Limited-Use DVD Technology

ps_inkling writes: "Two companies are creating different techniques to make DVD discs unusable after a set period of time. SpectraDisc has a patent on a limited-play DVD technology; FlexPlay is currently developing limited play DVD technology. The SpectraDisc technique is to coat the DVD with a film, then wrap the DVD in an anaerobic package. The idea is to sell these 'play-once' DVD movies at a substantial discount to regular DVDs as a way to compete with pay-per-view or movie ticket outlets."

Gotta love capitalism...

[Hal-9001]

A technology flops, and companies try to resurrect it nonetheless. Don't they remember Circuit City's Divx fiasco?

Re:repeat?

[oregon]

Yes, you're right : Self-Destructing DVDs: Son of DIVX [slashdot.org] just over 2 years ago

Re:waste

[Tom Davies]

From FlexPlay's FAQ:
It is interesting to note that a recent scientific study found that because Flexplay discs will eliminate unnecessary trips by car to video stores, they will actually result in a net benefit to the environment. The study, conducted by Jonathan Koomey, a noted environmental expert, concluded that if Flexplay discs constituted 10% of all rentals, the technology would save 50 million gallons of gasoline, eliminate 111,000 metric tons of carbon emissions, 700 tons of hydrocarbons, and 1,000 tons of nitrogen oxides every year. These emissions savings would be equivalent in their effects to removing 82,000 passenger car and light trucks from the road permanently.

Re:DivX is not the best comparison...

[Rain]

While I think your comparison is ultimately correct, it costs a lot more than $20 for Blockbuster to get the movie, thanks to the wonderful people at the MPAA. If you read the copyright notice at the beginning of practically every DVD/VHS, I'm nearly positive that it forbids you from renting out a regularly priced copy. Instead, Blockbuster et al. have to buy a very price-inflated (I don't know how much, exactly, but I believe it to be >$100) copy of the DVD to be able to legally rent it out to customers.

Because of the high cost, the read-limited CDs may interest the smaller rental chains: it may be more profitable, and certainly more profitable in the short run, to sell the defective DVDs.

Of course, I really doubt this will get far. We all know the legacy of DivX [everything2.com] (which is a better comparison than nothing), and judging by how people react when told about the DMCA and friends in plain terms, the MPAA and RIAA are already getting away with a lot more than J. Random Consumer would like. If they aren't sneaky about it (and I don't know how they could be here), I doubt people are going to go for it.

Re:DivX is not the best comparison...

[mattbee]

On the other hand, if Blockbuster buys a new DVD for $20 and rents it 15 times at $4/rent, that is Blockbuster walking away with a 300% return on the investment.

For new movies, Blockbuster are more likely paying $120-200 per disc. I remember trying to order a movie that hadn't quite been released on video to buy yet (can't remember which one) and the people in tBlockbuster said I could have it if I paid the 'rental store' price for it, which was about £80 at the time! They only drop the price once they've advertised a consumer release for purchase.

CheapDVD and free movies.

[BenTheDewpendent]

Are they or are they not concerned with piracy?
buy the dvd cheap cause it will only play for a few hours. Then proceed to watch it then rip it or rip then watch as many times as you want. If they are tying to slow the pay-per-view industry its gonna have to cost something like 4 bucks a disk. This to a pirate is most likely going to be well worth it. Once our pirate friend makes his rip he can then distrubute it via p2p and friends for free.

Re:DivX is not the best comparison...

[DragonMagic]

Actually, no, this is not correct.

DVD and VHS are different in the respects of licensing. With VHS, Blockbuster made a deal with many of the studios to give them a portion of rentals (I do believe, though, that late fees and previously viewed purchases are not included) and a guarantee on titles that are anticipated to be high rentals but low sales that they'll be priced for rental chains only. That is why you see some video, still today, as $100 titles when they first arrive, instead of the $20-$30 they are in places like Best Buy.

However, such deals do not exist with DVDs. Movie studios do not get a portion of rental fees, so there's no incentive for them to market any for rental chains first. What's the purpose to pricing them at $100 on release if the video stores will keep all the funds, instead of sharing the loot like VHS?

Plus, I still haven't seen a case precedence where renting a physical media such as VHS or DVD was illegal when there was no license purchased to rent them. Isn't there a case precedence already for software companies suing the public library system in the US for lending out software for free?

Misuse

[jaavaaguru]

I'm sure people will buy these no-return-rental [tm] DVDs and make their first play a rip, then play back from DivX as often as they like. Since it will run on a normal standalone DVD player, there is nothing else the supplier can do to ensure it only gets played once. Anything that someone says can be played once, will always have people flocking to prove otherwise, just like Oracle saying that their database system was unbreakable, people tried hard to prove them wrong. The manuafacturer of these DVDs will be able to use the "surprisingly" (well, for the industry people anyway) high sales to prove that people like this way of doing things, and will eventually loose out because they're charging rental prices and putting people off buying the full versions which they actually make money off.

Warner Brothers = cheap

[LetterJ]

I read an article in the paper this week that pointed out that Warner Bros Studio is irritating many other studios with their pricing strategy. WB wants regular DVD's to become impulse items like magazines and priced accordingly. They are already pricing new titles at $15US and many at $10US. If WB keeps up this strategy, it'll be pretty hard to sell a one-view DVD for $2US when many full DVD's are only running $5-7US.

Re:DivX is not the best comparison...

[mosch]

Sorry, but you're wrong.

VHS has rental pricing and regular pricing, with the rental version being released earlier, and actually being made of higher quality tape. DVD only has one pricing model, so Blockbuster gets those DVDs for whatever the wholesale price is for each disc.

Re:DivX

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd pay cheap prices for a DVD that I can only rip once.