Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Microsoft Patents Your Rights Online

Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players 490

dmayle writes "According to ExtremeTech, the Blu-Ray Disc Association (which consists of many big names, like Sony, Philips, and Pioneer) has decided to mandate Microsoft's VC-1 video codec. With HD-DVD incorporating Microsoft's patented video codecs as well, what will happen to the state of media players on Open Source? (Here's an additional source for Blu-Ray info)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players

Comments Filter:
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:25AM (#10128790)
    Ahem [slashdot.org], it seems that they are making their inroads to Media domination...

    Microsoft will maintain its neutral position in supporting the emerging high definition video formats, said Amir Majidimehr, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Windows Media division, in a statement.

    MSFT will remain "neutral" as long as they are getting paid royalties to use the codec in the design. This will likely mean that Open Source alternatives will be shutout although with other technologies OSS has been able to make its way around those roadblocks.

    How long until the MPAA gives in or will yet ANOTHER media format be created that won't include MSFT or OSS?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:26AM (#10128801)
    Could someone please explain this to me is words that actually made sence to a person that has no idea what codec and all that stuff is?
  • Beta-Ray (Score:1, Interesting)

    by mark0 ( 750639 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:27AM (#10128811)
    If Microsoft is heavy-handed about this, I would think that manufacturers would react in much the same way folk reacted to Sony around Beta. A splinter group will form with another, superficially similar standard and the more open one will tend to win...
  • Not much meat... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by debianlinux ( 548082 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:28AM (#10128843)
    Not much to that article.

    What prevents the OSS community from developing it's own codec and getting approved the same way M$ has done?
  • by gpinzone ( 531794 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:29AM (#10128853) Homepage Journal
    How is this different than mandating all current DVD player support Dolby Digital? This doesn't preclude the standard from accepting other open source codecs. Market forces have pretty much made DTS decoding standard in all current players.
  • by kiljoy001 ( 809756 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:31AM (#10128894)
    I can't help to think that this is incredably short sighted by said companies. They go through all that trouble to create a new format, and then dictate that the compression method used is propriatary, and currently non-standard. It's not about Microsoft(!?), this is about clear and common sence: If you use a propiertary format, don't you think that the owner will charge some kind of royality fee for the useage ? This could only make this more costly, and less attractive to future users of this. Clearly this is akin to shooting one's self in the foot, let's not even get started with OSS trying to keep up on this format too...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:34AM (#10128931)
    I am highly confused by these articles.. I thought that QT's implementation of the h.264 codec had already been ratified for use in the next gerneration of HD-DVD's?

    unless I am missing something here or apple is blowing smoke.. whats the deal...

    am I even talking about the same topic?
    http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jun/2 3quickti me.html

    what does that press release refer too then?

    comments?
  • by denis-The-menace ( 471988 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:37AM (#10128991)
    1- Remember that Hollywood is supposedly afraid of Microsoft [slashdot.org]
    2- Royalties jack up the price of things
    3- There is still plenty of time for bickering and delay to kill this a-la-Digital-Audio-Tape.
  • Re:What will happen? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mukund ( 163654 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:42AM (#10129060) Homepage
    You forget DVD Jon has not retired yet unlike an MPAA official.
  • by doofusclam ( 528746 ) <slash@seanyseansean.com> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:47AM (#10129119) Homepage
    Does anyone know what a ballpark cost would be for licensing the IP for a blu-ray player, including the MS and other patented bits?

    With all these codecs on board i'd imagine it's a lot more than for regular DVD, and seeing the Chinese manufacturers attitude towards this they'll just go right ahead with their own patent-free platform. Hollywood will ignore them, at first, then they'll panic like mad knowing that a couple of billion users can only buy pirated copies of their films. Brilliant, way to go.

  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:47AM (#10129128) Homepage Journal
    The Microsoft video codec will be required for inclusion in Blu-Ray players, but others won't be excluded. That means M$ getting a royalty for every player sold in the world, which is a great business for them. It's certainly been a great business for Sony and Phillips, with their codec required in every CD player. It also guarantees their own media products will be compatible with the new players, without any extra R&D, to say nothing of putting their logo on all those consumer devices.

    Other codecs can also run. There might be pricing pressure on manufacturers to exclude the other, non-mandated codecs. Just like the PC "bundling" coup that drove Microsoft to their monopoly position. Blu-Ray needs at least one required codec to be a stable target for media delivery. By requiring Microsoft's codec, they've pushed Microsoft's monopoly-perpetuation strategy into the wider world of consumer TV.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:48AM (#10129135)
    How funny, my 7 year old son must be faking reading subtitles aloud to his younger sister then.
  • Re:How is this news? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:54AM (#10129219) Homepage Journal
    Blu-Ray Disc (BD) already supported MPEG-2 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and now just added Microsoft VC-9. So what?

    It's important because if you want to build an HD-DVD (and now Blu-Ray DVD) player, you have to support all the codecs specified by the format. You only have a choice when you're a content producer deciding which codec to use. You can't just build a player and decide "Well, I like MPEG but I don't like Microsoft, so I'll omit the VC-9 codec." If you do that, your player won't get certified. And of course, users will complain when their VC-9 encoded discs won't play on your player.

    So now what do you do if you're building, say, a Linux player? Now you have to acquire IP rights from not only the MPEG people, but also from Microsoft. Think that'll be easy?

    Yes, this will be reverse-engineered in some part of the world which is not dominated by the Corporate/Government oligarchy that exists in the US. In fact, the xine/mplayer stuff can probably handle it today. But you can be sure that both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will carry a brand new scrambling system as well. Perhaps DVD Jon will crack it, but don't count on it happening quickly.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:59AM (#10129279)
    I've got my crystal ball handy - so here's your official ``Preview of Future News Stories to be Seen on Slashdot''.

    - Microsoft Blu-Ray Codec appears in first manufactured unit
    - (Three days before previous article) Microsoft Blu-Ray Codec implementation hacked by [group|bright individual name] in [some northern European country].
    - Microsoft pressures [appropriate government] to arrest the evil doer, sell him/her into slavery, raze their house to the ground, and sue everyone who downloaded the sourcecode.
    - Massive (though largely unnoticed by general population) protests about the fate of [bright lad/lassie from northern European country]. Important statements by ACLU, EFF
    - Lengthly legal battle begins
    - Thoroughly illegal, but widely circulated OSS implementation of Blu-Ray appears as a plugin for mplayer/xine
    - Storm settles down as MS is (one hopes) struck down yet again by a multiplicity of courts, which does not prevent MS from ranting about "evil OSS pirates"
    - Meanwhile, a new compression codec is invented that allows compression of HD-DVD onto a regular DVD (or CD), a superpowerful DivX
    - Said codec is also included into mplayer/xine
    - New generation of ripped movies appears on P2P networks, with ripping tools first written for Windows, of course.
    - The Enterprise continues on its five-year mission.
  • by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:01PM (#10129299)
    The same thing that will happen to all serious Free software development: it will eventually migrate out of the United States where it can continue unhindered by insane patent and export laws. The finished product will find its way back into the US via FreeNet/WASTE/etc.
  • by pyros ( 61399 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:07PM (#10129359) Journal
    If the recorders only use one owned by MS, then how are open source media players supposed to use the damn thing since they can't pay royaltys to MS?

    Some third company could pay the license and write a closed source plugin for that open source media player, and sell the plugin. Although the third company would probably be run out of business by the screaming masses shouting "your plugin is a derivative work therefor it must be made open source!" So maybe they would write an open source interface to the closed source codec. But people would still whine and bitch because they can't have it for free.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:17PM (#10129489)
    "Oh, Linux is supreior! All bow to Linux Torvalds for Open Source is life!"

    If you folks could open your eyes for just a few seconds and realize that in many cases, open source software, codecs, etc are NOT superior to their commercial alternatives (and in many cases are quite inferior - just compare Symantec Ghost to DD for instance), the world would be a better place. Just because something is free doesn't make it good. Microsoft video codecs have a long history of being superior to just about anything on the market (especially in terms of quality vs. filesize).

    Also, just because it's from a commercial vendor does NOT mean it would include DRM of Death. (For the records: despite my support of MSFT, DRM is evil)
  • by iainl ( 136759 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:42PM (#10129848)
    Oh, I know there's a problem, all right. Its just that most of the /. crowd don't seem to overly care as long as mplayer works using a codec that is legally questionable in the US, but easily available.
  • Other than being faster, why would a hardware encoder have intrinsically better output than a software encoder? You can implement the same algorithms in either one.
  • by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:44PM (#10129864)
    MPEG2 may be lacking in certain efficiencies, but MPEG2 with enough bandwidth (and the point of Blu-ray was to GET enough bandwidth) looks AWESOME.

    The draw-back to new CODECs? HDTV was SUPPOSED to standardize on MPEG2, not because it was the best, but because it was pretty good when it came out and would be cheap to implement by the changeover in a few years.

    Remember, televisions are going to start having to ship with HDTV decoders (err, did have to start shipping as of a few months ago, a certain percentage of sets), and they don't want to include OTA without CableCard...

    This means that within a few years, all new sets will ship with HDTV decoders, which includes, an MPEG2 decoder. Therefore, the manufacturers should start including Firewire.

    A wonderful day was nearly upon us, Firewire for EVERYTHING but videogame systems. We were going to be able to use a basic remote instead of $200-$800 programmable remotes that depend upon screwy macros.

    Instead, we're going to lose the Firewire stereo, and instead suffer with messes of cables and macros...

    Sure HDMI offers some ease of use, but not the beauty of Firewire.

    The AV-HD or whatever it was called was brilliant... it was a harddrive in a box that supported the decryption/encryption of HD from OTA sources... Your television could manage it.

    Instead, before the HDTV mainstream adoption (those of us with sets are still 5%), we're already abandonning MPEG2...

    It would have been nice if the FIRST round of HD gear could all be MPEG2... We could have gone with fancier codecs with the NEXT replacement, but oh no, we're getting trashed before it began.

    I have over 100+ wires behind my entertainment center, I dreamed of cutting down to 8...

    Alex
  • Re:Great! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:57PM (#10130018)
    I beg to differ. There was a Sony demo in the San Francisco Metreon that had some random Sony laptop playing some random underwater scene recorded in a high definition M$ codec of some kind.

    The quality, frankly, blew. There were green artifacts everywhere.

    I, for one, would rather see 10-bit 4:2:2 or better codecs at a high bitrate (20-25 mbps) anyway, rather than focussing so much effort on cutting bitrate.

    Cutting bitrates means you are getting creative with how much frequency information you throw away, but doesn't that seem backward? The whole point of HDTV is to get more pixels, which means *higher* frequency information than you could display otherwise. Instead we're all hell-bent on quantizing it all away with all these DCT-style algorithms.
  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:12PM (#10130174)
    In fact, the linked article in the original post shows the Achilles heel of such a strategy: "For one thing, a homegrown format like EVD would become useless if few movies are released for it."

    I don't see this as an issue at all. EVD devices would likely be cheap, since they'd be oriented towards the Chinese market, and would therefore likely be popular in the entire Asian rim of the Pacific.

    Which in turn means a huge market, either legitimate, or otherwise. Movies in format xx would be dubbed or transcoded to EVD by the pirate market.

    I always wonder if the Chinese stanards are an attempt not at market control/freedom from royalties, but actually a form of information control. If EVD is cheapest, it can win in the market, and the government can control what gets released internally on EVD.

    I've always thought that DVD regions were a form of that as well -- what's the deal with countries as proximate as Japan, China and Viet Nam being in *three* different regions? Why is China in its own region? Why have different regions for Western Europe *and* Russia/Eastern Europe, despite EU membership spanning that divide?

    I'm sure the standard was in development during the cold war and those regional codings reflected political wills -- no worries to Soviet or Chinese censors about evil outside influences, since supposedly their players wouldn't even play outside content.

    I know we're told its about release timing and regional marketing, but it smells like politics to me.
  • by Rashkae ( 59673 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @02:05PM (#10130712) Homepage
    New movies are still coming out on VHS. What makes you think producers are going to kill DVD's??? A technology like VHS and DVD that manages to become the standard for untold "joe blow" consumers is where the money is at, and is where producers will target prducts.

    Another note: VHS is still popular because it is the only medium people can record on. Now that DVD player prices have dropped to obscene lows in price, where manufacturers are only making a few dollars proffit on a player, a DVD recorder (for regular people to use to record HDTV broadcasts), will be the next thing to hit the mass market.

    I know there are tons of legal hassels, and no doubt lawyers on both sides of the debate will make off with huge sums of cash. But in the end, this is the only avenue left open for profit and exploitation by hardware makers, and therefore, eventually, is where the market is going to go. This will, of course, ensure that DVD becomes the entrenched standard for even longer.

    All of this will piss off movie execs, who will whine and moan about piracy, at the same time as sales for cheaply produced discs will continue to boost profits year after year. Really, I just can't understand some people. I can only imagine how much profits on DVD's will increase once studios realize they can publish DVD's without paying licenses to MacroVision. After all, it will have no effect on Piracy (anyone who wants can get around it anyhow), so why pay for it?

    Note: The above post contains forward looking statements that reflect the personal opinion of the author only. Any resemblance to what will happen in the future is purely coincidental.
  • Blu-ray needs the cartridge because it uses a much thinner plastic layer, making it more vulnerable to scratches, grease, etcetera. I'd expect DVD Forum blue laser to have durability not much worse than DVD. In my experience, I have plenty of 8 year old discs that play just fine, as long as the kids haven't been at them.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...