Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media DRM Displays

DreamWorks Animation CEO: Movie Downloads Will Move To Pay-By-Screen-Size 347

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the uh-huh dept.
Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head of Dreamworks Animation, speaking at the Milken Global Conference in California, opined that the future pricing model for movie downloads will revolve around screen size. In his view, larger screens will incur larger download prices. As he says, 'It will reinvent the enterprise of movies.' Unclear is how physical dimensions, rather than just resolution matrix, will be determined. Will we soon be saying 'hello' to screen spoofing?" Can you fake the physical dimensions reported in the EDID block when the connection is using HDCP? Aside from the implication that this would mean more DRM (and seems pretty unworkable, but with the rise of locked bootloaders on even x86 hardware...), the prices he predicts seem alright: "A movie screen will be $15. A 75-inch TV will be $4. A smartphone will be $1.99."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DreamWorks Animation CEO: Movie Downloads Will Move To Pay-By-Screen-Size

Comments Filter:
  • by Kenja (541830) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:26PM (#46881285)
    Any video switching equipment for HDMI/DVI will often use a small device such as Gefen's HDMI Detective to store the EDID of the screen and convince the video source that it is always connected. It would be trivial to store a "fake" EDID in such a device that reports a smaller screen.
  • by jones_supa (887896) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:39PM (#46881521)

    Can you fake the physical dimensions reported in the EDID block when the connection is using HDCP?

    Yes. The EDID block is not encrypted.

  • by Khashishi (775369) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:44PM (#46881619) Journal

    Jeffrey Katzenberg might have said "you pay for the size", this does not mean he explicitly meant physical dimensions and not resolution. This suggestion was added in by the article submitter to make him sound more idiotic than he probably is. I'm sure if you were actually talking to Katzenberg and you pressed him on the issue, he would clarify that he used the term size as a proxy for a combination of resolution and compression quality which one would expect for a TV vs a cellphone.

  • Re:Pay per pixel? (Score:5, Informative)

    by darkshot117 (1288328) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @01:58PM (#46881827)

    Except more and more phones are higher resolution then most HDTVs already. A lot of people will have a 55 inch TV at 1080p but a smartphone with 1440p at least in just a few years. So paying per pixel or per size is pointless as neither tells you anything...

  • by Noah Haders (3621429) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @02:11PM (#46881995)
    look, it goes back to the idea of charging a fair price to see a movie. for me, a fair price to see on a phone will be less than a fair price on a tv will be less than a fair price at a theater. As a consumer, it sucks for me if the price for a movie is equal across all media, because it never fits my percieved value. another example of context. what's the value in reading your comments - none. what's the value in my comments? high. so if dice charged a flat fee then the customer may be disappointed depending on if he read your comment or mine. that is why the slashvertising model works best.
  • Re:Projectors? (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @05:17PM (#46884125)
    Can I just take a moment to say how glad I am that you didn't abandon the site after the beta debacle? It's a joy matched only by the fact that girlintraining did.

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Working...