100 replies to this topic

[Soupie]

In the long run though, if I have the choice of driving to the store to rent a HD DVD or simple browsing a menu on my TV displaying an unlimited number of digital HD movies to choose from at a comparable or cheaper price... I'm going with the digital movie.

I don't think that you'd be able to get the same quality from a downloaded movie vs. a HD-DVD. I'd imagine that real HD quality would be too big to send via the Internet.

Houston, we have a problem. According to at least one technophile, you're exactly right!

Why HD movie downloads are a big lie

There’s a lot of buzz lately about the delivery of HD TV and Movie content over the Internet with shows like Lost being delivered by ABC.com and other video download services with XBox360 or iTunes. I even have friends and colleagues telling me that BlueRay or HD-DVD won’t make it because HD will simply be delivered over the Internet. But there’s one dirty little secret that people are forgetting or that they don’t understand, IT’S NOT HD they’re getting over the Internet. Heck it’s not even NTSC 480i (720×480 60 fields interlaced) DVD quality when you really look at the amount of video data you’re getting!

Oh sure they might call it HD because it happens to be 1280×720 resolution which sounds awfully high, but you’re talking about an audio/video stream that’s 1.3 mbps (megabits per second) at best. You can call it whatever you like and you can even claim it meets the minimum definition of HD because it’s 720p (1280×720) resolution but it ISN’T HD for the simple reason that the bit rate isn’t enough. A regular 480i DVD is either 2, 5, or 8 mbps and most modern dual-layer 8 GB DVD releases are at least 5 mbps but more likely 8 mbps. A typical DVD movie is approximately 6 GBs of data while a typical “HD” movie you download is only about 1.5 GBs of data. Do you honestly believe you’re getting more image information in that 1.5 GB so-called HD movie you downloaded versus that 6 GB DVD movie? ...

Full article...

And I'm not even going to pretend that this isn't a big deal, because it is. If one has ever had the pleasure of watching something in HD, you know it lives up to the hype.

[Tortle]

You can call it whatever you like and you can even claim it meets the minimum definition of HD because it’s 720p (1280×720) resolution...

Although 720p is good resolution, it's still less than the resolution of many HD TVs and high def DVD players, which go up to 1080p. Regardless of how convenient downloading movies is, I think consumers are going to go with whatever gives them the highest resolution on their TV.

[Universal Ruler Supreme]

Yep. I just bought me a new DVD player, and I think it supports HD-DVDs, unsure really. Walmart is practically shuving the things in peoples houses at the prices they have. Mine is a 5 disc changer with all the features my old single disc GE had, and it cost me the same as my first one did 7 years ago. $70 bucks.

If you bought it for $70, there's no way it supports HD-DVDs. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players cost $300+. You might have gotten an upconvert DVD player (it formats DVDs for HD TVs), but I don't think you could get a 5-disc changer upconverter for that price.

Hey, I think your right. I don't know things bout HDs.

[Soupie]

Here's another nice article that discusses the difficulties of HD over the 'net:

It opens with the author explaining that Net Neutrality -- something I strongly support -- is one reason why HD content over the Net won't work.

The Net doesn't play favorites. All data packets are handled the same way; none get preferential treatment for faster delivery. That's fine for nearly every type of traffic. A fraction-of-a-second delay due to network congestion has no practical impact on an e-mail or even a 100-megabyte program download. But the same hiccup can mean the difference between premium and intolerable video. ...

A more likely scenario is that the Internet will eventually prioritize traffic based on the customers who send and receive the data, with those who pay more getting faster service. (Network providers like Verizon may also give preference to their own video services.) This would improve video delivery for big players like the TV networks but would probably shut out low-rent sites that distribute unique, Web-only offerings.

Personally, I would never support sacrificing Net Neutrality even for a cause such as HD content.

However, when most talk about the difficulties of delivering HD content on the Web, they refer to the difficulty of streaming it -- watching it while it's downloading. Here's what this guy has to say:

While streaming shows the weaknesses of the Internet, downloading plays to its strengths. Bandwidth requirements are far less critical with a download-and-play model than with real-time streaming, and downloading allows you to watch what you want when you want. ...

But the download-and-play model isn't a real solution to the Internet/HDTV intersection problem. The more time-sensitive a program is—sports, the news—the less sense downloading makes. The same goes for massively popular shows: Who wants to wait a day to download American Idol?

But for me, this offers a glimmer of hope. Why couldn't a company -- such a Comcast -- which delivers both cable TV and high-speed Internet offer download-and-watch HD movies?

I'd watch HDTV content like football and the Oscars in real-time via cable and download-and-play HD movies via the Net. (But I'm confused here... if we can get HDTV shows over cable, shouldn't we also be able to get HD movies? What am I missing? Is there a difference between HD-DVD quality and HDTV quality? If there is no difference, technically cable companies, working hand in hand with movie studios, could offer HD movies "On Demand" via cable.)

Well, even if there is a difference between HDTV and HD-DVD, it seems it will still be feasible to download-and-play HD-DVD quality media over the Internet -- but streaming it via the Web doesn't look feasible any time soon.

So, how will the Web and HDTV get reconciled? It's instructive to look at what is happening with cell phones. Wireless carriers now provide cell-phone videos as individual downloads, which increasingly threaten to swamp their data networks. In response, companies like Verizon Wireless are building separate digital broadcast networks to offer television channels specifically formatted for cell phones. These channels won't have high-enough resolution for living room TVs, but they'll offer a better picture than what cell phones currently receive. Wireless carriers will reserve data downloads for niche offerings that customers order individually.

That's a likely model for the big-screen TV system, too.

Full Article.

He goes on to say that traditional broadcasting of HD content will leave Web broadcasts in the dust. Barring some unexpected discovery, he's probably right.

Even so, if movie studios and cable companies were ever to get in bed together -- which probably won't happen unless the studios get really desperate -- I don't see why cable companies couldn't offer a complete catalog of HD movies over cable via the menu system I described above. If HD-DVD sales don't rescue the movie studios, maybe this will happen.

Also, in thinking about DVDs versus digital media, one drawback is the ability to simply take a DVD with you to a friends house to watch it there. However, even though we're talking huge junks of data, I'm sure somewhere down the road, it won't be difficult to simply load a digital movie onto an HD thumbdrive -- which you could then take to a friend's house. Also, one HUGE drawback I have with owning and especially renting DVDs is skipping! I freaking hate skipping! Going disc free would also mean far fewer skips!

I don't know things bout HDs.

Once you watch something in HD, you'll never look at regular TV the same.

Edited by Soupie, 05 October 2007 - 02:41 PM.

[Soupie]

Embrace digital or die, EMI told

The new owner of EMI, Britain's largest music group, has warned that the industry will not survive if it continues to rely on CD sales alone.

Guy Hands, the financier whose private equity group, Terra Firma, bought EMI in August, told staff in a confidential e-mail last week that the industry had been too slow to embrace the digital revolution.

Hands' letter was in response to the decision by Radiohead, one of the biggest bands nurtured by EMI but now out of contract with the label, to release their latest album via the internet and at a price decided by fans.

In the e-mail, sent to staff on Friday, Hands described Radiohead's action as "a wake-up call which we should all welcome and respond to with creativity and energy".

"The recorded music industry... has for too long been dependent on how many CDs can be sold," he wrote. "Rather than embracing digitalisation and the opportunities it brings for promotion of product and distribution through multiple channels, the industry has stuck its head in the sand."

Many record label bosses believe it is the duty of successful bands to stick with the companies that nurtured them so that their earnings can subsidise new talent. However, bands complain that too much of their money is used to subsidise lavish lifestyles for label bosses. ...

Full Article

[Drtooth]

(2) Dr. Tooth, did you ever get around to buying a DVD player? (I know you still don't have an eBay account, so maybe you haven't. )

uuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh Considering that I got it the Christmas after I posted this.... yeah. I might need a new one soon. Thinking of getting a region free one as well.

I don';t have an e-bay only cuz I don't really have the money. I might get one soon to sell stuff.... but I can't bear to part with anything I own. Even somethingg broken or a duplicate.

[TheOrgg]

.... but I can't bear to part with anything I own. Even somethingg broken or a duplicate.

Whoa, someone's healthy.

And someone's an arsehole!

[Soupie]

Digital media's first big, semi-formal experiment... hits a big, nasty bump in the road? Unless you live in a cave, you've heard about Radiohead's controversial release of their entire new, 7th album via digital download. Apparently, all is not as it seems.

Radiohead Fans Feel Duped By In Rainbows

When Radiohead announced last week that they would be releasing their seventh album, In Rainbows, via their official Web site, there was much fanfare and some honest-to-goodness debate about the future of the music industry, the validity of major labels and just how people consume music.

But in the days since that announcement, a whole lot of that fanfare has curdled, thanks to moves by the band and its management that some see as dishonest, distasteful and, well, downright un-Radiohead. The sentiment among many fans seems to have gone from admiration for the group's willingness to let the consumer decide how much to pay for the new album to anger over the low quality of the downloads — and dismay over the band's manager's statement that the you-choose-the-price downloads were just a promotional tool for the release of the physical CD.

The first bone of contention arose October 9 — the day before Rainbows became available for download — when fans who ordered the album (either in its download-only form or as a deluxe, $81 "discbox" version) received an e-mail from Radiohead's official online store, announcing that "the album [would] come as a 48.4 MB ZIP file containing 10 x 160 [kilobits per second], DRM-free MP3s."

...

First and foremost, all of Radiohead's previous albums were already available as MP3s encoded at 320 kilobits per second — the highest-possible compression rate in the format (though still not nearing the quality of a compact disc) — and most file-sharers scoff at anything less than 192 kbps. (MP3 files encoded with a lower bit rate will generally play back at a lower quality — something not readily apparent on tiny iPod earbuds but obvious enough on high-end home stereos.)

Second, most took issue with when Radiohead chose to announce that In Rainbows would be available at 160 kbps — after the majority of their fans had already paid for the download. To be fair, however, the band did give potential customers the power of choosing how much they wanted to pay to download the album. It could be had for as little as the transaction fee of 45 pence, or roughly 92 cents. There was also an option on the Web site to cancel orders; though, given the timing of the bit-rate announcement, fans had less than 24 hours to do so.

"Most promo MP3s come at a higher bit rate," wrote the author of U.K. blog Kids Pushing Kids. "Worst pound and pence I've ever spent."

"Radiohead has such delicate music that requires detail and depth of sound. ... I for one CAN tell the difference between 160 and 192," responded one commenter. "[With] 160 you can't hear the finer details that make Radiohead so great. I have lost a bit of respect for Radiohead for this. I would never make people pay for 160. They may as well just stream stuff off MySpace."

No one seemed to understand why Radiohead decided to release Rainbows at 160 kpbs, though guitarist Jonny Greenwood told Rolling Stone, "We talked about it and we just wanted to make it a bit better than iTunes, which it is, so that's kind of good enough, really. It's never going to be CD-quality, because that's what a CD does."

That explanation didn't fly with some fans, who began speculating that the decision was made to keep the album off P2P sites or as a subtle way of making fans purchase either the discbox or the physical release of the album next year. The thought behind this theory was that if Radiohead fans were willing to split hairs over something as seemingly inconsequential as kilobits per second, then surely they wouldn't mind shelling out cash for the actual CD version of Rainbows.

And, as it turns out, the latter speculation seems to be true — especially after comments made by the band's managers, Chris Hufford and Bryce Edge, began to make their way around the Internet on Thursday (October 11) — which brings us to bone of contention number three.

In an interview with U.K. trade publication Music Week, Hufford and Bryce spoke at length about the downloadable version of Rainbows and how it plays into the larger plan of releasing a physical copy of the album in stores next year.

"In November we have to start with the mass-market plans and get them under way," Hufford told the magazine.

"If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing," Edge said.

To many, those comments sounded strangely, well, capitalistic and seemed to confirm that the lower-quality downloadable version of the album was little more than a promotional tool for the actual CD. (It didn't help that Edge is quoted as saying that "CDs are a fantastic bit of kit. ... You can't listen to a Radiohead record on MP3 and hear the detail; it's impossible.") And if that was the case, it probably would've been nice if the band — or its management — had let fans know before they paid (or, you know, didn't pay) to download it. Attempts to contact Edge for clarification on his comments were unsuccessful at press time. ...

Entire Article @ MTV.com

I listen to a lot of radio and internet radio, so for me quality has never been an issue. I'm one of those people who are perfectly content with digital music at a bit rate of 192. I've also watched countless movies, shows, and documentaries on my computer at all different resolutions without a problem. I tend to focus more on quality of content than quality of picture. I'd rather watch a low-quality, dnloaded episode of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex than a HD, wide screen episode of Friends.

But until internet download speeds and hard drive storage space is able to support digital media that is equivalent in quality to the media on HD-DVDs and CDs, there will be a market for physical discs among hardcore music and movie fans.

[Tortle]

I'd rather watch a low-quality, dnloaded episode of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex than a HD, wide screen episode of Friends.

But would you rather watch Ghost in the Shell on HD or over the Internet? I've found that it really depends on what I want to watch.

Just this past week I've been watching streaming movies/TV shows on Netflix... specifically, The Office seasons 1 and 2. Although the quality isn't as good as even a normal DVD player, the convenience of being able to watch any episode of The Office whenever I want makes watching it over the 'net preferable. (This partially contradicts what I was saying before.)

On the other hand, streaming content hasn't replaced DVDs for me entirely because I still want the best quality possible for most movies. For example, I would want to watch 300 on as high a quality as I can get.

So I suspect there will be a market for both in the near future.

[Soupie]

Digital media's first big, semi-formal experiment... hits a big, nasty bump in the road?

I should say that iTunes was actually the first experiment, and I think it's pretty clear that it was a huge success. The "first" in regards to the Radiohead experiment was am established band cutting out the middleman and releasing an album digitally on their own (although it is now clear that is not what is happening at all).

I'd rather watch a low-quality, dnloaded episode of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex than a HD, wide screen episode of Friends.

But would you rather watch Ghost in the Shell on HD or over the Internet?

Absolutely, I'd rather see movies and shows I enjoy in HD on a wide screen (although to be completely honest, I can't say the same for music -- while I want my music to be clear and distortion-free, it is much less important that it be the equivalent of HD). In fact, I'd prefer all shows and movies that I watch to be HD, even Jeopardy!

There have been several studies over the past year or so showing that the age range 18-35 is spending increasingly more time on the internet and less time time watching TV. The internet is the ultimate media machine bringing people pictures, articles, books, movies, TV shows, music videos, music, video games, online role-playing worlds, forums, shopping, fantasy football, auction sites, etc. Companies have tried to incorporate the convenience of the internet into the TV realm with features like On-Demand, which lets one view shows and movies whenever they want. However, I think there is a lot of pressure coming from many different sides to fully integrate TV and the internet.

As we've touched on in this thread, the biggest sticking point is quality -- the internet simply can't handle HD and CD-quality music on large scales at convenient (read: fast) transfer rates. There are other factors involved besides quality, like album art, the desire to own a physical object such as a disc which can be stored on the shelf with a "collection" or taken with you to a friend's house.

Just this past week I've been watching streaming movies/TV shows on Netflix... specifically, The Office seasons 1 and 2. Although the quality isn't as good as even a normal DVD player, the convenience of being able to watch any episode of The Office whenever I want makes watching it over the 'net preferable.

Yes, my wife watches one of her shows on the 'net if she misses it on TV. She complains about the choppiness of it, but that's because they stream it -- and I assume they stream it so it can't be saved and shared with others or burned to a disc (which is a whole 'nother problem with digital media). But, week after week she does it because of the convenience.

What happens if and when TV shows and movies are able to be offered over the 'net in distortion-free streaming HD 24-7, thereby by jumping what I consider to be the biggest hurdle? I think we'll see a wholesale abandonment of disc media in favor of the more-convenient digital media. But based on what I've learned over the past couple weeks thanks to you and the interwebs, streaming HD media via the internet is a long way down the road.

Edited by Soupie, 12 October 2007 - 11:46 AM.

[Soupie]

Wow, lots going on in the world of digital media and the interwebs:

(Decided to just post in this thread because it's the most current.)

BitTorrent to power ISP's video service

By John Borland, News.com
Published on ZDNet News: Feb 11, 2006 1:20:00 AM

One of the largest Internet service providers in Britain is teaming with the company responsible for the BitTorrent software to test a new high-speed movie download service, the companies said Friday.

This is a great way of tapping into the net's inherent strengths. Because of the nature of BitTorrent, it's conceivable that one day heavy chunks of data -- such as HD material -- could be transferred via this method.

Unless of course ISPs disallow content shared via BitTorrent

Comcast blocks some Internet traffic

By Peter Svensson
Updated: 1 hour, 51 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

I'll be interested to see if the FCC does anything about this. Who knows what else is going on similar to this. There has to be another way (I hope) to manage and curtail illegal sharing of copyrighted material!

I fear that once ISPs go down the slippery slope of secretly restricting and censuring the flow of data there will be no return. What if they decided to censure the discussion of and dissemination of information about MUSCLE toys!

And finally:

Media Companies Support Guidelines to Control Copyright-protected Videos on the Internet

October 19, 2007 – (HOSTSEARCH.COM) – A group of media companies including Walt Disney, Viacom Inc., Microsoft Corporation, and News Corporation, owners of MySpace, have come out in support of a set of guidelines intended to help control copyright-protected videos on the Internet, it was announced recently. Although according to a statement the guidelines are not legally binding, the companies plan to adopt and adhere to them before the end of 2007.

The new guidelines focus on the use of technology to filter copyrighted videos. Web sites hosting uploaded video content would use the technology, which recognizes unauthorized clips before they go online and are available to the public. In addition, the media companies supporting the guidelines would agree not to bring legal action against web sites engaging the guidelines in cases where videos manage to avoid the restrictions and do go live.

"Today's announcement marks a significant step in transforming the Internet from a Wild West to a popular medium that respects the rule of law," Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC Universal, was reported as saying.

Although YouTube, the biggest player in the online video arena, has yet to formally throw its support behind the guidelines, earlier this week the company initiated technology to filter copyrighted materials from its servers. It is worthy of note that Viacom, one of the participating companies, was involved in legal action against YouTube, suing the owners Google for $1 billion for hosting videos of its programs without permission.

Interesting. I'd like to see these guidelines.

[Soupie]

Comcast offers super-fast Internet speeds

By Yinka Adegoke

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Comcast Corp. the largest U.S. cable television operator, said on Wednesday it has started offering a super-fast Internet service that allows customers to download a high-definition movie in 10 minutes.

The new premium service was launched in the Twin Cities area of Minneapolis-St. Paul, and marks a leap in connection speeds for Comcast. The new service offers speeds starting at 50 megabits per second, compared with the previous fastest connection speeds of 16 mb per second.

Comcast said the new service is aimed at residential and business customers. But at $149.95 a month, compared with about $50 a month for its usual service, it is likely to attract businesses or very heavy residential users, such as video game players or movie download fans. ...

Wow, that didn't take long. And like all technology, it will soon be cheap(er) and ubiquitous.

Edited by Soupie, 03 April 2008 - 09:32 AM.

[TheOrgg]

Comcast offers super-fast Internet speeds

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Comcast Corp. the largest U.S. cable television operator, said on Wednesday it has started offering a super-fast Internet service that allows customers to download a high-definition movie in 10 minutes.

Wow. Now breaking the law only takes ten minutes instead of three days!

[Scumdogg]

Five years' time has moved the first several posts in this thread firmly into "hilarious" territory.

And seriously now, where the hell is the US Kinnikuman release already? Go look around the anime section of any large electronics retailer. "Too obscure" just doesn't cut it anymore.

Also: High speed internet is a fad.

[TheOrgg]

Five years' time has moved the first several posts in this thread firmly into "hilarious" territory.

And seriously now, where the hell is the US Kinnikuman release already? Go look around the anime section of any large electronics retailer. "Too obscure" just doesn't cut it anymore.

Also: High speed internet is a fad.

What was it that 4Kids said? "Good Nazis" and "Poor quality animation?"

I think that was some of the reasoning that Mike said they refused with their right of first refusal.

[Scumdogg]

Doesn't Ultimate Muscle also have a "good Nazi"?

It's probably for the best that 4kids doesn't want it, just saves the show from massive edits and terrible voice acting. I'm a bit surprised that nobody else has picked it up though...we've gotten some pretty weird stuff localized. What with the huge popularity of both anime and wrestling right now, one would think this could do very well.

[Tortle]

Comcast offers super-fast Internet speeds

By Yinka Adegoke

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Comcast Corp. the largest U.S. cable television operator, said on Wednesday it has started offering a super-fast Internet service that allows customers to download a high-definition movie in 10 minutes.

The new premium service was launched in the Twin Cities area of Minneapolis-St. Paul, and marks a leap in connection speeds for Comcast. The new service offers speeds starting at 50 megabits per second, compared with the previous fastest connection speeds of 16 mb per second.

Comcast said the new service is aimed at residential and business customers. But at $149.95 a month, compared with about $50 a month for its usual service, it is likely to attract businesses or very heavy residential users, such as video game players or movie download fans. ...

Wow, that didn't take long. And like all technology, it will soon be cheap(er) and ubiquitous.

Cool... although it doesn't say whether or not they're talking about true HD quality (1080p) or the kind-of-HD quality, 720p. The time it takes to download seems to exponentially increase with increased resolution (check out the Apple TV specs to see what I mean... I think their estimates are optimistic to say the least). So, if downloading a 720p movie takes 10 minutes, downloading a 1080p movie could take hours. Regardless, it seems like affordable HD downloads will be coming soon. But by "soon" I mean, "within the next five years".

I have a bit of an update to my previous posts. I splurged and bought a PS3 pretty much as soon as HD-DVD went belly-up. I was also seriously considering the Apple TV, though. There are pros and cons of both:

Apple TV: You can download movies which is a HUGE bonus, and it has full HD capacity. The Apple TV itself is pretty cheap at $230. However, I'd need to buy another Internet connection for my TV ($) and renting the movies is very expensive compared to Netflix or Blockbuster ($$). Also, there is no option for owning movies. That's right... none. You can buy TV shows, but not movies. Even if you could buy HD movies, the hard drive space of the Apple TV would limit how many you could buy.

PS3: True HD quality is available in a relatively large selection of movies. Renting movies is available from Netflix or Blockbuster, neither of which are as convenient as downloading, but can be pretty cheap at almost $1 a movie. Most importantly, you can buy and own movies. But the PS3 is pretty expensive and requires periodic firmware updates which is a pain.

Anyway, like I said, I went with the PS3. I wanted movies that I could own in HD quality right now, and Blu-Ray players are pretty much the only option for that. But something tells me that I'll be getting an Apple TV within the next 10 years.

[jkaris]

I-d pay $150 a month for a 50mb connection. In a heartbeat!

[Soupie]

Apple becomes America's top music retailer

By Sylvie Barak

APPLE HAS ACHIEVED a milestone as the company outstripped Wal-Mart to become America's No. 1 music retailer, the first time that a supplier of digital downloads has ever beaten the big CD dealers.

The fruity toymakers claim is based on the latest data from the market research firm, NPD Group.

The survey counted every 12 digital downloads as one whole CD and excluded mobile music sales and sales revenue. Apple reckons it has 50 million customers, which helped its Itunes platform sell over four billion tracks since launching in 2003. This is due, in no small part, to the immense popularity of the Ipod.

According to the LA Times, NPD Group analyst Russ Crupnick predicted that Apple's music industry power would only continue. "If you look at what is happening to the CD and the growth of the digital side, it's a pattern that is going to hold," he said. ...

It was only a matter of time. Digital is delightful.

[jmac]

this topic is great it starts with someone not being sure of getting a dvd player theyre like 50 bucks now and then about hd dvd and blue rays. its like a time machine. i wish i could say wow that was back when you couldnt get dubbed kinnikuman dvds.

[TheOrgg]

FromAlbum (Highest quality) to 8-track to tape (Lowest quality) to CD (Almost Album quality), to MP3-- worse than any of those.

*SIGH*

[Soupie]

My guess is that as Internet speeds increase -- and other alternative networks grounded entirely in fiber-optics come on line -- as well as file storage capacity, we'll see higher quality digital formats being used -- formats that match the quality of CDs.

But to be honest, the majority of music listeners are apparently content with mp3 quality. It's only the music snobs who make a fuss.

[TheOrgg]

It's only the music snobs who make a fuss.

[Soupie]

Of course, I was just joking. DVDs will be the most prominent medium for movies for the foreseeable future.

Well, thanks to the PS3, Blue-Ray has smashed HD-DVD and is now certainly going to overtake the DVD as the main disc medium. I think by defending the DVD, Tortle, you were defending disc technology. And I agree, there will always be a place for disc technology. But, disc technology still has room for improvement:

How quickly things change. Just as Blu-ray is starting to replace the DVDs in our homes, another technology is developed that could sound its death knell.

A dual-layer Blu-ray disc can store an impressive 50 gigabytes, but discs which can hold 20 times as much data have just taken a step closer, thanks to new materials that make reading and writing 3D holograms more reliable. ...

However, while there will likely always be a place for discs, I think digital media will become the standard. (There is a thread somewhere where CuttleFishforsale and I and others were discussing whether the music, movie, and gaming industries will be able to continue with their standard model of business or if -- as I argued -- they'd have to find a new business model.) I found the following concept very interesting in light of trends I expect to continue. And, on the surface, without giving this too much thought, I think I would welcome a system like this. It would stop cut down on illegal sharing of digital material and it would insure the creators of this material be fairly compensated:

Kevin Kelly: Access is better than ownership
Posted by Mark Frauenfelder, January 22, 2009 2:57 PM | permalink

I enjoyed this long essay by Kevin Kelly about how "all goods and services are candidates for rental, sharing, and the social commons." He raises a lot of interesting points. Here's one:

"Very likely, in the near future, I won't "own" any music, or books, or movies. Instead I will have immediate access to all music, all books, all movies using an always-on service, via a subscription fee or tax. I won't buy – as in make a decision to own -- any individual music or books because I can simply request to see or hear them on demand from the stream of ALL. I may pay for them in bulk but I won't own them. The request to enjoy a work is thus separated from the more complicated choice of whether I want to "own" it. I can consume a movie, music or book without having to decide or follow up on ownership.

For many people this type of instant universal access is better than owning. No responsibility of care, backing up, sorting, cataloging, cleaning, or storage. As they gain in public accessibility, books, music and movies are headed to become social goods even though they might not be paid by taxes. It's not hard to imagine most other intangible goods becoming social goods as well. Games, education, and health info are also headed in that direction." ...

As I say above, I'd add video games to this library of "all" as well. Like I said, at the moment, I'm not seeing too many problems with this model.