Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Old 08-16-09, 11:08 AM
  #26  
DVD Talk Legend
 
calhoun07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,401
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner
There was a clear difference between VHS and S-VHS as well.
And there was a clear difference from cassette tape and DAT. The difference in the formats I mentioned before and these two formats is consumers WANTED the other formats. Same with the different CD formats they came out with a few years back...I don't even recall what they were called. Basically, your market research thing plays a lot into it.

Originally Posted by orangerunner
There's a clear difference with Blu-ray if you put it on on a 52" HDTV screen and sit four feet away from the set. For most set-ups with a 40" or smaller TV the difference isn't going to make most people's socks roll up and down and start buying everything Blu-ray.
I don't know if you have to get that big. I begin to see a clear difference on HDTVs about maybe 40" or so. And you don't have to sit back as far, because the screen is not as big. And it's not enough to make my socks roll up and down and a lot of people I talk to are satisfied with the upconversion it does on standard DVDs so they aren't replacing their collection like they did with DVD.

Originally Posted by orangerunner
I still feel Blu-ray is going to be a stop-gap for something better coming up shortly.
Word.

Originally Posted by orangerunner
Even within the Blu-ray format itself, if you buy a title now, in a few months a better version of the film comes out. No, "you don't have to double-dip", "no one's forcing you" is always the retort but most Blu-ray owners want the best, or they wouldn't have bothered with Blu-ray in the first place.
So you're saying there's nothing new in the movie industry?

Originally Posted by orangerunner
The recordable Blu-ray blank discs are at least six bucks a pop still don't have a very good track record of playing in the various machines. Creating & editing your own HD home videos on Blu-ray is very difficult and time consuming.

Add in firmware upgrades and it just feels like a format that hasn't matured enough yet.
The technology is still new, but the firmware upgrades would annoy me as well.
Old 08-16-09, 11:40 AM
  #27  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
jjcool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 7,673
Received 129 Likes on 103 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by drak b
Sadly, no. I can’t imagine any legal recourse unless they started to do something very different and blatantly illegal.

It ticks me off to no end to see stuff like this. Between Blu Ray “exclusives“ and digital copies, I have finally pretty much given up on buying SEs. For the past decade, I’ve always wanted to buy the “best” version possible of a movie on DVD but with a second disc occupied solely by a digital copy I don’t want or basic bonus features needlessly withheld to force collectors to buy their blu ray crap, why bother? This past summer I reluctantly bought my first non-SE version of a title, Watchmen. With most other titles I probably would have purchased in the past, I find myself skipping them altogether.

Frankly I think that most studios got fat and spoiled on DVD revenue during the golden days and are trying to force us into a repeat. Since video and sound quality are apparently not enough alone, they feel the need to rip off their consumers in this manner.
I too am sick and tired of editions being touted as two disc special editions, where the only thing on the second disc is the useless digital copy. I too normally buy the deluxe version, but when I see this, I opt for the single disc version everytime.
Old 08-16-09, 11:56 AM
  #28  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
jjcool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 7,673
Received 129 Likes on 103 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by stingermck
Did VHS collectors feel this same sense of entitlement when DVD was released?
What did they remove from vhs releases that were previously on there?
Old 08-16-09, 12:01 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
jjcool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 7,673
Received 129 Likes on 103 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Studios are definitely not liable for discrimination against dvd consumers. It is their product and thay are free to do as the please.

It is up to the consumer to make his feelings known. I will say that I havent bought a two disc version of a dvd title if there was a one disc version available in at least a year. I jsut dont really care about the special features, or what passes for special features nowadays. When blue ray comes down to a reasonable price, i will jump on that bandwagon. Till then I will get my single disc dvds at 1/3 the price of the blue ray version.
Old 08-16-09, 12:03 PM
  #30  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 71,383
Received 122 Likes on 84 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Discrimination? Legally liable? Get over yourself.
Old 08-16-09, 12:53 PM
  #31  
DVD Talk God
 
DJariya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: La Palma, CA
Posts: 79,344
Received 3,746 Likes on 2,688 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

It's a part of life that Studios and companies will start pushing premium product.

Back in the 90's, Baseball card companies started pushing their $2-$5 Packs of Premium Cards with special "Inserts" and the old 50 cent bubble cards were eventually pushed to the backburner. And you know what, people were more than happy to spend the extra $$$$ for the premium cards.

If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.
Old 08-16-09, 12:53 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,963
Received 132 Likes on 103 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Silverscreenvid
If you buy a Cadillac, it has more features than a Chevy. If you buy a high end TV or dishwasher, it has more features than the standard model. Why should it be any different for DVD/Blu Ray?
If you've bought Cadillacs in the past you have come to expect a certain level of quality and standard options. If a Cadillac (DVD) suddenly came standard with manual steering/brakes, plain steel wheels and an 8 track stereo for the same price you'd certainly be disappointed.

Then a Cadillac GT (Blu-ray) is released for 30% more money but it comes with all the standard features and the addition of leather seats with a scratch proof paint job.
Old 08-16-09, 01:03 PM
  #33  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bellefontaine, Ohio
Posts: 5,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by DJariya
It's a part of life that Studios and companies will start pushing premium product.

Back in the 90's, Baseball card companies started pushing their $2-$5 Packs of Premium Cards with special "Inserts" and the old 50 cent bubble cards were eventually pushed to the backburner. And you know what, people were more than happy to spend the extra $$$$ for the premium cards.

If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.
Did you just compare DVD's to baseball cards?. I am sorry but that is a FAIL!

And I know I rarely buy any title that is barebones. Even if it is one of my favorite films of the year. No way am i gonna spend money on a title that no effort has been put into. I will if I really like something and its only a couple of bucks or so but even then its gotta be something special.
Its fine if they wanna do this I just want Warner Bros (and other studios) to know I wont buy there titles if they do this. Sorry but Trick Or Treat (and many other titles) is now a netflix rental ONLY!
Old 08-16-09, 01:08 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner
Creating & editing your own HD home videos on Blu-ray is very difficult and time consuming.
Speaking as someone who has an HD camcorder, I can tell you that you don't need a Blu-ray burner or expensive blank Blu-ray discs. Most Blu-ray players play HD video burned onto regular DVD-R and DVD+R. And I'm doing so with a seven-year-old PC.
Old 08-16-09, 01:14 PM
  #35  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,963
Received 132 Likes on 103 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by DJariya
If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.
People paid $29.95 in 1998 for a bare-bones DVD because that was the precedent that was set at the time. VHS and many standard laser discs in 1998 rarely gave you much more than just the movie as well.

It's not a matter of being jealous or bashing Blu-ray. It's a matter of the studios degrading the existing format in order to make the higher-profit disc appear far superior.

If Blu-ray wants to make a good impression give customers, at the very least, everything they had on the DVD plus something they didn't have.

Going back to the beginning of the cycle of releasing bare-bones first then following up with a SE or the Unrated edition is a merry-go-round that isn't going to fly with consumers.

Last edited by orangerunner; 08-16-09 at 01:18 PM.
Old 08-16-09, 01:17 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,963
Received 132 Likes on 103 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Mr. Salty
Speaking as someone who has an HD camcorder, I can tell you that you don't need a Blu-ray burner or expensive blank Blu-ray discs. Most Blu-ray players play HD video burned onto regular DVD-R and DVD+R. And I'm doing so with a seven-year-old PC.
True enough but I imagine you're down-converting it to SD, which looks fine too. You're not getting "true" 1080i HD picture quality.
Old 08-16-09, 01:19 PM
  #37  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
UAIOE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: LV-426
Posts: 6,598
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

In other news:

It seems "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery" on Blu-Ray contains the same extras as the DVD from 1997 does.

So much for the Christian Slater scenes.
Old 08-16-09, 02:06 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner
True enough but I imagine you're down-converting it to SD, which looks fine too. You're not getting "true" 1080i HD picture quality.
I wouldn't make that assumption because it's perfectly possible to put 1080 HD video on a DVD-R as described. You just don't put it in a DVD format, you put it in a Blu-ray format or AVCHD.
Old 08-16-09, 02:19 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
The Man with the Golden Doujinshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mister Peepers
Posts: 7,882
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Hey guys, guess what's going to happen when old movie format y is being pushed to replace new movie format x? The same thing every time.
Old 08-16-09, 07:23 PM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

This isn't anything illegal, it's just business. If the movie studios want to try to leverage DVD buyers into Blu Ray by withholding features from DVDs, that's their right. Equally, it's my right to keep buying DVDs and live with a reduced feature set; and/or wait until Blu Ray is available at the costs I pay for today's DVDs. But I will not jump to Blu Ray before I'm ready, just to get some extras.
Old 08-16-09, 08:12 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: los angeles, ca
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by hindolio
i apologize if i am not in the loop on this, but why are some new sd dvd releases so poor in quality compared to their blu counterparts? ive seen numerous threads lately about how bad the sd dvd release is while the blu is near perfect. i recall comments about this on the dark knight.

if this is accurate, as a few posters in the past have suggested, are studios intentionally releasing subpar sd dvds in order to widen the difference when compared to blu? of course, this is not illegal or discriminatory in the sense of each word. but ill argue it is pretty sucky.
i briefly read all of the posts since my post, and none address the issue i indicated above. any thoughts from anyone? is my post accurate or not?
Old 08-16-09, 08:15 PM
  #42  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 30,733
Received 1,500 Likes on 949 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

You're a studio. You've been on the gravy train for the last ten years because everyone in the world has buying DVDs. But DVD income is not increasing like it once was, and you need to come up with another way to separate people from their money.

The natural response is to come out with the same movies on a new format and convince customers to buy your movies again. Since the picture quality is only marginally better, and can only be seen on giant screens, the "upgrade" pitch will only take you so far. So you throw a little prize onto the new format to convince people to buy that instead of the less profitable old format. (But wait! There's more! NOW how much would you pay?)

It's not discrimination. It's just salesmanship.
Old 08-16-09, 09:40 PM
  #43  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 3,992
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Willo007
What are your thoughts regarding this issue guys, let the hazing begin!!!
Blu-ray is now the premiere home video format, so it shouldn't be a surprise the studios are giving it priority.

It's a pleasant change from the late '90s, when the best treatment was reserved for the archaic and dying Laserdisc while DVD, then the premiere home video format, would wait months (in some cases, over a year).

Disc collecting is shifting to Blu, and I'd suggest you holdouts buy in.
Old 08-16-09, 09:50 PM
  #44  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 16,077
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 13 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by UAIOE
Holographic storage, that was the supposed "next" big tech beyond Blu-Ray.
And what would that do if it was here now? Let's even pretend that it was just as cheap to produce. What good would more space do if 50GB is more than enough for HD video? They're not going to start putting multiple movies on one disc. Sure, they may do it with old catalog titles on DVD to wring a few more sales out of them, but it won't happen for new releases or big titles.

Hindolio, I really don't know if it's true that DVD releases are getting shafted in terms of quality. I don't think The Dark Knight would be the best example, since as far as I'm concerned the BD isn't perfect either. It looks to me like it has problems with edge enhancement that may be due to the IMAX DMR process. But this is controversial, and some claim it looks fine. I haven't seen the DVD, so I don't know how it looks.
Old 08-16-09, 09:52 PM
  #45  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NY
Posts: 3,364
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Why shun Blu-ray because you have no interest in upgrading your current DVD's? Blu-ray players still play DVD's, and you can buy all your newer favorites you don't own yet as they become available in high definition. Why buy an HDTV if you have no interest in upgrading to HD content at all? And no, they're not legally liable. To say you don't want to upgrade is one thing, to ask such a question is just downright silly. It's a business, and they'll do what they want to get the money flowing to the next big thing that they've dumped so much money into. Fair? No. Smart? Yes.
Old 08-16-09, 10:38 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,249
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

I've seen a few posts allude to a "better" format upcoming after Blu-Ray. I'm sure there will always be something newer and fancier. But let's face two facts:

(1) The main upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray is better picture and audio

(2) The audio on Blu-Ray can be lossless, which means it can't get better. Picture quality can get better, since its only at 1080p. But to appreciate it, you'll need a pretty big screen. Good luck adopting that to the masses, especially after so many are already whining about the minimal advantages of Blu-Ray.

There may be a new format coming, but it'll have a hard time offering huge benefits to anyone other than storage space.
Old 08-16-09, 10:44 PM
  #47  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by drmar35mm
This isn't anything illegal, it's just business. If the movie studios want to try to leverage DVD buyers into Blu Ray by withholding features from DVDs, that's their right. Equally, it's my right to keep buying DVDs and live with a reduced feature set; and/or wait until Blu Ray is available at the costs I pay for today's DVDs. But I will not jump to Blu Ray before I'm ready, just to get some extras.
Old 08-16-09, 10:45 PM
  #48  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bellefontaine, Ohio
Posts: 5,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by DivxGuy

Disc collecting is shifting to Blu, and I'd suggest you holdouts buy in.
This INFURIATES me and makes me hate Blu-ray more than I already do. Also it sounds like desperate comments form someone trying to recruit as many potential buyers as possible just so the format they prefer is in the game longer.
Old 08-16-09, 11:05 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk Legend
 
calhoun07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,401
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by mzupeman2
Why shun Blu-ray because you have no interest in upgrading your current DVD's? Blu-ray players still play DVD's, and you can buy all your newer favorites you don't own yet as they become available in high definition.
Not to mention the upconversion of standard def DVDs looks pretty damn good, another plus of a Blu-Ray player.
Old 08-16-09, 11:09 PM
  #50  
DVD Talk Legend
 
calhoun07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,401
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Jericho
I've seen a few posts allude to a "better" format upcoming after Blu-Ray.

There may be a new format coming, but it'll have a hard time offering huge benefits to anyone other than storage space.
There's a lot of room to grow in home formats:


Though I can't imagine Super Hi-Vision ever coming to home theaters...you'd need a TV about four times the size of the largest 1080p TV on the market today.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.