Toshiba to drop HD DVD

[SPM]

Whatever HD-DVD's interpretation was is the same as Blu-Ray since they're going to use the same spec for MMC. The only deal making was the MS use to crow about Blu-ray not having adopted MMC (before either HD-DVD or Blu-ray had shipped), so the BDA changed that. All your MS talking points predate that adjustment. Hardware support on HD-DVD players is just as optional. The fact that all HD-DVD players have ethernet ports is immaterial since they still, from a hardware perspective, don't support making copies and never will. The spec still hasn't been finalized and when it does you will see a new generation of devices designed with built in storage as HD movie jukeboxes. You should also see Windows applications that will allow copies on computer systems. Theoretically, the PS3 is actually positioned to work well as a managed copy device since it is net enabled, offers expandable internal and external storage as well as potential access to NAS devices. Bottom line, by the time either were on the market all the software supported MMC but there is still no way to take advantage of it.

As you say MMC isn't actually implemented yet, but although BD uses the same technical spec for MMC as HD-DVD, there is no reason to assume the conditions for its use in the BD spec is the same. For example BD doesn't mandate an ethernet interface, HD-DVD does, so that is different for a start. There is therefore no reason why in BD the media may not allow allow veto of managed copy, even if MMC is part of the spec. The ethernet interface is for approval of the managed copy by the content provider or the content provider's proxy, so that could be another way of the content provider vetoing managed copy even if the same MMC was present on all players - ie. refusing to give permission to copy . The problem is that the studios don't trust software based controls on an open architecture like a PC.

Apparently the haggling with content providers was still going on until very recently as you will note from the date of the link I posted, and maybe is still going on. So the issue of whether 0, 1 or more managed copies will be allowed under MMC was still under discussion despite the acceptance of MMC by both BD and HD-DVD. I suspect the behind the scenes haggling with content providers might actually have been the main reason for Warner to drop HD-DVD in order to ensure BD won. I suspect the different treatment of this interpretation by the HD-DVD and BD camps was the reason why Microsoft backed HD-DVD.

The important thing to realize is that it is the hardware that actually allows or denies managed copy, so it is possible for the hardware manufacturer's interpretation of MMC to trump the content provider's - if the hardware allows copying, the content provider can't do anything about it other than keep it's content off the format. The fact is that music studios don't like selling music on CDs and would like some kind of DRMed format, but they are forced to because player manufacturers don't incorporate DRM into hardware, and software based DRM on PCs are problematic for computer users and are easily broken anyway. The only choice content providers have is to chose between the formats that are available - BD and HD-DVD in this case, and back the one which they think protects their content better.

Sony of course are not be averse to DRM based practices if it would give them a market advantage. Sony needed to allow content providers to veto managed copy initially in order to get film studio support initially. Now that BD has won the HD wars, Sony may well change it's tune (unless it is not tied in by conditions of agreements it signed) with the aim of getting the PS3 and similar devices established as the home media center, and it may actually be in Sony's interests to now push managed copy. Remember if Sony controls the BD format via it's patents, and HD-DVD isn't around, Sony is in control. Sony can use it's BD spec related patents to deny the right to manufacture BD players to any manufacturer that breaks agreements it has signed regarding the conditions set relating to relating to Sony's conditions for MMC in BD.

I think that if Sony allows no-veto managed copy on computers, it will lose to Microsoft. On the other hand if it has done a deal to allow veto of managed copy by content producers only on open computing devices like computers, but not on closed embedded players with built-in BD drives (eg. consoles and PVRs), then Sony would benefit. It is possible to easily justify this on the grounds of security against DRM cracking given the number of cracks that have already taken place. Of course that won't give Sony a monopoly, because Microsoft can introduce an XBox 360 with a built in BD drive, but it will certainly boost the PS3 compared to the XBox 360, because it can also use the BD drive for games, and the BD equipped XBox 360's price advantage would dissapear. Other BD player manufacturers would be able to do the same, producing a BD PVR type device, but the PS3 would have the advantage over them as well.

Now the above would nicely explain the reason for everything that has gone on so far - Why Bill Gates got so hot under the collar and backed HD-DVD so strongly. Why Sony kept off MMC initially and then adopted it. Why the content providers are arguing about what mandatory in MMC means, and why Warner decided to drop HD-DVD when it did.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Like I said, the ethernet in HD-DVD is immaterial since any hardware that can actually perform a managed copy will need internet access. Any BD devices that can make copies will have an ethernet port. The fact that Toshiba made a bunch of decks that can't make copies with network interfaces doesn't enter into the conversation at all. A device that is approved to make copies will have an interface for internet access, no matter what format we're talking about. That's how the "management" comes into the equation. It's not the Blu-ray profile that matters in this case, only the MMC spec the hardware must adhere to.

As for the mandatory part, that's already settled too. All movies are required to allow a copy. But how many, and whether there is an additional charge involved is up to the studio. This has always been the case for both formats.

 

[SPM]

Like I said, the ethernet in HD-DVD is immaterial since any hardware that can actually perform a managed copy will need internet access. Any BD devices that can make copies will have an ethernet port. The fact that Toshiba made a bunch of decks that can't make copies with network interfaces doesn't enter into the conversation at all. A device that is approved to make copies will have an interface for internet access, no matter what format we're talking about. That's how the "management" comes into the equation. It's not the Blu-ray profile that matters in this case, only the MMC spec the hardware must adhere to.

As for the mandatory part, that's already settled too. All movies are required to allow a copy. But how many, and whether there is an additional charge involved is up to the studio. This has always been the case for both formats.

From what I understand, the network interface is required to authorise copy to disk - that is why it is required. The HD-DVD spec required a network interface to be compliant. BD strangely still doesn't, and therefore it is clear that BD players don't need to allow MMC to be BD compliant.

I can't see why technically the BD spec can't overide permitting copies because MMC is a subset of the BD spec. If BD specs can allow hardware manufacturers can opt out of allowing managed copies and still comply with the BD spec, then why not content providers? What about the BD disk spec? How are earlier versions of the BD specs that didn't allow managed copy supported on newer players? Content providers licensed BD originally on the basis that managed copy wasn't permitted when later players came onto the market. If they can't still go on producing disks to the earlier BD standard they licensed, and expect that those conditions are honoured by later BD players, then surely they can sue Sony for it.

You may well be right that the BD spec has now been changed. Sony is a hardware manufacturer, and they certainly may prefer it that way, but the status is still not clear.

Firstly, it is still not clear what the changes actually imply that the content providers can't veto managed copy. We will need to look at the precise wording of the specs and the licenses signed with content providers for that.

1)The words:

"Yes, mandatory managed copy (MMC) will be part of the Blu-ray format. This feature will enable consumers to make legal copies of their Blu-ray movies that can be transferred over a home network. Please note that "mandatory" refers to the movies having to offer this capability, while it will be up to each hardware manufacturer to decide if they want to support this feature."

is ambiguous, and certainly explains why the content providers and various websites seem to disagree. Does the above mean that the content providers are compelled to allow copying in order to meet the BD spec, or that the copy protection is mandatory on the user, and so copying to hard drive will only be permitted if the movie allows it. I think the latter is more likely.

2) The studios licensed the earlier variants of BD on the basis that MMC wasn't allowed. Can content providers sell BD disks to the previous BD specs which didn't allow MMC? They licensed BD on the basis that managed copies would not be allowed. If players are backward compatible with disks produced to earlier BD specs then surely Sony will have to support non MMC media.

 

[Brad Grenz]

The reason it's not clear to you is because you don't seem to know what you're talking about. I've explained a couple times that the network interface issue between HD-DVD and the early Blu-ray profile is a non issue. The fact is that any device that wants to advertise support for making managed copies will have to have a network port to supply that functionality. Frankly, there's nothing to force either HD-DVD or BD device manufacturers to ever make MMC capable hardware. HD-DVD's earlier support for internet access is completely immaterial to the question.

Please note that "mandatory" refers to the movies having to offer this capability

I don't know how they can make that any clearer for you. It is not an ambiguous statement. Furthermore, whenever the BDA made a statement about MMC you need to apply your assumptions to HD-DVD as well since it was going to work exactly the same way on that format.

As for your last point, by the time the BD spec was finalized and retail production began MMC was required for movie discs being produced. There is no version that went into production that does not include provisions for MMC. These concerns are literally two years old. It's not a problem the way you're thinking about it.

 

[SPM]

I have checked the detailed BD license terms, and it seems all my suspicions were correct. Sure enough, BD allows the content provider to veto managed copy, and do a whole lot of other things as well, like limit playing for a certain period of time, or prevent playing before a certain date.

As I said BD is a superset of MMC and the way it has been done is that Sony has added an extra layer of DRM in BD+ that is layered on top of MMC, and can veto anything that MMC and AACS can make available, and which the content providers rather than the hardware vendors control.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/Blu-ray-to-let-studios-decide-on-managed-copying-by-the-disc.html
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=598003
http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/bdplus.cfm
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/vectors/brcp.pdf

Basically Sony implemented MMC to get HP on board, and then implemented BD+ to get the studios on board. Since content is king, BD won.

The other interesting thing is is the BD+ license
http://www.blu-raydisc.info/content_prov/rom2content_prot.php
BD-ROM Game Console, BD-ROM movie player, and BD-ROM PC applications are required to support BD+ to conform with the BD license.

As I have said before, this is why Microsoft tried to kill off BD and tried to establish HD-DVD. BD allowing veto of managed copy killed off Microsoft's dreams of a media center monopoly. Since computers are rarely directly connected to HDTVs, if MMC isn't forced onto content providers, then standalone players or games consoles with built in BD players will win - why wants to but an expensive media center that only plays some titles over the network, and requires to to dash out and insert a BD disk into a connected BD player in order to play other movies. Having said that, Sony has been fair it seems about not differentiating between PC applications and embedded players - both are subject to the same terms and conditions.

This also explains Microsoft's recent attempt to foist AACS and MMC on DVD in order to get a Microsoft media center centric MMC DVD based system established once HD-DVD and unveto-able MMC failed. There is a one track mind working here.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why Warner ditched HD-DVD in the end was BD+ veto capability.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Are you not checking dates on these articles? Your first two links predate the switch to Mandatory Managed Copy from an optional implementation. The third link only cites some nebulous fear about how BD+ may interact with MMC without offering any evidence. God knows when that was written. And the fourth doc is just an overview of the various technologies involved which doesn't seem to say anything like what you're saying. As for the last link, well no kidding. The BD license requires BD devices to conform to the BD spec? Whodathunkit.

Let me put it this way: If there is a BD+ update that breaks your MMC Blu-ray Device's ability to make or play legal backups then you will undoubtedly win your class action lawsuit when you sue. The Dell PDF says right there that players can be updated with the news keys if needed so there's no fear of your player just not working any more.

 

[Mintmaster]

"Yes, mandatory managed copy (MMC) will be part of the Blu-ray format. This feature will enable consumers to make legal copies of their Blu-ray movies that can be transferred over a home network. Please note that "mandatory" refers to the movies having to offer this capability, while it will be up to each hardware manufacturer to decide if they want to support this feature."

Well I have to agree with Brad that you just destroyed your own argument with this quote. Theres nothing ambiguous about it. Mandatory means all movies offer it, and it's right there on the official BR site.

So while I still think managed copy is utterly irrelevent to Microsoft's motivations in supporting HD-DVD (regardless of those interviews which are really just marketing to make them look like good guys to HTPC owners), the fact remains that HD-DVD and BR have no differences on this matter anyway.

IMHO the only sensible reason for MS to support HD-DVD was to give them a big launch pad for their codec business (spite against Sony or BD-J isn't fiscally worth it). Now they have marketshare and industry leading tools, so there's a great chance of them carrying their success over to BR. VC-1 may not be as dominant a codec as Windows is an OS, but it should still give them a decent piece of the pie.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, it's not like there weren't reasons for MS to back HD-DVD and try to torpedo Blu-ray. There were lots of them. Some of them just became moot when the BDA adopted the technologies that had been HD-DVD talking points. Those include support for MMC and the VC-1 codec. MS still had a vested interest in seeing iHD become the standard over BD-J, and a legitimate need to damage the PS3's competitive value prospect. MS may have had ambitious plans involving HD-DVD and MMC with their technology at the center, but that's just old news at this point. Frankly, there's little to stop them from going forward with those plans using Blu-ray as the basis. Integrating MMC capabilities into WHS would be cool, for example.