From DVDFile.com
Fox Declares for Blu-ray Discby Dan Ramer
FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 2005
On April 6th, I reported that Peter Chernin, president the Fox Entertainment unit was quoted as saying, "We are trying to play both of [the formats] . . . against each other." And, that standard definition DVD has "one of the leakiest copyright protections known to man." There had been reports that Fox was more likely to declare for Blu-ray Disc, but was waiting to see which format is more secure. Well, on July 29th, 20th Century Fox finally declared its preference for Blu-ray Disc, citing a higher level of security.
If we revisit the concept that the most popular films have the power to drive a format forward, this is how the top one hundred films based on domestic gross are now distributed between the two formats.
Based on this metric, for all intent and purposes, the race is now a dead heat.
The HD-DVD camp quickly reacted, issuing a statement the next day:
"Today's announcement by 20th Century Fox regarding its support of the Blu-ray Disc format is surprising and misleading in terms of which format provides for more robust copy protection. The content protection system of HD DVD provides an equivalent level of security as the system advocated by Fox for Blu-ray. We also believe the Blu-ray disc format and proposed copy protection system may result in playability and reliability issues for the consumer. HD DVD provides robust, renewable and standardized content protection coupled with proven reliability, cost effectiveness and flexibility which is why many major film studios have announced support for the HD DVD format."
This implies to me that HD-DVD will apply AACS and Blu-ray Disc will quite possibly layer SPDC on top of AACS (see my article of May 18th about draconian copy protection measures). And I'm a little alarmed by two hints in the HD-DVD Group's statement that the threats and risks that I described in that column are not only quite real, but may be worse.
Note that the term “renewable” is mentioned. This likely refers to the ability of the content protection systems to revoke the keys of a title (rendering that title unplayable on your player) and revoke the keys of a player (rendering your new, expensive player inoperative). For those who read my May 18th column and posted opinions that I was being paranoid, HD-DVD's statement for the record clearly indicates that the film industry has every intention of exercising revocation options if they feel it's appropriate.
The other casual comment that caused me some concern refers to “playability and reliability issues.” What does the HD-DVD Group know about SPDC that we don't? Can it possibly be worse than we already know from published materials? I don't know about you, but the more I learn, the more uncomfortable I become.
And we still haven't been able to obtain an official, on-the-record confirmation or denial that early adapters will be left behind. So, at the risk of repeating myself, have you written the studios yet to express your concerns and displeasure? And to explain that you cannot support the new formats unless critical issues are addressed?
The issues are:
The abandonment of early adapters with displays having only analog component video inputs by denying them access to full resolution analog component video outputs.
The absence of a statement indicating the availability of a no-cost-to-the-consumer disc replacement program for revoked discs.
The absence of a statement indicating the availability of a no-cost-to-the-consumer firmware replacement program for revoked players.
See my column of April 6th for the names and addresses you'll need.
Previously published related articles:
High Definition DVD Dilemmas, January 2, 2005
Blu-ray Disc vs. HD-DVD, February 14, 2005
Mixed Signals, February 21, 2005
Another Leaf On The HDCP-HDMI-DVI Artichoke, March 7, 2005
Orson Welles Strike Again, April 6, 2005
Movement on the HD Disc Front, April 18, 2005
What the Studios Really Seem to Have in Store for Us, May 18, 2005
The Supreme Court Speaks, July 8, 2005
It Hits The Fan , July 22, 2005