing this to stop piracy.

    I'd be willing to bet, however, that it's to force people to buy newer televisions with an HDMI input.

    And of course it's only going to be effective at controlling unauthorized copying as long as AACS doesn't get cracked. Oh, wait....

  • Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pentium100 ( 1240090 ) on Friday February 18, 2011 @04:26PM (#35247916)

    It does not. They lower the resolution, but if you record to (S)VHS you will get an even lower resolution (especially with VHS) so there is no difference. SVHS records about the same resolution as DVD, so there is no problem with the downscaled video.

    This move is stupid - HDCP was completely broken, devices like HDFury are available. So, again, the only people who will have problems are the honest paying customers who have an older TV. Some of them will now learn about ripping, TPB and HDFury type devices.

  • by c0d3g33k ( 102699 ) on Friday February 18, 2011 @04:27PM (#35247924)

    Until they fix the "give me a good reason to buy it" hole, their vision of a world of perfect DRM won't be quite as wonderfully lucrative as they imagine it to be. To date, I've neither purchased nor pirated any Blu-Ray media. This measure doesn't change that situation one bit. Won't pirate it, won't buy it. Hope that fortune you spent on DRM was worth it.

  • by c0d3g33k ( 102699 ) on Friday February 18, 2011 @04:31PM (#35247988)

    The next step is probably obligatory DRM, so your collection of ripped movies won't play on your home entertainment system any longer. Only licensed stuff allowed.

  • by AtomicDevice ( 926814 ) on Friday February 18, 2011 @04:32PM (#35247994)

    How is this going to make me *less* likely to pirate?

    My choices are:
    By a blu-ray - do I have the right player? Will it down-convert to less-than-advertized quality? will it cost way too much? who knows (except for costing too much, that I know is a yes)?

    Pirate it for free at a good quality, I don't have to leave my house and new releases are ready to watch in an hour tops. Also I now have just a regular old video file that I can do anything with that I want.

    Why studios haven't caught onto this is a mystery to me. Seems like piracy would be dead in the water if ALL movies were offered as unprotected files for a low cost at high speed. If anyone could download any movie ever made at 1meg/s for 1 or 2 bucks with no DRM BS why even bother playing the bittorrent roulette? would some people still do it? probably. Would most law abiding citizens happliy pay rental-prices-or-less to just buy the movie they want? probably. Could they stop wasting their time and money on anti-customer schemes and start worrying about making movies? probably.

  • Re:Confused (Score:1, Insightful)

    by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Friday February 18, 2011 @04:33PM (#35248010) Homepage Journal

    So... this prevents someone copying a BD disk with a VCR? Or a TV capture card?

    I'm actually confused here. Do people actually copy digital media this way any more? What does this prevent?

    The only experience I've had with actual "piracy" is from my kids' friends, who don't know or care about "digital rights" or their "management". I'm very picky -- I obtained every movie and .mp3 file I have legally, because as a content generator (computer programmer) I kinda like getting paid. My kids' friends... not so much.

    There was one particularly memorable experience, when my daughter's friend brought over her DVD of the "Freaky Friday" remake... the weekend after it opened in theaters. Her mom got it at the local flea market.

    It was an obvious bootleg, and darn near unwatchable (even if you liked the movie). It really did look like it was the result of a guy with a cheap digital camcorder set up in the back of a movie theater, with scratchy sound patched in. It wasn't HD quality... heck, it wasn't even VHS-on-the-car-dashboard quality. But the teens thought it was great.

    That's the sort of "piracy" I'd like to see the maf-IAA focusing on, because it has actual consequences for real people. Those bootleg DVDs, their little brothers the bootleg CDs, their cousins the bootleg shoes, and their close friends the stolen goods, fund the same underground economy that supports drug running and other nasty social ills.

    Applying strongarm tactics there would be good for society... but probably wouldn't generate as much profit as shaking down college kids.

  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Friday February 18, 2011 @04:33PM (#35248018) Homepage

    High minded types merely "ascend" and avoid the limitations of the physical body... er, media.

    Yeah. Talk about yet another reason to RIP or just plain pirate.

    This will be the biggest burden to the most clueless users out there, once again proving that DRM only punishes the paying customer.

  • Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beelzebud ( 1361137 ) on Friday February 18, 2011 @04:47PM (#35248202)
    I'm not sure how you draw a comparison to pirating media, to drug running. Drug runners are supported by the drugs they run, not pirated DVDs....
  • Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrdoogee ( 1179081 ) on Friday February 18, 2011 @04:51PM (#35248256)

    To further the pursuit of accuracy, I would say it is treating a gangrenous leg by hiring a polka band.

  • by mike260 ( 224212 ) on Friday February 18, 2011 @05:29PM (#35248744)

    In your analogy, there's a mile-long queue of skilled thieves outside your door and they're busting open your locks every 5 seconds with zero effort and no repercussions. I think that in this situation, yes, people *would* tell you to stop forking out for new locks.

    They might also question your policy of strip-searching invited guests before letting them into your house.

  • Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Friday February 18, 2011 @06:25PM (#35249302) Journal

    Higher quality picture? Seriously? What, then, is the pirated version ripped from? The original film print?

    If you're using component cables you will soon get a higher quality picture from a pirated BluRay than an actual BluRay. That's the entire point of this /. article.

  • Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Draek ( 916851 ) on Friday February 18, 2011 @11:40PM (#35251644)

    That's because there are some Slashdotters that support copyright infringement, which are mostly worried about the RIAA et al and so spend their time and modpoints in such discussions, not caring much for Linux, programming or such, and there are other Slashdotters that strongly favor Free Software, its ideals and objectives, which are generally against copyright infringement(*) but also against the way the RIAA et al go about fighting it and so prefer to just read rather than actively participate in RIAA-related discussions.

    (*) It's not just about protecting the GPL, btw: regardless of what you may believe about its "wonderful" interface, hardly anybody will pay $699 for Photoshop when The GIMP and Paint.NET are free.

  • Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dwpro ( 520418 ) <dgeller777&gmail,com> on Saturday February 19, 2011 @01:32AM (#35252142)

    Acknowledging the irony of the situation does not equate to supporting copyright infringement. Why make that blanket assertion on all of Slashdot?

God helps them that themselves. -- Benjamin Franklin, "Poor Richard's Almanac"