Archive for the ‘High Definition (Blu-ray/HD DVD/4K)’ Category

Weekly News Roundup (11 September 2011)

Sunday, September 11th, 2011

It’s hard to believe it’s been 10 years already. So much has changed since then, hasn’t it? I remember I was watching The West Wing, of all shows, when the breaking news alert interrupted the episode (and I never did finish watching that episode until I purchased the DVD box set, some 8 years later).

As for news this week, not a lot, but good in quality always makes up for quantity. And after last week’s acidically toned mega long post, I think this week’s will be a lot “better”, well, hopefully shorter anyway.

Copyright

Copyright news up front, I’ll start with a news post that I’m actually quite proud of, because I actually spend like more than 10 minutes “researching” it (aka copying what others reputable news organisations have posted), and it also involved use of arithmetic and statistics, two of my favourites things based on the stuff I like to write on a regular basis (NPD analysis, and weekly Blu-ray stats analysis).

Big DVD Collection

This is what the MPAA thinks a movie pirate's movie collection will look like if they stopped pirating, by spending $1,000 more every year on legal goods

But full credit to the MPAA for releasing the info-graphic that I based my “analysis” on, which came to the conclusion that, if the MPAA’s numbers in regards to piracy rates and the cost to the economy are true, it means that every pirate would be spending $1,000 more every year buying legal content. The MPAA’s “statistics” are mostly conjecture, and (in my opinion, wildly inaccurate) estimations. Because you can’t really estimate losses due to piracy, because this would require knowing what pirates would do if they did not pirate any more. This is impossible to calculate because, one, you can’t guess what a group of largely independent people will and will not do, and two, there’s not way to stop piracy and force these people to “do the right thing”. But let’s give the MPAA the benefit of the doubt and let’s say their figures are correct, then what the MPAA is effectively saying is that probably 25% of all Net users in the United States are pirates, and that each pirate is costing the creative industries $1,000 per year, per person, to get to the $58 billion yearly losses that the MPAA mentions. If the MPAA counts every instance of copyright theft as a loss of revenue for the full price of said product, then $1,000 is probably about right. But this is misleading to the extreme, as it would be like saying if jewel thieves didn’t steal $1m worth of diamonds from a jewellery store, they would have purchased the $1m worth of diamonds (I wanted to use my usual car theft analogy, but I think I’ve gone over my allowed quota for the year). And any theft analogy is incorrect anyway, as file sharing is not theft – it’s not paying for stuff you should have, like reading a magazine at a news stand without paying, but it’s quite different than say shoplifting the same magazine.

What’s more disturbing for me, as opposed to a rather harmless, but propaganda-ish infographic, is the MPAA getting involved at the law enforcement level when it comes to anti-piracy operations, even those that are outside of the US. Of course, infographics and misleading stats help the MPAA scare politicians into giving them this sort of access, so this cannot be discounted either. What brings me to this is the news this week that newly leaked Wikileaks documents show the MPAA and the IFPI, two lobby groups, all involved in high level discussions with South Korean anti-piracy law enforcement agencies, and with ICE detailing their operations against warez topsites, the sites that are acts as the point of origin for pirated content on the Internet. On one hand, you might say that having an industry group involved in tackling the industry’s own problems makes sense, but if it’s the industry’s problem, then why is a government agency and two governments, spending precious tax payer resources, to tackle the problem that many experts say are the industry’s own creation anyway, due to outdated business models? This whole idea comes from politicians believing that copyright theft *is* a $58 billion per year problem, but it isn’t, and it’s not costing 300,000 jobs a year. If you want to make such flimsy conclusions from nothing but wild guesses, then I have a few more I would like to make, such as that piracy creates jobs by allowing website operators to make money to provide  content to people who had no means to pay for it in the first place. And the people enjoying pirated content end up spending their money on other more essential services and products, and their money won’t end up in the pockets of greedy studios who are already making record profits, or end up giving more money to rich, spoilt Hollywood stars and autotuned pop musicians.

And if the government is to spend tax payer resources to help a well to do industry, while others are struggling, and to do it at the expense of one of the most innovative and fast growing industries, the Internet industry, then this will hurt the economy even more. Which is why a “who’s who” of the Internet business has come out attacking the MPAA/RIAA backed PROTECT IP act, which, despite the controversy, is gaining support in Congress (lobbying money helps soothes the aches from migraines, back aches, and lack of conscience). The founders of Twitter, Zynga, FourSquare, and key people from StackExchange, LinkedIn, and Tim O’Reilly, yes, *that* Tim O’Reilly, has signed a letter asking Congress not to go ahead with PROTECT IP, as it could hurt small Internet businesses, and the broad nature of the act means that it could hurt innovation as well. This comes after more than 100 law professors also signed an open letter asking Congress to reconsider, and after Internet pioneers and top engineers also writing a similar letter urging caution when it comes to messing around with DNS. Hmm, it seems that open letters are not a very effect form of mass action, or the US is run by politicians that don’t care for expert opinion as much as they care about where their next campaign contribution is going to come from. Or both.

Righthaven R.I.P.

Is Righthaven about to file for bankruptcy?

But there’s also good news for those that believe in karma, as Righthaven might have to file bankruptcy due to their recent legal and financial setbacks. Not only has judges started to see through Righthaven’s scheme, which in my opinion, is nothing more than a money making scheme, they’ve started punishing Righthaven by rewarding damages *against* the firm. Righthaven’s biggest mistakes is that they haven’t been able to avoid going to court, and they haven’t been able to do so because the people they’re suing weren’t willing to give up so easily. It’s one thing to sue movie pirates, but to sue those that are interested enough in the news to copy/paste articles and post it on their own blogs, is just asking for trouble. These are clearly opinionated people, who love a good fight, and will stand up for themselves out of principle, even if it end up costing them more money in the process – and these are not the right “targets” for mass copyright lawsuits. And then there’s the news that Righthaven’s second largest client, MediaNews Group, has now pulled out, leaving Stephens Media, which are also the money behind Righthaven, as their only big client. And even that money may no be as forthcoming as before, as Righthaven have apparently asked a judge if they can delay paying the $34,000 or so they owe to one of the “targets”, as they’re having trouble coming up with the cash. If Righthaven does go under, nobody would shed a tear for them, as to paraphrase the new MediaNews Group chief, it was a stupid idea to being with.

It’s not the first time Christofer Sundberg has spoken out against gaming DRM, but it’s always good to hear from developers on the issue. Sundberg is the founder of Avalanche Studios, the makers of the Just Cause series amongst other games. And this week, Sundberg let the world know what he thought of the latest trend in using “always-on” DRM. Suffice to say, he’s not a big fan, mainly because in his opinion, in this day and ages when piracy is rampant and people have a lot of “choice”, even if some are illegal, if publishers are not providing extra incentive for consumers, then they’re doing something wrong. “Always-on” DRM in fact takes away incentive for consumers to pay for games, and even those that do, will have to rely on pirate solutions to play the game without annoying interruptions. For Sundberg, it’s also about trust, and he believes that “always-on” DRM basically says to the paying customer: “Thank you for buying our game, we trust you as far as we can throw you”. Instead, developers and publishers should listen to gamers, even though that don’t buy the games, more – listen to their suggestions, make them feel like part of the development process (because they are a part of it, the end “using it” part of it at least). But Sundberg also stated that it’s mostly up to publishers as to what kind of DRM to use, and if Avalanche’s publishers decide to use “always-on” DRM, there’s not much he can do about it, even if his whole studio will be up in arms against such a move. And this also reminds me to play Just Cause 2 a bit more, since I haven’t really played it after getting it on Steam – I’m such a reverse pirate when it comes to games sometimes, I buy a lot (usually on sale), and then never play them!

High Definition

In HD/3D news, it’s a contractual obligation for the  WNR to cover a rumour about Blu-ray coming to the Xbox 360 at least once twice a year, and so with much regret, I bring you the latest rumour.

To be fair, it now makes a lot more sense for Blu-ray on Xbox 360 than even just a year (and a bit) ago, mainly due to the new, slimmer, quieter, faster, stronger (and now less shiny) Xbox 360. And with games coming on multiple DVDs, perhaps Blu-ray is also finally needed for games, although due to noise and loading speed issues, it’s always better to install games to the built-in HDD – so you really only need to do a single disc swap for a game that requires 2-discs, during the install process, and while Blu-ray removes the need to do this, the extra cost of getting the add-on drive would negate any benefit when it comes to gaming, leaving only the benefit of being able to play Blu-ray movies. But with Blu-ray standalone players available for so cheap these days, you can get a budget standalone for the expected $50 cost of the add-on, and so having a Blu-ray add-on doesn’t even make that much sense for movies either. And with Blu-ray competing against Microsoft’s preferred streaming platforms, that’s another reason why Microsoft is in no hurry to launch a Blu-ray enabled Xbox 360.

Gaming

And that brings us finally to gaming. The NPD report for August is out, and I should have the analysis up in a few days. While only Microsoft and Nintendo provided hardware data for this month, Microsoft again provided some extra info that allows for the PS3 numbers to be deduced.

Despite the PS3 $50 price cut (coming in at the middle point of the month), the Xbox 360 was still comfortably the best selling home based console of the month, selling some 41% more units than the now discounted PS3. This is probably why Sony felt the need to withhold sales data yet again, because many, including myself, predicted the PS3 to at least give the Xbox 360 a run for its money this month, but it did not happen. Maybe, with a full month of discounting on hand, the PS3 will put up more of a fight, but September is a huge month for the Xbox 360 due to the release of Gears of War 3, and with Battlefield 3 and MW 3 coming in October and November respectively, these will again heavily favour the Xbox 360, so it looks to be a good holiday period for the console, even if Kinect Star Wars has now been delayed until after Christmas.

And on that note, I shall end this week’s WNR. See you in a week’s time.

Weekly News Roundup (4 September 2011)

Sunday, September 4th, 2011

We’re in the final stretch, nearing the end, it’s so sad it has to come so soon. It feels I’ve only gotten to just know you, yet we have to part soon. So so soon. 2011, I hardly knew ye.  It is kind of ridiculous how quickly 2011 has gone by, although I guess not so much for people of Australia, New Zealand, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Japan, Syria, Somalia, the US, and pretty much everywhere else and for everyone else that’s had something major happen to them in 2011, natural or otherwise. You know what 2011? I don’t think me, and many others, will miss you all that much to be honest.

With an intro like that, you might think that there’s again not much news happening, but actually, this week is quite news-tastic I have to say. So let’s not waste more word count on the intro, and get into the news straight away.

CopyrightAs you would expect, we start with copyright news. What do you think would be needed to convince everyone that copyright protection on the Internet has gotten a bit out of control? That copyright laws are so biased towards copyright holders these days that it’s totally unfair for the rest of us? What would it take for people to realise that there is this huge overreaction to the “piracy” problem? The answer? When a 13 year old Pakistani takes down Bieber and Gaga.

While neither the age, nor the jurisdiction, of the person responsible to taking down the official Vevo uploaded music videos of these mega stars has been confirmed (yeah, as if anything sprung out of the Internet’s 24 hour rumour mill  ever becomes confirmed, or need confirmation for it to become fact), but the now banned YouTube user iLCreation, did just that, and it took quite a while for YouTube to react, and only when Vevo (owned by music industry giants Sony and Universal Music) took a more proactive role in getting the video reinstated, did the videos resurface again. If it was someone else, like you and me, and not two of the 4 major record labels asking for reinstatement, then perhaps those videos would never again be seen again (which, to be fair, is not a total disaster). Google/YouTube will be asking themselves how it happened and what they can do to prevent it happening again, although they can conveniently blame the victims here, Sony and Universal (and Warner and EMI), for forcing YouTube to be over-sensitive to copyright concerns in the first place. Just like planking and cone-ing, perhaps takedown-ing could be the next big YouTube thing, where people can compete and see who can take down the most popular legal videos, and for how long. It’s not incitement if I have no real power of persuasion. Or an audience.

Google

By making people type "RapidShare" out manually, has Google really stopped piracy?

So it was either a well calculated thing, timing wise, or an extraordinarily poor one, that Google this week announced that they’re winning the war against piracy. Unfortunately missing the “Mission Accomplished” banners aboard an aircraft carrier stage, Google nevertheless delivered a report on their progress on their various anti-piracy tools, processes and features, all designed to help content holders feel a little more safer at night, and a little less litigious during the day. I don’t know if the number of acts of piracy that removing the keywords “rapidshare” from Google’s auto-suggest and auto-complete function is even quantifiable, but Google seems to think it’s helped. And they’ve now made it possible for content owners to request and have removed infringing content within 24 hours, in which time Google’s lawyers have to fully examine each DMCA takedown request, do the relevant background research, contact the relevant technical departments to implement the ban, all the while filing the appropriate paperwork to record the entire incident to allow for future appeals. I’m imagining some kind of poultry factory farming scenario with chickens replaced by lawyers, and feed replaced by a conveyor belt of  money (well, they are still lawyers), and the produce being the “In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.” message you see now and then below Google search results. The next step for Google, as hard as it may be, would be to actually prevent themselves from profiting from piracy websites. If they can do this, maybe they will then get a nice and shiny badge from the MPAA and RIAA for all their efforts, even if it may not actually stop any lawsuits or anything (but the lawyer factory farm would definitely pay for itself if that happens).

From willing self-harm, to full on murder, we move onto the news that Hotfile has been ordered to hand over pretty much everything in their possession to the MPAA, to presumably help them build a stronger case against the file hosting website. Hotfile described this early on as “murder by litigations”, and when the MPAA asked the Judge whether it was okay to do it to Hotfile, the judge this week basically said “alright”. And so, Hotfile will now have to hand over the IP address of every uploader and downloader, even for files that are perfectly legal and for users outside of the jurisdiction of the court. And as if injury wasn’t enough, insult had to be added, as Hotfile will also have to hand over a bunch of financial information. It appears though that the MPAA isn’t really that interested in suing individuals, although the very top affiliate probably should start seeking legal advice, but for other uploaders and downloaders, they’re only requested the 3 of the 4 sets of decimal numbers, or enough to identify the country of origin only (I suppose jurisdiction does become an issue after all). Not attempting to win understatement of the year award or anything, but things aren’t looking good for Hotfile.

BayFiles

Pirated downloads will definitely exist on BayFiles, even if they follow the law to the letter as promised

But while one file hosting company may be on the way down, another is only just getting started, and it has a pair of famous founders. The names of Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij might sound familiar, and it’s because they’re two of the co-founders of The Pirate Bay. And together, they’ve launched BayFiles, a new file hosting service that will compete with the likes of RapidShare, and for now at least, Hotfile. Just what the music industry and Hollywood needs, another TPB production, and now an even easier way to upload files and share them with others. But they needn’t be too worried, at least no more worried than they are towards the likes of RapidShare. So still very much worried I suppose. BayFiles will comply fully with the DMCA, and will be as legit as any file hosting service can be, removing files and banning accounts when requested to do so, but not before. And that’s the crux of the issue though, is that the content holders want websites like BayFiles to do the “search and destroy”, while websites like BayFiles, who are mostly more than happy to ‘destroy’, want content holders to at least do the ‘search’ (as they’re really the only ones who know, with absolute certainty, what we are searching for in the first place). But any S&D operations performed by BayFiles, and staying in the vernacular for now, will have a high chance of  “collateral damage”, blocking and removing perfectly innocent files just because it was named wrong, or had the wrong bits and bytes in it (to be fair, if you’re really going to go and name a ZIP file containing your work related spreadsheet as “rise_of_the_planet_of_the_apes_dvd_screener.zip”, then perhaps you need more help than a file hosting service can provide, or you really do want to get fired, and are working towards this noble goal by implementing your own reverse boss button). And if services like BayFiles do not exist, then it’s back to the days of spending half an hour sending an 8MB attachment only to get a rejection notice because the recipient is blocking the type of attachment, the size of the attachment, or has a full inbox, and then you get mad and smash your monitor with your keyboard, and gets fired immediately on the spot and has to have security escort you out of the building, after which you go to the nearest bar, gets drunk as a skunk, passes out on the sidewalk outside of your former employer’s building, only to wake up the next day, in your urine stained work clothes, as your former co-workers pass you by on their way to work and look at you with both pity and disgust – you check your phone and there are dozens of text messages from your wife, with the last one saying “I’ve had enough, I’m leaving and taking the kids”. All of this because of the MPAA/RIAA.

Speaking of urine stains (never really thought I would ever write this phrase in the WNR), Wikileaks (heh, leaks) has served up yet another delicious piece of Australian info, regarding the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft’s (AFACT) lawsuit against Australia’s third largest ISP, iiNet. I say Australia, but I really mean America, because it turns out, surprise surprise, the MPAA was the brains behind the lawsuit, even though I had simply just assumed that to be the case anyway in my past reporting without any actual evidence or sources (journalist see, journalist do, journalist no have time for background checking). Anyway, it turns out I was right after all, and leaked US Embassy cables show not only did the MPAA run the show, they also wanted nobody else to know it was them running the show, except if I “knew”, then I gather everybody else “knew” as well. So it wasn’t so much the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft as it was Americans Forcing Australians into a Court Trial (it’s the best I can do with my severely mushy brain today, as I was sure there’s a better word starting with ‘F’ I could use here). The cables also revealed that the MPAFACT didn’t want to sue our largest ISP, that would be the evil behemoth of a corporation known as Telstra (aka Helstra, Tel$ra, a***holes – note the three asterisks, for we here in Australia use the more civilized British form of English, you jumper wearing, lift using, petrol guzzling lorry driving barbarians), because Telstra was a company willing to “fight hard and dirty, in court and out” – touche.

And now for something completely different. Valve’s Gabe Newell is no fan of DRM, except when his company uses it, and he’s once again attacking other companies for taking DRM far too seriously. It seems a curious trends that famous gaming people, most of them work for companies that have a great track record for delivering excellent games, are all not too fussed about DRM, and yet the companies that are well know for coming out with disappointing release after release are the ones hell bent on making the paying customer’s experience as painful as possible all in the name of fighting piracy (I’m excusing Blizzard from the list, even though they’re messing around with “always on DRM” for Diablo III, as they say they’re not doing it for anti-piracy, just for anti-cheating). And while pointing out that Valve’s Steam platform is practically one big DRM engine that locks gamers to the Steam platform, forces users to wait ages to download game updates before playing, allows publishers to use their own DRM on top of Steam’s DRM, and all sorts of nasty DRM like symptoms, you still have to say that gamers, generally, still like the Steam platform. Getting the ‘Steam’ out of a game is not easy if there are no official non-Steam versions of the game, but otherwise, it’s not intrusive DRM on the level of SecuRom or UbiDRM. And while the Steam platform, as with any platform really, is a pain to have to be locked to, there are other benefits such as in pricing (Steam sales are awesome. AWE$OME!!), achievements for games that support it, in-game browsing for those that, like me, prefers to cheat our way to gaming success via walkthoughs, the newly added screenshot taking thingy, and lots of other cool features. You either hate it, or you learn to live with it and eventually love it, but at least some do love it, unlike the totally unnecessary UbiDRM (yes, Ubisoft do provide an enhanced online experience with features that some may like, such as online game saves, and these feature do need an Internet connection – but for every single second of play? It’s like one of those competitions where you can win a car if you’re the last person to take your hands off of it, except here, your “prize” is the ability to play the game you purchased with your hard earned money). But basically what Newell is saying is that as long as gamers are happy, you can get away with a lot of DRM-like stuff, and you know, that’s fair enough.

High Definition

In HD/3D news, oh George, what have you done again. Mr. Tweak It is at it again, and the new Blu-ray version of the Star Wars trilogy (and the crappy prequels), will be different again to the DVD version, which is different to the Special Edition VHS, which is different to the original theatrical release.

You know you’re an a*** when you’ve got an entire Wikipedia page devoted to the thoughtless changes you’ve made to your own film, and but I guess critics of fanboys like myself do have a point in that it is “his film”, after all. Actually no, they’re not right. It’s not his film, no more than Citizen Kane was Orson Welles’ film, no more than the Statue of David belonging solely to Michelangelo. Film is a shared medium, and our combined experiences when viewing essential the same piece of content is what makes it one of the greatest icons of the 20th century. It would be like if Leonardo Da Vinci rose up from the dead and started making changes to the Mona Lisa! The civilized world would be outraged if that were to happen, also slightly frightened by the sight of a zombie Renaissance Man, and slightly confused wondering why he hasn’t decomposed completely by now.

Vader Nooooo!!!

Lord Vader's reaction when he heard that Lucas was messing around with the original trilogy again

So when, in the last WNR, I mentioned that George Lucas would change creepy puppet Yoda in Episode I to the slightly comical digital version used in Episode II and III, I didn’t really give a crap because, I mean, it’s Episode I. Nobody cares about the prequels, and Mr. Lucas should feel free to chop and change all he wants – maybe he will eventually make the worst movies ever made watchable. But if you go and change Return of the Jedi, and not only that, but probably the most important scene in the entire film universe, by mirroring a line of “dialogue” taken from one of the worst scenes in the entire Star Wars film universe, and already the butt of a many Internet jokes, then you’ve officially gone over to the dark side and nothing, not even adding “No” in post-production, can redeem you. This is the changed scene by the way, so for those that are curious, but don’t want to buy the expensively priced Blu-ray set to find out how disappointed they should be.

Look, some will say the reaction to the change is an overreaction, and they may be right. But why change, what for me, was a perfect scene. The pleading of the son, the true evilness of the master unmasked, and the silent, determined, change of heart from the father, from the dark side back to the light. Perfect. Vader does not need dialogue to make it clear what was going through his mind, why he was doing what he was doing, and the silence actually enhances the scene. Well, not any more. In the words of Simon Pegg, what a f**king shame.

GamingAnd finally in gaming, Sony is taking advantage of the recent PS3 price cut by doing some rebranding, and distancing themselves from the whole PSN fiasco. Nothing too drastic, but it seems the arrogant and slightly misleading (from a class action lawsuit perspective) “It Only Does Everything” has been changed to “Long Live Play”, and the awkward and curiously name Qriocity service has been renamed Music Unlimited, and along with the PSN, now all fall under the Sony Entertainment Network banner, along with Movie Unlimited for, um, movies. Only the PSN doesn’t follow the naming convention, yet, so don’t be surprised if it’s renamed Gaming Unlimited at some point, although not now because it would be far too obvious a PR exercise right now.

For the slogan change, it’s good Sony are trying to move way from the previously, highly arrogant and, plainly false one from before. But a cheetah doesn’t change its spots overnight, not if the leopard has anything to say about it, and another Sony exec has been caught calling the Xbox 360 “inferior technology”, and accusing Microsoft of using developer requirements to protect the aforementioned inferior technology. The Sony exec was responding to a Microsoft exec saying how multi-platform titles were usually better on the Xbox 360 because of Xbox Live and DLC exclusives. Both have their points, but Microsoft’s console was not the “inferior technology” that has had to drop prices recently just so it can stop being third in a three way race.

Wow, that was a bit longer, and more caustic, than I thought it would be. On some days, you get into this groove when writing, and you know what, it’s fun to just go along with it, enjoy it, until the very real threat of defamation lawsuits pull you back a bit. This was one of those days.

See you next week.

Weekly News Roundup (28 August 2011)

Sunday, August 28th, 2011

Welcome to another edition of the WNR. Hope you’ve had a good week. There are finally a couple of interesting news items to talk about this week, not enough to make up for the last two week’s lull though. As much as I don’t like the RIAA and MPAA, and the mass copyright law firms,  they do provide a lot of news. Without them, there would be hardly any news to write about, for that, I’m grateful.

CopyrightSo let’s start this week’s RIAA hate with the story that, one of the four major backers of the RIAA, EMI,  “lost” their lawsuit again cloud hosting website MP3tunes, although they could still end up the winners.

While the judge ruled in MP3tunes favour, allowing the website’s business model to continue, the judge still found MP3tunes and its founder guilty of several more specific cases of copyright infringement, mostly relating to MP3tunes’ sideload.com website, which allows music found on the net to be loaded into people’s cloud accounts without doing the manual download and upload routine (so a sideload, basically). MP3tunes had in its favour a strong policy against copyright infringement, and they mostly responded to DMCA takedown requests and acted promptly. And this allowed them to call on DMCA’s “safe harbor” provisions. It’s actually a good lesson for web businesses these days to take DMCA requests seriously, because in this case, the judge basically ruled that due to the existence of the DMCA and “safe harbor”, the responsibility for identifying infringing content falls to content owners, not the website operator. And this makes sense, because only the owner can identify their own “goods”, and only they can decide whether there’s need to pursue a course of action.

sideload.com

Sideload.com was sued by EMI as part of the MP3tunes lawsuit, and the judge found copyright infringement had occurred in some cases

And this is an important decision, because recent judgements, and mooted government legislation, have more frequently identified website operators, your Googles, YouTubes and Megauploads, as being responsible for having some kind of passive anti-piracy system, to remove offending content even without the content owner’s intervention. This is  of course something content owners would want, because it means less work. But such a system would always be “false positive” heavy (there’s no way websites can know if you actually did have permission to upload the content or not), and there are also privacy issues (for example, if you uploaded a ZIP file to Megaupload, do they have permission to unzip and read your files to check for copyright infringement?), and self-censorship is a dangerous road to take. This decision is also a confirmation that the cloud hosting business model can work, but only if copyright protection is taken seriously by the cloud host.

Where MP3tunes lost was that some of the anti-piracy actions weren’t strong enough, for example, removing links on sideload.com for infringing content, but not actually removing the already “sideloaded” versions of the same songs from people’s cloud accounts. The founder of MP3tunes had also sideloaded some infringing songs, the judge found, and that could mean that EMI could still yet receive a good sized damages amount.

While EMI was busy losing one lawsuit, they, and the other three majors, were busy suing others. The four majors, and 25 other labels, have decided to sue TubeFire, a website that allows people to download YouTube videos.

If you’re first reaction is like mine, then it would be something like “what?”. YouTube download services have existed almost as long as YouTube, and there are so many out there that I don’t think anyone even considered them to be a source of piracy. I mean, when you upload something to YouTube, you kind of expect people to view it, for free, so why does Universal, EMI, Sony, Warner think TubeFire deserve to be sued? Apparently, people are downloading officially uploaded music videos and, I don’t know, viewing them or something, and that has angered the four major labels, and 25 other labels that are also part of the suit. It’s probably because their music video sales on iTunes has been affected or something – if they’re that concerned, then don’t (officially) upload to YouTube.

And since YouTube doesn’t have any serious DRM that prevents “downloading”, is it really illegal? Also, while downloading copyrighted YouTube video does occur, what about all the legal uses where people download non copyrighted video, or download for delayed “offline” viewing, a sort of time shifting if you will? And why TubeFire, and not the dozens of other websites and download tools? And what about browsers, who also “download” the video before it plays, the only difference is that they don’t allow people to keep the “download” beyond the current browser session? It is, in my opinion, a ridiculous lawsuit, especially when a lot of these online video download services do nothing more than a URL rewrite, with the download actually occurring from the original location (because even online video needs a “source” file, and a lot of download tools simply allow people to download this source file – so in effect, it’s the online video site that’s offering the download).

And the whole idea behind a music video is to promote music sales (do people buy a lot of music videos?), so does it really matter if people are downloading or streaming the videos, from a promotional perspective? Free creates hype, and that’s really an immeasurable benefit, but hugely important these days.

Fox content on Hulu

Fox content on Hulu (free) will be delayed by 8 days, and this has caused piracy to surge for Fox shows

Which is why Fox’s withdraw from the free edition of Hulu is surprisingly, to say the least. Hulu was created to offer free catch-up content, usually delayed just a single day after the original airing, to both help fuel Internet hype for shows, and to compete with pirated downloads of the same shows. Instead of people downloading pirated shows in the hundreds of thousands, people can instead go to Hulu to enjoy a totally legal alternative, and most are more than happy to put up with the ads, which then allows revenue to flow back to the networks. It’s a win-win situation, which is why Fox’s decision to delay free airings on Hulu to 8 days, instead of one, seems to be me like a self inflicted wound. For one, nobody would bother with a 8 day delayed airing – it might as well be 8 months in today’s “instant” culture. People will just find alternatives, and piracy being the prime choice. TorrentFreak wanted to test this theory, that Hulu prevents piracy, and conversely, no Hulu can cause piracy, and it seems they’ve found a correlation. Of two Fox shows (Hell’s Kitchen and MasterChef), pirated downloads on BitTorrent networks increased by 114% and 189% respectively compared to before the Fox Hulu change. So instead of earning ad revenue for Hulu airings, Fox has simply “forced” users to migrate back to BitTorrent.

Fox says they’re doing it because they want to promote certain cable services that bundle Fox shows with paid for Hulu accounts that still allows users to get access to Fox shows in a timely manner. But to me, this seems like a short sighted move for a quick hit of sponsorship money, and for all the things that “promote” piracy, actions (or inactions) of content owners probably has the biggest effect. It’s like the Netflix price rises, and what the lady says at the end of this video. People don’t want to pirate stuff if they have a legal alternative, but if you take away that alternative, well …

So, on to copyright law firms. The US Copyright Group has sued a deceased for piracy of the film “The Hurt Locker”. To be fair, the USCG are only the intermediaries, the real blame goes to the producers of “The Hurt Locker”. And to be fair again, the dead seemed like the next logical target, after the blind, and then the elderly, were both sued for download porn videos. If only zombies could be sued (and if they were real). High profile mistakes aside, who knows how many other mistaken lawsuits have been filed, which is always likely to be the case with such a scatter-gun approach to lawsuits. I mean, when your only piece of real evidence is a set of numbers (the IP address), which only at best gives you the subscriber account, and not the name of the actual person that made the download, then that’s not really evidence in my opinion. And for the argument that people should be held responsible for their own Internet connections, including securing it against unauthorised usage, that would be like saying if you forgot to lock your car and somebody used it to commit a crime, you would be held responsible.

The USCG’s other big client, Nu Image, producers of ‘The Expendables’, has made a drastic change in their suing strategy as well. They’ve dropped all remaining defendants from ‘The Expendables’ lawsuit, but before we celebrate a major victory against mass copyright lawsuits, Nu Image are not finished yet with suing ‘The Expendables’ downloaders. Instead of clumping all defendants in a single case and then getting the bulk of it thrown out for jurisdiction issues, Nu Image plan to re-file numerous smaller lawsuit in different locations, and thus avoid the jurisdiction issue. And not only that, they’re going to file lawsuits for downloaders of more of their films, including ‘Drive Angry’, ‘The Mechanic’ and the still-in-theaters ‘Conan the Barbarian’. You know, if Nu Image spent more time actually producing “good” films, perhaps they might not need to spend so much time and money on suing downloads. Just a thought.

High Definition

In Blu-ray/3D news, Star Wars is going to be available on Blu-ray soon, and the first Star Wars release is a big event for any video format.

Star Wars on Blu-ray

Star Wars getting released for the first time on any new video format is a big deal

But with every new release of Star Wars, there’s always the threat that George Lucas might do more “tweaking” to the Star Wars films, especially the original trilogy (the prequel trilogy, nobody really cares about). So when Lucas hinted that there would be new stuff on the Blu-ray release, fans got, understandably, a bad feeling about it all. An all digital Yoda is probably coming for Episode I, but imagine the outcry if the puppet Yoda in the original trilogy was replaced with a digital one (for consistency, you see)? Not even Lucas would dare to do that of course, but this is the Internet, this is Star Wars, and so there will be hysteria at any and all rumours. To be fair, the puppet Yoda in Episode I looked weird and out of place, so a digital Yoda in that film (and that film only) is welcomed. There are also other improvements, for example, you get to see more of Episode I due to better transfer techniques that allows more of the picture to be shown on the screen (yeah, more Episode I, that’s what fans want!). Lucas also continues to “rewrite history” by removing special effects mistakes in the original trilogy, including the infamous Wampa puppeteer arm in Empire. While some fans would welcome the removal of obvious mistakes, some others are happy with the originals the way they are (even the pre-Special Edition editions, which I was hoping would be included on the Blu-ray), while most simply don’t mind either way, probably.

Is DVD on the way out? Well, it’s definitely not on the way in. A new study seems to suggest it is, but it was only really looking at portable DVD players, which the research say is being replaced by video capable smartphones and tablets. Common sense really, the same reason people no longer carry their portable electronic Sudoku player, their MP3 player, their PDA, and their pig destroying avian targeting contraptions.

As for the future of the DVD format? Every Blu-ray player is also a DVD player, so I think it will be around for a while yet.

Not much in gaming, so skipping …

And that brings us to the end of this WNR. Have a good one.

Weekly News Roundup (7 August 2011)

Sunday, August 7th, 2011

A pretty light week in term of news, and since I’m running a bit behind, let’s see if I can wrap this one up quickly.

CopyrightStarting as usual with the copyright news, we start with the MPAA’s win against Zediva, as the judge in the case handed down a preliminary injunction against the “innovative” video rental service.

Zediva Promo

Zediva is a great deal for consumers, but it can only do it by using loop holes that Hollywood is trying to close

A little background info. Zediva’s service works by allowing you to rent physical discs, but instead of sending the disc to you like what Netflix would do, they do what Netflix’s other service does, by offering you a streaming version of the same movie. Zediva then reserves the disc you “rented”, and removes it from circulation. Or basically as Zediva puts it, you rent the disc, and they play it for you over the Internet (imagine a DVD player with a really really long cable). Why did Zediva do this? They did this – and this is where I think Zediva’s downfall will be – to avoid having to pay licensing fees for streaming content.

You see, the problem is that Zediva’s motivations, it seems to me, are born out of trying to avoid paying these licensing fees and release restrictions, and make more money than they would otherwise. If this is Zediva’s real motivation, then good luck to them, but I don’t think they have a snowball’s chance in hell with their case. And in the judge’s summary of the ruling, it’s made quite clear that the judge sees real problems with Zediva’s argument, and that if Zediva was allowed to continue operating, it could harm the existing video-on-demand industry, Netflix included.

Now, it could be debated that what Zediva is doing actually does not hurt Hollywood if you compare it to traditional disc rental, but that it does hurt Hollywood studios when compared to what they can make from streaming deals, and even Zediva won’t deny this, as after all, their business model is to save on licencing costs. This then leads to the debate as to why streaming should cost more than traditional rentals, why Hollywood should choose to not only “tax” new innovative distribution methods, but to place artificial limits (like a 30-day embargo to help increase disc rental income), when these help to fight piracy. But that’s their business decision, and they may be right or wrong, but that’s not for Zediva to decide. So people get pissed off with Redbox waiting times for new releases, or the somewhat hysterical reaction to the Netflix price increases (best encapsulated in this video), and it might hurt Hollywood more to be too greedy when it comes to streaming licensing fees and release schedules, if people do decide to “screw it” and use BitTorrent.

Pron magazine/website Perfect 10 is making legal headlines again this week, twice actually, as they launch yet another lawsuit against yet another online company, this time Megaupload. As you may or may not know, Perfect 10 has in the past sued Microsoft, Google, Amazon, the middle of these three recorded a win against Perfect 10 this week in which the Ninth Circuit court rejected Perfect 10’s appeal over an earlier decision favouring the search giant. But while courts are reluctant to rule about top tech companies that have been Perfect 10’s target before, they may be more favourable to ruling in Perfect 10’s favour against Megaupload, especially since the MPAA’s case against similar file hosting provider, Hotfile, seems to be going okay. So I wouldn’t be surprised if this turns out to be Perfect 10’s first victory, but it all depends on how frequently their content has been uploaded by users of Megaupload, and if it’s not frequent at all, why Perfect 10 didn’t file DMCA notices to get those content removed, instead of launching a lawsuit (“to make more money” is not an excuse the court would accept, I think).

Diablo III

Diablo III will use 'always-on' DRM, but not for anti-piracy, says Blizzard

Good will amongst gamers is something every game developer needs, and up until this week, Blizzard, the makers of the addictive World of Warcraft and Starcraft series,  probably thought that the had enough good will stored in the bank to pull a nasty surprise. But, as Blizzard will admit, they might have miscalculated. What happened was that Blizzard announced the next episode in another one of their addictive franchises, Diablo III, would have “always-on” DRM, meaning gamers won’t be able to play the game offline, even for a couple of seconds. So Blizzard decided to do a Ubi, and as I talked about last week, nobody likes Ubi DRM. The funny thing was that Blizzard probably never intended to do this as a form of anti-piracy, but only as an anti-cheating feature. This may very well be true, but Blizzard could have avoided this whole controversy (and still used “always-on” DRM) by including an offline mode, much like how Test Drive Unlimited 2 does it (offline and online progress are recoded separately). The statements made by Blizzard immediately after the backlash began didn’t help either – executive vice president of game design Rob Pardo’s statement about there being other games to play when people are offline, for example on long plane trips, was the most ill-conceived of them all (yes, “other games” that people will buy instead of your games).

So it’s a lesson for Blizzard and any other company that chooses to use draconian DRM, for whatever reason – beware of the backlash, which might ultimately hurt revenue more than a couple of extra pirated copies would have (or the cost of adding an offline play mode).

High Definition

In Blu-ray/3D news, exciting news, sort of, although it’s technically neither HD nor 3D (not yet anyway).

I’ve been talking up UltraViolet for a while now, and it’s not like me really to voice my support for anything Hollywood comes up with, especially if it’s wrapped up in all sorts of DRM, which UltraViolet will no doubt be. But for me, UV is a huge shift in the way we “buy” movies, and it comes just at the right time when cloud storage is all the rage.

UV, simply puts, turns buying a movie into really buying a movie. The idea is that, instead of buying a movie on each platform, on disc, then on iTunes,  then another version for your Android device … instead of doing this, you buy the license to watch the movie, and then you get access to all the versions via the cloud, for all of your popular devices. It’s like Digital Copy, except it’s all done in the cloud. So when you buy a Blu-ray movie at Walmart, you can instantly get the movie to play on your Android phone, as long as you have a good Internet connection. And at home, instead of finding and popping the disc in or pre-ripping it to your media player, you can just fire up your TV’s UV app, and watch all your purchased movies from the cloud.

Flixster for iOS

Flixster is already available on a variety of mobile devices, and so, it's the natural fit for delivering and managing UltraViolet

The big news this week in regards to UV is the first announcement of UV compatible movies, as Warner Bros. announced both Bad Bosses and Green Lantern will feature UV support. I’m not surprised at all WB is one of the first companies to announced UV support, as they’ve always been quite open to new formats, having supported VCD in Asia, and HD DVD before they decided not to. And WB’s recent acquisition of Flixster is starting to make sense as well, as it seems Flixster is the app that WB plans to use to allow users to manage and watch UV content. As Flixster is already available on a wide variety of mobile devices, it’s an easy decision for WB to use it for UV.

What was more interesting was that WB also announced that it would even be possible for users to bring in their old DVDs to retailers, and have them “enable” access to the UV version of the movie. I don’t know how this will work, or whether there might be a way to do it without having to go to the store, but it does sound interesting. And as mentioned earlier, I really hope TV and console manufacturers embrace UV as well, as this would allow me to digitally stream my movie collection without ripping (also need studios and ISPs to work out some kind of deal to offer free bandwidth for watching UV movies).

In related news, Time Warner owned HBO plans to make available console versions of the HBO Go app, which is great news for those that are actually in the regions that can access HBO Go, which sadly does not seem to include Australia (we miss out on Hulu as well … boo!). The announcement also mentioned other “connected devices”, which sounds a bit vague, but hopefully will include things like Blu-ray players and TVs, for easy peasy catch-up viewing.

Gaming

And finally in gaming, Sony has, as expected really, announced a strong degree of integration between their upcoming portable console, the PlayStation Vita, and the PS3.

This will include the ability to use the Vita as a controller for the PS3 (so allowing the touch surface, gyroscope, microphone, camera … all to be used to control PS3 games), plus the PS3 can also send graphics data to the Vita to display. Sounds familiar? It should, because this is exactly how the Wii U controller would work.

PlayStation Vita

PS Vita will offer Wii U like features, much earlier than Nintendo's console

With the Vita coming to the US probably early next year, and the Wii U much later than that, it’s a shot across the bow for Nintendo, if not directly at them. The only issue is the price. At the expected price of $249, and add the $299 cost of the PS3, yes, you might have a system that rivals some of the innovative parts of the Wii U, but might be more expensive, and not have as good  graphics as the Wii U (which must surely be an ironic situation for both Sony and Nintendo). But then again, the Vita can be used as a standalone gaming console far far away from the Wii U (the Wii U controller also allows independent play, but only within close proximity to the main Wii U console). So a Vita + PS3 combination could in fact replace the Wii U + DS combination, and if that’s true (and if graphics quality is discounted as a factor), then Sony becomes the better value proposition. And a PS3 price drop, or a PS3 + Vita bundle, may help.  Of course, Nintendo knows how to make fun games, and Sony struggles at times, and this could be the deciding factor.

For the Xbox 360, they’re going in a totally different direction, which could work for and against them. But Microsoft has demonstrated Windows Phone integration with Kinect and the Xbox 360, so they’re planning something similar too – and it will be even better value for those already with Windows Phones.

So we come to the end of another WNR. Hope you enjoyed this issue, and see you next week.

Weekly News Roundup (31 July 2011)

Sunday, July 31st, 2011

Hope the past week has treated you well? Me, same as usual, and not getting that much work done despite feeling like I’ve done a lot of work (yeah, one of those weeks). I did re-organize the forum a bit (and yes, we do have a forum, it seems to be a fact that’s not commonly known going by the forum’s visitor stats), tried to reduce the number of forums, and re-focus some of the discussions. And so if you ever have a digital video authoring, conversion, editing or encoding problem, or want to post your opinions on some of the news articles mentioned in the WNR (there should be a thread for each news item linked to here in the “Latest News” forum), then feel free to pop over and I’ll be there to say hi.

A couple of interesting stories to go through this week, so let’s get started before it becomes August.

CopyrightLet’s do something different and start with the copyright news. The world’s unluckiest file sharer, Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Not that being fined $54,000 for downloading 24 song can be considered luck, but when you’re that unlucky, you have to take what you get.

For what seems like the billionth time, Thomas-Rasset has received a new figure representing the damages she needs to pay the RIAA, for daring to do the incredibly nasty act of downloading 24 songs without paying. Once again, a judge had to intervene and overrule an earlier jury decision to award the RIAA $1.5 million, by reducing the damages to “only” $54,000. The judge cited the Constitution and justice as reasons for reducing the unjustifiable 7 figure damages reward. The RIAA has voiced their disapproval at the decision, and it does not surprise me one bit the RIAA seems to have no respect for either the US Constitution or justice. Hopefully, Thomas-Rasset will not make the earlier mistake of trying to appeal the decision, and simply pay the $54,000 (or make some kind of financial arrangement), as her previous attempts at reducing damages has not worked, other than to add to her mounting legal bills. But even if she accepts the terms, the RIAA could still appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court, because reports suggests they’ve already spent at least $3 million on the case, which they hoped would be a deterrent for music pirates (hasn’t really worked), and $54,000 is not much of a deterrent compared to $1.92 million.

BT Logo

UK court forces BT to block access to Newzbin2 at the request of the MPAA

A couple of weeks ago, I brought to your attention the MPA’s (the International arm of the MPAA) UK high court battle with UK ISP BT (holy trinity of acronyms, Batman). The high court has handed down its decision, and it’s one that will have long lasting repercussions. The judge has ruled that BT should help the MPA block Newzbin2 so BT’s subscribers cannot access the website. BT’s arguments that they’re simply an utility, like an electricity provider, did not wash with the judge who ruled that, unlike an electricity company, BT is fully aware of what its subscribers are using its services for, and thus, has the responsibility to turn off supply if the uses are judged to be unlawful. The major problem with this argument is that it assumes just because BT *can* find out what its services are being used for, that it *should* find out and help groups like the MPA monitor usage. It’s like saying the phone company can find out about all you by listening on your conversations, and so because *can*, they *should* (and then should report or tak action against unlawful activities). The second problem with this decision is that, the judge, MPA and even BT are satisfied that Newzbin2 does distribute unauthorized content, based on an earlier high court case, but that case was for the UK operated Newzbin. Nobody has actually bothered to establish the guilt or even the ownership of Newzbin2, and while it might be obvious in this case that both sites are trying to do the same thing, the question is does the MPA need to launch a new lawsuit against, say, The Pirate Bay, or can they use this decision to force all ISPs to block any website they allege is promoting piracy?

But in the world of Internet piracy, mere allegation is “good enough” it seems, and hardly any distinction is made between sites that host, link, embed, or link to links, because if the RIAA/MPAA says you’re bad, then you must be. Staying in the UK, and taking the “allegations equals guilt” model further, a new plan wants search engine results to be classified by a “traffic light” system, where “bad” sites that may be offering pirated content are marked with a red light to warn users not to use these sites. Without getting into the implementation issues of a system that’s supposed to judge and classify billions of web pages, this whole idea assumes that people, the so called “moral majority”, aren’t aware that they’re visiting certain websites and the content there is not legal, and so would be warned away by a simple graphic. I think if people aren’t aware of what they’re downloading, listening to, or watching is legal or not is mainly because they don’t care. You go to YouTube and watch a music video, do you really care that much if it’s an official, authorized upload, or one of the billion mirrors for the same thing. And when people watch on MegaVideo, or download from RapidShare, are they really so clueless that they haven’t worked out that it isn’t legal, and do they really care, especially knowing that these download methods are not being monitored for anti-piracy activities? I guess the only positive of this plan is that it will make finding pirated content a lot easier – simply follow the “red lights”, to get all your piracy fix.

HBO Logo

HBO has been used as a example in a new study that tries to show improving quality best helps to fight piracy

I’ve always said the best way to combat piracy is to increase quality (or at least decrease price so that it fairly reflects the product’s lack of quality). Now, people way smarter than me have written a new study that tries to quantify, what seems to me, is common sense. The new study specifically cites HBO and Valve as examples of where quality improvements have led to reduction in piracy and, most importantly, an increase in revenue. To me, both of these companies are innovative in their approach (HBO Go is very useful, if you’re in the US, and we all know Valve has single-handedly saved the PC gaming industry via the Steam model), and neither has focused their energy on copyright enforcement (take Steam’s DRM approach, for example). The study also reinforces this point, that the companies focused less on copyright enforcement tended to focus more on quality, and as a direct result, has more successfully raised their revenue. The study doesn’t mention Ubisoft’s draconian DRM approach, but I think it would make an interesting study in itself, to map out the full effect of Ubi DRM in regards to piracy rate and revenue, compared to say the success of Valve with their games, and also the Steam model.

But as far Ubisoft is concerned, Ubi DRM is a huge success. I know this because they’ve come out and said it, that Ubi DRM is a huge success. They say it’s a huge success because they have stats that show piracy rates have decreased dramatically for games that uses the “always-on Internet connection required” DRM. And you know what, I don’t doubt that at all. But you can often tell the truth not by what someone says, but by what they don’t say, and Ubisoft didn’t really mention revenue at all, which is strange. Considering that Ubisoft used the phrase “clear reduction in piracy”, you would think there would be a “clear increase in revenue” to follow that statement. But this statement was not made, and so I can only assume that revenue has not risen (and it’s hard to calculate anyway, as how can you compared say the revenue made from one game release to that of another?). The problem is that decreasing piracy does not mean increasing revenue, because pirates have a huge choice of pirated games to play, and if they don’t find one available (because the DRM hasn’t been cracked yet), they’ll just play another (even the most avid pirate gamer can’t possibly play all the pirated games out there). And this assumes Ubi DRM is hard to crack, which is not true any more. And there are also negative forces in play, with excessive DRM causing a drop in revenue as paying gamers, who also have far too many games to choose from, choose games that don’t use Ubi DRM. During the recent Steam Summer sales, I saw countless comments on countless forums where people posted their hesitation in buying Ubisoft games due to Ubi DRM, despite games like Assassin’s Creed 2 being on sales for less than $7 (and only committed in the end because others replied saying Ubisoft have toned down Ubi DRM in older releases). So how much money is Ubisoft losing because of Ubi DRM?

Of course, for truly great must-have games, gamers will put up with ridiculous DRM, but for these types of games, even some of the biggest pirates may come out of the woodworks and make this the one game they do buy. Quality is still very much king.

High Definition

In Blu-ray/3D news, apparently the Windows 7 (and Vista) native Blu-ray burning tool has a huge bug that prevents successful burns, if the compilation size is over a certain size.

ImgBurn

Why bother with the buggy Windows 7 Blu-ray burner when you can simply use the freeware ImgBurn

This comes as a huge surprise to people because, one, they didn’t even know that Windows 7 could burn Blu-ray discs, and two, they didn’t know why anyone would use the native Blu-ray burner, when you’ve got cool free tools like ImgBurn (whose official website is proudly hosted by us).

From analysing the very small amount of information Microsoft released about the bug, it appears the bug could be related to how Microsoft loves using Binary prefix, while storage manufacturers prefer to use SI prefix. With SI prefix, 1 KB is 1000 or 10^3 bytes, while with binary prefix, it takes 1024 bytes, or 2^10. So 25GB with SI prefix is only equal to about5 23.3GB with a binary prefix (to avoid confusion, a new standard was set up to use KiB, MiB and GiB to indicate binary prefix, but hardly anyone uses it, and certainly not Microsoft). So maybe Microsoft’s native Blu-ray burner thought that discs could hold 25GB in Windows notation (or 25GiB), even though Blu-ray only holds 23.3GiB, and so of course the burns would fail is the tool doesn’t warn users that they’re trying to burn over the allowed limit. This seems like a simple fix, so it’s strange that there’s no hotfix, or even a hint of one from Microsoft, for this bug that seems to have been present since Vista SP2 introduced Blu-ray burning support.

Gaming

And in gaming, not much again, except two more stories about Sony. The first one has Sony being sued again over the PSN hack, but this time by their own insurer, as Zurich American tries to get out of having to pay Sony to cover the costs of expected class action lawsuits and settlements related to the hack and outage.

It’s probably just standard procedure for insurance companies, or it could mean that Zurich American really thinks that the class action lawsuits could end up costing Sony a lot, and they want to protect themselves as early as possible. I don’t think even Sony feels they can placate everyone angered by the PSN hack just by giving them a couple of outdated games, despite inFAMOUS being pretty good fun.

The other news relates to Sony’s profit results for fiscal Q1 (April 1st to June 30, covering the entire PSN hack saga), and it’s not great news. PS3 console unit sales dropped by 25% compared to the same quarter last year, although Sony still expects the fiscal year to end in growth of the console. Surprisingly, the PSP was the only Sony console to see a unit sale increase, but that’s probably due to the super discounting that has been going on ($99 for a PSP with God Of War Ghost Of Sparta, is pretty good value here in Australia). And more surprisingly, PS2 sales are still holding up well, almost selling as many units as the PS3 (1.4m compared to the PS3’s 1.8m). It just shows how successful the PS2 was, and how Sony have totally failed to replicate the same success with the PS3. Globally, the PS3 still managed to outsell both the Wii and Xbox 360 (individually, not combined), thanks to strong performances in Japan, but the Xbox 360 was the only console to record growth out of these three.

And that brings us to the end of this WNR. Have a good one.