Apple & Blu-Ray

[otc]

Originally Posted by blairh

Purchase an external Blu-Ray drive. This one retails for a touch over $100 and works with Macs (read the reviews on Amazon).
.

Why is it that I can buy a blu-ray player that also streams netflix and amazon video for less than I can buy the same drive attached to a USB or eSATA controller?

I kind of want to get one for my Acer Revo but...why bother (and linux can't directly play them yet anyways).

 

[blairh]

Originally Posted by otc

Why is it that I can buy a blu-ray player that also streams netflix and amazon video for less than I can buy the same drive attached to a USB or eSATA controller?

I kind of want to get one for my Acer Revo but...why bother (and linux can't directly play them yet anyways).

I know, it's annoying. The one I linked to is one of the very few that works with Macs at that price range. There are some cheaper ones from Lite On but I think they are junk and personally wouldn't try them.

I certainly will not defend Apple here with respect to Blu-ray. Jobs has said he believes digital downloads (like Apple rental and movie purchases) will eventually take over for Blu-ray discs. But this currently makes no sense given that Apple's HD movies & TV shows are tied down with DRM and aren't even 1080p.

However, as I suggested to the OP with respect to his initial question, ripping from Blu-ray on a Mac is fairly simple and you don't have to worry about DRM.

Another painless alternative is to simply download high-res movie files via torrents. They tend to be excellent in picture quality if you know what to look for (file size, comments left, other torrents uploader has provided). However this is, of course, illegal in the States. But my gut tells me that people who upload files are in much greater danger versus people who simply download them. You also have to keep in mind that your ISP caps your monthly bandwidth and you don't want to download over your limit (however your limit tends to be very high depending on your ISP).

 

[otc]

Originally Posted by blairh

You also have to keep in mind that your ISP caps your monthly bandwidth and you don't want to download over your limit (however your limit tends to be very high depending on your ISP).

Of course this will be a problem when people actually start using digital downloads.

If I were on a capped connection, there is no way I could switch to watching all of my content that way. HD rips of TV shows are something around 1gb for a 1-hr show. If you wanted actual blu-ray quality, you would have to at least double this...giving about 2GB an hour for 1080p content at decent encoding (the numbers are rough but so is the rest of the calculation).

If you were on a 250GB cap (comcast's "soft" cap...many people with real caps are much lower), that would give you about 4 hours a day of content...not bad and definitaly more than you should be watching. What if you have a roommate or two and you watch different things? you might be down to 2 hours a day. I would be perfectly ok with this amount but I know a *lot* of people (especially people with no idea about things like bandwidth caps) watch more TV and movies than this.

Then throw in other content...software updates, web browsing, youtube, streaming music (apple wants us streaming everything right)?

It would be a tight fit on 250gb but what if you want to stream it all on your mobile connection, game over. What is the current default ipad plan? 2GB? What does Clear give you before they start to complain? Something like 5GB on the 3G and a few times that on the 4G before they may or may not throttle?

 

[blairh]

Originally Posted by otc

Of course this will be a problem when people actually start using digital downloads.

If I were on a capped connection, there is no way I could switch to watching all of my content that way. HD rips of TV shows are something around 1gb for a 1-hr show. If you wanted actual blu-ray quality, you would have to at least double this...giving about 2GB an hour for 1080p content at decent encoding (the numbers are rough but so is the rest of the calculation).

If you were on a 250GB cap (comcast's "soft" cap...many people with real caps are much lower), that would give you about 4 hours a day of content...not bad and definitaly more than you should be watching. What if you have a roommate or two and you watch different things? you might be down to 2 hours a day. I would be perfectly ok with this amount but I know a *lot* of people (especially people with no idea about things like bandwidth caps) watch more TV and movies than this.

Then throw in other content...software updates, web browsing, youtube, streaming music (apple wants us streaming everything right)?

It would be a tight fit on 250gb but what if you want to stream it all on your mobile connection, game over. What is the current default ipad plan? 2GB? What does Clear give you before they start to complain? Something like 5GB on the 3G and a few times that on the 4G before they may or may not throttle?

I find your reply puzzling.

I was talking about obtaining HD movies via torrents. Not TV shows. And whose talking about watching all their content that way? I have cable so I can watch the TV shows and sports that I enjoy in HD. Doesn't affect my monthly bandwidth (I have a 250 cap via Comcast). If I wanted to watch a TV show that no longer airs (or catch up on old seasons of current shows) I would rent the BD from Netflix. Or if I wanted to watch these shows on a portable device, I'd rent from the iTunes store or download and encode the SD version via torrents.

You seem to be speaking with regards to not having cable, and I'm not sure why.

With respect to the "throw in everything else" comment, I have never gone over 1 GB in a day when I am using the internet in a casual manner (not downloading anything, streaming music, web browsing, YouTube).

250 GBs is only a "tight fit" if you download a ton of torrents in the form of HD content (or an insane amount of music). Even if you stream a movie in HD every night (say via Netflix) and casually use the web otherwise, you'll never come close to even 100 GBs.

If you are home, you can stream on your iPad using wifi. Sure, if you stream Netflix on your iPad outside a wifi area then you'll probably get a warning if you do it a ton.

 

[intent]

Originally Posted by MikeDT

Maybe in the USA, where the MPAA, RIAA, Disney, etc. have total power and control over the draconian US copyright laws. They just love the $$$ when you have to buy the same movies or songs over-and-over, every time a new format comes out. Betamax > VHS > VCD > DVD > Blu-ray > ???

Can't see why it's illegal elsewhere. I've already bought the movie once, I don't see why I should be buying it again, just because it's in a different format.

You can't keep changing the jurisdiction on a discussion like that. You're in China. Someone made a comment that hinted it was legal everywhere, which it is clearly not for at least 300 million people.

Originally Posted by kasper007

How is downloading something for which you have already paid copyright for (in this case, by buying the most expensive option) illegal? it is merely format shifting.

As MikeDT said, maybe it could get you in trouble in the US (although i'd love to see someone actually go through a lawsuit), but not elsewhere

Someone will go through with a lawsuit. Maybe they already have. I didn't bother doing a thorough research on the topic, but the basic point is that at least in the US it is illegal to "format shift" that way. You paid for the license to play it on your blu-ray player. You didn't pay to own the movie.

Originally Posted by otc

You won't get nabbed for downloading...only uploading (although bittorrent does both).

Downloading is a strange legal beast and is basically not illegal. Uploading however is distributing a copyrighted work without permission which is illegal.

Maybe in Canada, circa 2006. I just did a quick search on Canadian law and it's clear that uploading/downloading movies and books is very illegal. Music, on the other hand, is more ambiguous.

In the US, it is definitely illegal. Don't listen to urban myths about how it's "time shifting", "format shifting", etc.

This post isn't pro- or anti-corporation. I'm just stating the facts regarding copyright law. I am not a copyright law attorney nor am I an expert in the field. You can rant all you want about how it's unfair, but that doesn't make it any less illegal. Go write your Congressman if you disagree.

(On the other hand, the studios have been nicer recently by including digital copies on the disc).

 

[blairh]

Downloading and uploading copyrighted material via torrents in the States is illegal. Period. It's not just uploading. And it doesn't matter if you already bought the copyrighted material in a different format already (like a Blu-ray disc).

However at the same time while it is illegal I believe it's also very rare that someone gets in trouble in the States for downloading torrents. I think the authorities are more interested in tracking down the people that upload the copyrighted material. But even that is incredibly difficult to prosecute because, for example, the FBI cannot really pursue a lead in a country outside the States. They would need the host country of the uploader to take some sort of action, and it's unclear if they would even be bothered to take it that far.

 

[MikeDT]

Originally Posted by intent

You can't keep changing the jurisdiction on a discussion like that. You're in China.
...as you're in the USA. I believe the OP is in Denmark, US law does not apply here. So whatever jurisdictions and copyright laws are in Denmark are going to apply for him/her. It may well be legal for them to download something they've already paid for, for the purposes of backup and format shifting. FYI SF is a global forum, with members from all over the world. Many country's have different laws about copyright, backups and downloads. The US has a law called DMCA(Title 17 of the United States Code), which makes it illegal to break DRM for backup and format shifting purposes,. e.g. playing a Blu-ray disc on a Mac or Linux OS. So much for 'fair use'. Hollywood just loves it that you have to buy the same movie again in a different format. Of course the United States Code has no meaning in other countries, e.g. China, Denmark or the UK.

Originally Posted by intent

Someone made a comment that hinted it was legal everywhere, which it is clearly not for at least 300 million people.
Of course not. As i said, each country has it's own copyright laws with differing restrictions and freedoms. What is law in the US, does not apply in other countries. Problem is, the US lets Hollywood and the media industry have carte blanche making the copyright laws. With nonsense like the DMCA. There is also the Copyright Term Extension Act, which was brought in because Disney was terrified their major cash cow, Mickey Mouse was in danger of going public domain. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment..._sprigman.html "Back in 1998, representatives of the Walt Disney Company came to Washington looking for help. Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse, who made his screen debut in the 1928 cartoon short "Steamboat Willie," was due to expire in 2003, and Disney's rights to Pluto, Goofy and Donald Duck were to expire a few years later."

 

[slight]

Unless your work involves producing onto DVDs, I personally struggle to find a situation where I would have the time to watch a DVD AND would want to use my mac to do so vs sitting down in front of a big screen with decent sound. (econo-class seat room makes for awkward viewing angles on a 15&quot.

Wouldn't complain if Apple foregoes the CD drive completely and replace it with either a SSD or another battery.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by gort

Buy blu-rays that include the digital copy. You can copy them to itunes. I did that with the back to the future trilogy, expendables, predators, the town, etc etc. Most blu-rays now come with the digital copy which is nice because even if you own a blu-ray player they aren't hooked up to every TV and your friends won't always have one.

Other than that, no.

Awesome advice. Buy blu-rays so that you can watch DVDs. Apple is so win.

 

[otc]

To the guys on the downloading vs uploading front: I think you need to review your rulings. Yes downloading and uploading are both wrong...but uploading is the one with the legal issues. AFAIK (and IANAL), every single piracy related case that has ever moved through the courts is filed under "distribution of copyrighted material." Consuming copyrighted material that is being distributed by someone who is not authorized to do so is not something you get in trouble for in the US.

The charges (and the absurd "damages") are always based completely on how many copies of how many different works you allegedly distributed or made available. There is no way to get around this with torrents...but with something like usenet you can consume without ever uploading.

Originally Posted by blairh

I find your reply puzzling.

You seem to be speaking with regards to not having cable, and I'm not sure why.

That is because you are not living in the future. Apple wants to push to a world where everyone is speaking with regards to not having cable. I don't have cable and I rarely even switch the TV to the antenna tuner--all my content comes in over the internet.

My rough analysis is sound--if you wanted to consume content via the internet at anything close to the quality levels provided by blu-ray movies/tv-seasons and good non-gimped HD broadcasts...you would eat many many gigabytes of bandwidth.

As other posters have mentioned...apple seems to be skirting the issure right now by operating under a sort of "buy a blu-ray, watch a DVD" system where their itunes quality is just not that good and only takes a few hundred megabytes for an hour of content. What you have is apple trying to get you to live in the future by refusing to put blu-ray players in (or by refusing to let you store data on the new apple tvs or even refusing to let you use non-HD tvs on the old ones) but the futures is not there for you to live in legally.

You can live the future right now with a torrent client--every TV show is available in HD an hour after it airs and full blu-ray rips pop up all the time. But if you want to live the future legally, your options are pretty ****** so I am not sure why apple insists.

 

[blairh]

Originally Posted by slight

Unless your work involves producing onto DVDs, I personally struggle to find a situation where I would have the time to watch a DVD AND would want to use my mac to do so vs sitting down in front of a big screen with decent sound. (econo-class seat room makes for awkward viewing angles on a 15").

Wouldn't complain if Apple forgoes the CD drive completely and replace it with either a SSD or another battery.

There are two scenarios where Blu-ray on Macs would really benefit the consumer (who wants it):

1. A Mac Mini with a Blu-ray drive capable of HD audio would eliminate the need for a stand alone Blu-ray player. You can easily attach a Mac Mini to your HDTV. I contemplated doing this myself however instead I just connect my MBP to my TV when desired.

2. Blu-ray on a MacBook Pro, for example, would allow you to bring your discs onto the plane to watch them. I agree however that a 15" laptop in coach sounds like a nightmare.

I believe the optical drive could be eliminated when the MacBook Pro debuts with its redesign next year. I'm not entirely sure though. People still create projects and place them on DVD. The latest MacBook Air's have been a big hit and Apple might think that is the option for consumers who don't want or need an optical drive. I am confident that we will see a move to all SSDs across the board when the MacBook Pro is released next year.

 

[blairh]

Originally Posted by otc

To the guys on the downloading vs uploading front: I think you need to review your rulings. Yes downloading and uploading are both wrong...but uploading is the one with the legal issues. AFAIK (and IANAL), every single piracy related case that has ever moved through the courts is filed under "distribution of copyrighted material." Consuming copyrighted material that is being distributed by someone who is not authorized to do so is not something you get in trouble for in the US. The charges (and the absurd "damages") are always based completely on how many copies of how many different works you allegedly distributed or made available. There is no way to get around this with torrents...but with something like usenet you can consume without ever uploading. That is because you are not living in the future. Apple wants to push to a world where everyone is speaking with regards to not having cable. I don't have cable and I rarely even switch the TV to the antenna tuner--all my content comes in over the internet. My rough analysis is sound--if you wanted to consume content via the internet at anything close to the quality levels provided by blu-ray movies/tv-seasons and good non-gimped HD broadcasts...you would eat many many gigabytes of bandwidth. As other posters have mentioned...apple seems to be skirting the issure right now by operating under a sort of "buy a blu-ray, watch a DVD" system where their itunes quality is just not that good and only takes a few hundred megabytes for an hour of content. What you have is apple trying to get you to live in the future by refusing to put blu-ray players in (or by refusing to let you store data on the new apple tvs or even refusing to let you use non-HD tvs on the old ones) but the futures is not there for you to live in legally. You can live the future right now with a torrent client--every TV show is available in HD an hour after it airs and full blu-ray rips pop up all the time. But if you want to live the future legally, your options are pretty ****** so I am not sure why apple insists.
You're wrong. For starters there have been several cases brought by the RIAA to the courts where they won and people were forced to pay massive fines. These cases are rare, but when they rule in favor of the RIAA the person found guilty is usually fined ridiculous amounts of money to be made an example for others who download music illegally. With respect to torrents, again, you are wrong. The MPAA will sometimes contact ISPs and make them aware that customers using their broadband service are downloading copyrighted material. The ISP will in turn send out a letter to the customer making them aware that someone using their IP address has downloaded a copyrighted movie or tv show (they will list exactly what the file was and what time/date the file was downloaded). The letter is meant as a warning to stop downloading copywrited material. If they receive another notification from the MPAA regarding another file of copyrighted material you downloaded, you can have your service terminated. Most consumers get scared from the first letter and stop using public domains for torrents (they'll either look into private domains, Usenet, or they will stop entirely). Please stop saying that people don't get in trouble for downloading copyrighted materials in the States. Some do. I think you are the one not living in the present. I don't care if Apple wants a world sans cable. That isn't happening anytime soon (or even in the near future). That's great that you don't have cable and use the net for everything. Most people in the States don't watch TV that way. They have cable and some have premium channels. Even with all the streaming services, the people ditching cable for Netflix, etc, most consumers still elect to have a set-top box providing cable and their respective channels. As much as I hate my monthly cable bill, and the fact that HBO is too expensive, I absolutely love the HD channels available to me. With my HD DVR box and Netflix membership I have everything covered for my TV and movie needs and it's dead simple. Yes, your math might be sound, but again you are talking in terms of people relying entirely on their internet bandwidth for their TV and movie needs, and again you are in the minority there. It's a lot easier and convenient to just DVR the shows I want to watch versus having to seek them out via torrents, have them download, connect my MBP to my TV to watch them, etc. The "full Blu-ray rips" you speak of are still compressions of the rips themselves. Full rips would range between 15 - 35 or more GBs. The high-res movie files you find via torrents are often between 4 - 12 GBs. The PQ is still very good (sometimes, not always, depends on if the uploader knows what they are doing) but you won't come close to the audio provided on BDs. Apple wants nothing to do with Blu-ray because it's a direct competitor to their iTunes movie and rental store. Period. Nothing more.

 

[intent]

Originally Posted by blairh

You're wrong. For starters there have been several cases brought by the RIAA to the courts where they won and people were forced to pay massive fines. These cases are rare, but when they rule in favor of the RIAA the person found guilty is usually fined ridiculous amounts of money to be made an example for others who download music illegally.

With respect to torrents, again, you are wrong. The MPAA will sometimes contact ISPs and make them aware that customers using their broadband service are downloading copyrighted material. The ISP will in turn send out a letter to the customer making them aware that someone using their IP address has downloaded a copyrighted movie or tv show (they will list exactly what the file was and what time/date the file was downloaded). The letter is meant as a warning to stop downloading copywrited material. If they receive another notification from the MPAA regarding another file of copyrighted material you downloaded, you can have your service terminated.

Most consumers get scared from the first letter and stop using public domains for torrents (they'll either look into private domains, Usenet, or they will stop entirely). Please stop saying that people don't get in trouble for downloading copyrighted materials in the States. Some do.

+1

 

[otc]

This is probably going to be my farewell to this thread...some total

going on here

Originally Posted by blairh

You're wrong. For starters there have been several cases brought by the RIAA to the courts where they won and people were forced to pay massive fines. These cases are rare, but when they rule in favor of the RIAA the person found guilty is usually fined ridiculous amounts of money to be made an example for others who download music illegally.

No, this is not true. You seem unable to even read a wikipedia summary of what is happening in this world. The RIAA has brought many suits, every single one of them to my knowledge was for distribution or "making available" which is a well-defined violation of copyright law. The defendants were chosen because they were sharing music, not because they downloaded it. For most people these things are one and the same--limewire and its ilk share everything you download by default and bittorrent by nature of how it works will always be sharing whatever you are downloading. That does not change the fact that while morally wrong, downloading is not what you get nabbed for.

With respect to torrents, again, you are wrong. The MPAA will sometimes contact ISPs and make them aware that customers using their broadband service are downloading copyrighted material. The ISP will in turn send out a letter to the customer making them aware that someone using their IP address has downloaded a copyrighted movie or tv show (they will list exactly what the file was and what time/date the file was downloaded). The letter is meant as a warning to stop downloading copywrited material. If they receive another notification from the MPAA regarding another file of copyrighted material you downloaded, you can have your service terminated.

I don't know where I am wrong here? I don't even remember broaching this topic. Still you speak like someone who has never seen one of these letters. The letters are very specific in that someone using that IP address is sharing/uploading/distributing a copyrighted work. They usually state the titles of the selected works and the dates and times at which they were made available. The RIAA does the same thing and has actually stated that they are transferring to more of a warning system like this than actually suing their customers for outrageous amounts of money.

Most consumers get scared from the first letter and stop using public domains for torrents (they'll either look into private domains, Usenet, or they will stop entirely). Please stop saying that people don't get in trouble for downloading copyrighted materials in the States. Some do.

Yes, this is the point. The pirates get scared and stop. Most people don't know the differance between downloading and uploading (and again, with torrents, both are happening at the same time) so they give up. Still, they have not gotten in trouble for *downloading*, only for copyright infringement that occurs in the unauthorized distribution of a work.

Apple wants nothing to do with Blu-ray because it's a direct competitor to their iTunes movie and rental store. Period. Nothing more.

And this is why it is scary that apple is shoehorning themselves in the middle and blocking out the ability to even go blu-ray. If Microsoft did this (and took a 30% cut) everybody would be at their throats with antitrust concerns.

I am not advocating wholesale piracy but I'd prefer the facts to be correct as to where the crime is actually occurring. I am amazed at the length people are willing to go to make long posts based entirely on their own personal anecdotes and unresearched incorrect conclusions. IP law gets complicated but this is some pretty basic **** that is pretty well defined with a ton of pretty accessible summaries online.

 

[blairh]

Originally Posted by otc

This is probably going to be my farewell to this thread...some total

going on here



I am not advocating wholesale piracy but I'd prefer the facts to be correct as to where the crime is actually occurring. I am amazed at the length people are willing to go to make long posts based entirely on their own personal anecdotes and unresearched incorrect conclusions. IP law gets complicated but this is some pretty basic **** that is pretty well defined with a ton of pretty accessible summaries online.

Everything that I've written is correct. I don't know why you are trying to play it off like facts I'm making up.

I never said anything about "downloading" with respects to the RIAA suits. I said people were brought to court and lost and forced to pay huge fines. There is no disputing that. Most people who download music are also uploading it at the same time (often times they don't even realize it). Every person that I've seen on TV that was nabbed by the RIAA and lost in court seems to fit that description.

I brought up the torrents issue because you said in a previous post that people downloading torrents cannot get in trouble. That. Is. Not. True. It doesn't matter if you were uploading or downloading the torrent, you get nabbed regardless for either infraction (because you can't shut off uploading with most, if not all, torrent applications). Which means of course that you can get these letters from ISPs for simply downloading. What don't you understand?

My point is you can get in trouble for downloading torrents. Getting a letter is a slap on the wrist, a warning, but it can lead to serious measures if you continue your torrent behavior. You keep writing how you can't get in trouble for downloading torrents in the States and that's simply wrong.

This is your quote: "Consuming copyrighted material that is being distributed by someone who is not authorized to do so is not something you get in trouble for in the US."

That's exactly what torrents are with copyrighted material. You couldn't be more wrong.