DVDs that self destruct

December 2, 2004 9:16 AM

When technology falls into the wrong hands...After 48 hours, the DVD expires and turns black. "The viewing window begins when the consumer opens the package and exposes the Flexplay DVD to air. A Flexplay DVD can be watched as many times as a consumer wants during the pre-set viewing window." More here, here, and here.
posted by thisisdrew (76 comments total)

The Hassle of renting DVDs? Oh, The Humanity!
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:17 AM on December 2, 2004

DVDs that no one will buy.**

**Note: hyperbole. Of course someone will buy them. People used WebTV.
posted by cortex at 9:18 AM on December 2, 2004

Since I live in an airless vacuum, I can watch them as many times as I want! Take that, Flexplay!
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:20 AM on December 2, 2004

Yeah, nobody will buy them, but I'd have to imagine that Netflix is all over this shit right now. Cut down 1/2 of their shipping expenses.
posted by Swampjazz! at 9:20 AM on December 2, 2004

Didn't they try this a few years ago? Didn't it go over as well as DIVX?
posted by bshort at 9:25 AM on December 2, 2004

Seriously, though, what's in these things? How does it work? I have nightmare visions of one breaking open and spilling some hideous inky nightmare goop all over the delicate inner workings of my DVD player.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:25 AM on December 2, 2004

("Nightmare" is one of my favorite words, just so you know.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:26 AM on December 2, 2004

I think it's great for rental - not having to return the things anymore - however, the environmental aspect bothers me a bit. While, I'd always thought that late fees were a big profit maker for video stores, but this article says nope, only 11% of profit is from late fees.
posted by jim-of-oz at 9:31 AM on December 2, 2004

I pray that once again this’ll be a colossal failure. I wonder if they’ll be designed not to play on computer DVD readers.
posted by Tenuki at 9:31 AM on December 2, 2004

fOb, no "nightmare goop"...read the "how stuff works" article here.

kinda neet, though i'd love to find a way to defeat the process. oops, is that the MPAA i hear a-knockin'? [runs]
posted by retronic at 9:32 AM on December 2, 2004

Give me convenience or give me death. Or give me death after my demands for convenience have depleted all available resources.

(I would relish ripping one of these before it turns sour and then sharing it).
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:32 AM on December 2, 2004

I see them all the time at the local 7-11. I always wondered, with all the greasy hands looking at 'em throughout the day, what's gonna stop someone from poking the package and starting off the DVDs death march.

(By the way, they're not enclosed in your normal everyday DVD case. It's just packed in a blister pack, with part of the DVD exposed.)
posted by icontemplate at 9:34 AM on December 2, 2004

I'm working on developing a small vaccuum chamber, just the right size for a DVD player, if anyone's interested...
posted by Doohickie at 9:41 AM on December 2, 2004

Unfortunately the article is subscriber (fee) protected, but TIME ran the best inventions of 2004 last month. One of these was a thin, clear film which one could apply to the readable surface of a compact disc to protect it from scratches.

I don't know how permeable it is, but I would assume that if you could get it on fast enough, or do so in an oxygen-free environment (ziploc bag waldos, anyone?) you could grab cheaper digital video discs this way.
posted by Captaintripps at 9:43 AM on December 2, 2004

um, they claim they're recyclable...and Lexan (if they be made of such, as "real" DVDs are) IS one the most recyclable plastic in existence, but how many of them are really going to get recycled?
As Dead Kennedys once said: "Give me convenience or give me Death!"
posted by Al_Truist at 9:46 AM on December 2, 2004

48 hours? Plenty of time to rip it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:46 AM on December 2, 2004

It's an oxidation reaction, so the life of the DVD can be
extended by keeping oxygen away from it while you are
storing it. Flush a largemouth glass jar with CO2, or freon,
or argon, or shield gas (whatever you have around), drop the
DVD into it, and apply the metal lid. Then it will only age
when it is in the player.
Placing your DVD player into a vacuum chamber could be
kind of hard on your electrolytic capacitors. And remember
that heat dissipation is serious problem without convective
circulation of air :-)
posted by the Real Dan at 9:47 AM on December 2, 2004

damn you, mayor curley

too much time in preview limbo, and you get your witticism snatched!
posted by Al_Truist at 9:48 AM on December 2, 2004

I had one of these as a promo thing for the last James Bomb movie... "this disc will self-destruct" and all that. And so it did. If only all copies of "Die Another Day" had that feature....
posted by muckster at 9:50 AM on December 2, 2004

They started this years ago with beer. It used to be that it wouldn't go flat once it was opened. Now you only have so much time to finish one after opening.
posted by flarbuse at 9:52 AM on December 2, 2004

I think this technology would be appropriate for any movies released by former SNL cast members or American Idol cast-offs.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:53 AM on December 2, 2004

Yes, this technology would be good for movies that suck.
posted by sleslie at 9:59 AM on December 2, 2004

I wonder if these CD skin thingys might help...
D-Skin
(Flash)
I don't know if the seal is air tight, or know if the disc degrades once exposed to air or if it need continuous exposure, but it's a possible hack.
posted by grimcity at 10:02 AM on December 2, 2004

While, I'd always thought that late fees were a big profit maker for video stores, but this article says nope, only 11% of profit is from late fees.

Actually it's in reference to revenue, not profit.

/picky
posted by anathema at 10:05 AM on December 2, 2004

I wonder if the reaction needs oxygen throughout; if so, couldn't you simply cover the DVD with some spray gloss stuff and keep the DVD forever? Flexplay, meet Krylon.
posted by fleacircus at 10:06 AM on December 2, 2004

While, I'd always thought that late fees were a big profit maker for video stores, but this article says nope, only 11% of profit is from late fees.

Hmmm, I thought the idea was to make money... If your profits decline 11% because you decide to switch technologies your stockholders would hang you from your thumbs until the crows pecked out your eyes, my friend.
posted by sic at 10:07 AM on December 2, 2004

yes but you'd make money on all the videoes you wouldnt have to replace.

maybe not 11% but if we have the technology we better use it
posted by criticalbill at 10:29 AM on December 2, 2004

Placing your DVD player into a vacuum chamber could be
kind of hard on your electrolytic capacitors.

The Real Dan- whyzzat? Great post.
posted by fake at 10:31 AM on December 2, 2004

I have to admit that there is one circumstance under which I would buy this. If they released flexdiscs for movies the same day (or within a week or so) of their release in theaters, I would be all over that. Invite over a few friends, buy a couple six-packs, crank the surround sound, and it's the ideal release-night party. Cheaper than a trip to the theater, and a lot of other bonuses, too.

But with the potential for guarantee of piracy, this isn't gonna happen anytime soon..
posted by Plutor at 10:33 AM on December 2, 2004

whyzzat?

leakage. sudden explosive container failure. silly things like that.
posted by quonsar at 10:36 AM on December 2, 2004

Interesting technology, but kind of a moot point since late fees are become obsolete with Netflix and all. And while someone made the point that these discs could cut Netflix's shipping in half, I bet their manufacture costs more than a return envelope.

Also I love how they justify the environmental cost. "Any drive to the video store to return a movie does take an environmental toll, so eliminating this trip definitely adds to the plus column for Flexplay's effect on the environment." Oh, please.
posted by fungible at 10:37 AM on December 2, 2004

Yeah, nobody will buy them, but I'd have to imagine that Netflix is all over this shit right now. Cut down 1/2 of their shipping expenses.

Wouldn't it also exponentiate their production costs, since instead of recycling the DVDs they have to be recreated? Coinsidering that Blockbuster doesn't even use mail as a return system, the cost already being on whoever has to drive it back to their store, how is this profitable?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:42 AM on December 2, 2004

I wonder if it would react with the oxygen in water? If not, just store your cheap dvds in a bucket of water, or Fruit Punch for fun. Also, the layer that reacts with oxygen must be removable somehow - vcr cleaning fluid or Coca Cola?
posted by password at 10:42 AM on December 2, 2004

It would probably oxidize much faster in water, much as iron does. Dissolved oxygen in water is more effective than wandering oxygen molecules in the air.

Mineral oil would work though, but it'd be harder to wipe off.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:49 AM on December 2, 2004

If they released flexdiscs for movies the same day (or within a week or so) of their release in theaters, I would be all over that.

Exactly what Mark Cuban is planning on doing.
posted by anathema at 10:50 AM on December 2, 2004

I wonder if these CD skin thingys might help...
D-Skin
(Flash)
I don't know if the seal is air tight, or know if the disc degrades once exposed to air or if it need continuous exposure, but it's a possible hack.

Grimskin, that was exactly what I was looking for in my earlier post. Thanks!
posted by Captaintripps at 11:37 AM on December 2, 2004

Wouldn't it also exponentiate their production costs, since instead of recycling the DVDs they have to be recreated? Coinsidering that Blockbuster doesn't even use mail as a return system, the cost already being on whoever has to drive it back to their store, how is this profitable?

I've always assumed that if you are a large-scale renter/distributor on Netflix's level, you are paying more for the right to rent/distribute the DVD than for the DVD's themselves. But for these to be viable commercially the production cost would have to be super-low anyhow, assuming that you plan to sell/market them as a much cheaper alternative to regular DVD's. In retrospect, I think you're right, and any profit/loss would be marginal either way. But as something that represents another step towards "convenience" for the consumer I think it would be a very valuable marketing tool for them.
posted by Swampjazz! at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2004

Here's the fundamental problem with these things, and the reason why it irks some people (including me):

The rental model was based on the idea that there's this object that one person owns, that there are lots of people who want to use it temporarily, and the idea that the object is one-of-a-kind, in a sense.

This is why the rental model was socially acceptable. People understood the physical limitations of the universe, i.e., one object cannot occupy two spaces at the same time, hence, were able to participate without too many questions in mind.

The buying-something model also makes sense. You give someone money, they give you something in return, and then they leave you alone. You aren't involved with them any more, aren't in debt to them.

These discs, however, are only part of the rental model in name. They are not at all a rental, though. This is why people are bothered by this. It's got all of the baggage of the buy-something model, with all of the restrictions of the rental model, for no obvious reason besides increased profits. You can't justify it with an appeal to physical limitations any longer. It's not a rental, you bought it, and the renter is not out anything, and doesn't want anything more to do with you.

Therefore, when it vanishes in your hands, you feel cheated, just as you would if you bought a dog from someone, took it home, and later that night all you had left was a pool of fizzy jello.

People are not stupid enough, I hope, to believe this is a rental system. It's only a hopelessly-doomed way to force people to recognize the benefits of so-called piracy, by making it even more appealing to learn how to rip your DVD to some other format, or just copy it outright, which is becoming ever-more-popular with the dropping price of dual-layer DVD recorders.
posted by odinsdream at 12:00 PM on December 2, 2004

(This story previously made the rounds in 2003 and 2002...)

on preview: insightful comment, odinsdream, thank you.
posted by hattifattener at 12:06 PM on December 2, 2004

"...if you bought a dog from someone, took it home, and later that night all you had left was a pool of fizzy jello."

That would totally rock. I could have a different kind of dog every day and never have to feed it or groom it or take it to the vet!

odinsdream, you are a GENIUS.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:08 PM on December 2, 2004

your profits decline 11% because you decide to switch technologies your stockholders would hang you from your thumbs until the crows pecked out your eyes, my friend.

They hope to pick up additional rentals due to the convenience, obviously. Will they pick up that lost 11%? They obviously think it's possible.
posted by kindall at 12:13 PM on December 2, 2004

the real Dan: Flush a largemouth glass jar with CO2, or freon, or argon, or shield gas (whatever you have around),

Dan...have you been poking around my secret lair again? Can't a girl work on sharks with lasers on their heads without people making her argone all gone?

While, I'd always thought that late fees were a big profit maker for video stores, but this article says nope, only 11% of profit is from late fees.

I think that it's 11% of revenue. Either way, 11 percent of revenue *or* profit is still a very big deal.

Plutor: If they released flexdiscs for movies the same day (or within a week or so) of their release in theaters,....

I am totally in agreement here. Absolutely I would buy one of these useless damn things in that event. It's the only time I could envision myself using such a product. But I despise movie houses. They terrify me, serious panic attack, terrify me for some reason and so I never get to see movies until they come out on dvd/video whatever. (Downloading them and watching them on the computer screen is just not a time sink I'm willing to bother with.)

But other than the advantage of being able to see a new release while it's still a new release, I can't imagine that people are stupid enough to fall for this scheme. (Or I certainly hope they aren't.)
posted by dejah420 at 12:27 PM on December 2, 2004

They hope to pick up additional rentals due to the convenience, obviously.

either that or they're so high on the "cost control is victory, victory is life" cult-mojo they can't do arithmetic anymore...
posted by Vetinari at 12:37 PM on December 2, 2004

"...if you bought a dog from someone, took it home, and later that night all you had left was a pool of fizzy jello."

That would totally rock. I could have a different kind of dog every day and never have to feed it or groom it or take it to the vet!

Even better if your new dog likes jello.
posted by hydrophonic at 12:38 PM on December 2, 2004

hydrophonic totally wins.
seriously LOL
totally
dude even
posted by das_2099 at 12:56 PM on December 2, 2004

The response here puzzles me. Environmental issues aside, are folks saying that if the movies you have checked out now from Blockbuster (or Netflix, or whatever) simply vanished instead of having to be returned, that would be a bad thing? I see the psychological issues here, too, but that doesn't erase the convenience. Most new labor-saving devices are lauded here.

The motivation for renting movies at all is that you pay a few dollars to watch something once or twice in a short period, rather than $20 to buy your own copy to keep forever. You can argue that this isn't economical in the long run, I suppose, but I'd be surprised if anybody here hasn't found it desirable to rent movies in the past. The consumer-end economic issues should be the same here, except for the labor saved by not having to return the videos.

Mind you, a 48-hour viewing period sucks when you just got your wisdom teeth out and can't just get 10 movies at once to watch over a week.
posted by rustcellar at 1:32 PM on December 2, 2004

"Forget to return "Battlefield Earth" for a week, and you'll pay more in late fees than the DVD is worth."

hmmmm
posted by ba3r at 1:40 PM on December 2, 2004

rustcellar, you're not renting this from blockbuster, you're buying it at a lower cost, and they're telling you it's a rental. It doesn't vanish after you're done with it, it has artificial limitations that make it useless after a time. It's a nice little gimick, but that's really the extent of it.
posted by odinsdream at 1:41 PM on December 2, 2004

And it's environmentally irresponsible. Just because they're recycleable doesn't mean they don't impact the environment. The extra impact to actually manufacture these things, including the special oxygen-sensitive chemical, is not trivial, and cannot ever be fully recouped by simply hoping most people return these to whatever specialized recycling plant is necessary to process them safely.

I'm so sorry I don't understand what Preview is for, everyone. Someday I'll learn.
posted by odinsdream at 1:43 PM on December 2, 2004

odinsdream, as I said, I understand the environment concerns, and on those grounds this is a bad thing.

I don't see what the difference is, however, between buying a time-limited product at lower cost and renting. The consumer experience is exactly the same. And that experience is one that we've all deemed economically sound, since we've all rented movies.

Throwing the disk in the trash (or making a stack to send recycle) is less work than returning it, so I fail to see how there isn't a net benefit to the consumer.
posted by rustcellar at 1:56 PM on December 2, 2004

Netflix won't touch this. Partly it's because their customers would complain--sure, you're still getting the added convenience of not having to make a trip to the video store, and you can still keep the DVD as long as you want and watch it when you're ready without paying late fees, but it would ruin the Netflix business model, which is dependent on people (like me) who sometimes just don't get around to watching the DVDs they've rented for a while.

Under the current system, I rent my three DVDs (or more, if I've paid for a bigger plan) and watch them when I have time. If I don't have time for a while, I keep them, and Netflix doesn't have to send me anything. Sometimes I'll go a month or two without watching a DVD, which means Netflix doesn't have to send me anything (but they still get to charge my credit card). Netflix likes customers like me, and there are a lot of us.

If they switched to self-destructing discs, Netflix would have to send DVDs on some sort of schedule, or just whenever a customer requested one. I still might not get around to watching a DVD for a couple of months, but how would they know? I'd keep requesting more, and they'd keep sending them. I could have a 20-DVD backlog sitting on my desk--why should I care? Even if the packaging on one of the older shipments leaked, destroying the disc before I got a chance to watch it, I wouldn't lose anything but a space in my rental queue. And Netflix would keep mailing me DVDs every few days.

In addition to losing money, they'd probably get complaints from customers who wanted to watch a movie more than once, or stop a movie and continue it later. Too much hassle all around, as far as Netflix is concerned. Besides, they've got that deal with TiVo in the works.
posted by Acetylene at 2:06 PM on December 2, 2004

Uh, the point I started to make in the second sentence of my first paragraph is actually contained in my last paragraph. Somebody slap me.
posted by Acetylene at 2:08 PM on December 2, 2004

Add into the equation the loss of rentals from the people who are returning videos and pick up a couple more, since they are there anyway.
posted by teg at 2:08 PM on December 2, 2004

Is this just a hit on pay-per-view? It seems that so many people have Cable internet and digital cable and such. Why not combine it a bit and offer a movie rental via the web? For example, I'd just go to a IMDB type site, login, set my start time and presto, the movie plays on my digital cable box via a temporary download of a digital copy of the movie. The movie is automagically put on my next bill.

Now, I can see this as being a problem with somebody hacking the cable box like a hacked tivo and causing all sorts of problems with this being a p2p service. I would welcome the ability to chose to pay a small fee to watch a non-newish movie at a time I want to watch it.
posted by Numenorian at 2:19 PM on December 2, 2004

I'm with Acetylene, I like Netflix because I can rent TV show box sets which typically contain numerous episodes with hours worth of viewing. It typically takes me a week or so of watching 1 or 2 epsiodes a night to get through a set. A disk that becomes unusable after a couple of days would not be a good thing.
posted by Justin Case at 2:20 PM on December 2, 2004

Yay it would seem that this could be easily defeated with a Nitrogen atmosphere and a couple coats of shelac.
posted by Mitheral at 2:52 PM on December 2, 2004

I don't see what the difference is, however, between buying a time-limited product at lower cost and renting. The consumer experience is exactly the same. And that experience is one that we've all deemed economically sound, since we've all rented movies.

I know it may not seem like it, but I'm really not trying to start an argument. It's just, there is a very large difference. It's the fact that you still have the product afterwards, and that while you have it, the renter could care less.

The difference is that when you truly rent something, you understand that the renter now has one less of them. You feel responsible for that object, since it's not yours, and if you destroyed it, the renter would be angry with you. You understand that if you return it, that means someone else can use it, and people won't be mad at you, so you have a social incentive to return it. You also know that the renter is trusting you. You could hop on a plane with your rented object, fly away, and it would be yours permanently, along with the conscience of your action. This device destroys all of that. It is not a rental, it's an inferior copy that artificially destroys itself, which you bought, and continue to own forever.

Compare to buying or renting a physical couch under the same model. When renting the couch, you would go to the store, pick out a couch, and wait for people to generate a molecularly identical couch from the one you picked out, for the cost of a few pennies to the manufacturer. The couch would be delivered to your house, placed in your living room, and then "operate" for 48 hours.

After 48:99:99, the couch would grow large metal spikes. It would still look the same if you ignored the metal spikes, but would be completely useless as a couch. It still sits in your living room, and if you wanted to get rid of it, you'd be responsible for doing so. You know that if you took the time to meticulously remove the spikes, you'd restore the normal couch you know is lurking right there beneath them.

To me, this is the profound difference.
posted by odinsdream at 3:53 PM on December 2, 2004

You know, you don't have to throw away the DVD's once they become useless! You could collect 'em... and do... things with them. Like what people do with those AOL discs!
posted by buriednexttoyou at 4:08 PM on December 2, 2004

It's only a hopelessly-doomed way to force people to recognize the benefits of so-called piracy, by making it even more appealing to learn how to rip your DVD to some other format, or just copy it outright, which is becoming ever-more-popular with the dropping price of dual-layer DVD recorders.

Do you have other solutions for content creators and rights owners? Those benefits you speak of also come with a set of costs on both a personal and societal level.

You feel responsible for that object, since it's not yours, and if you destroyed it, the renter would be angry with you. You understand that if you return it, that means someone else can use it, and people won't be mad at you, so you have a social incentive to return it.

Have you looked at the condition of most rented DVDs?
I understand your academic argument, but it just doesn't seem to play out that way.
posted by anathema at 4:22 PM on December 2, 2004

What's so surprising about this? Corporations play around with the shelf-life of their products all the time.

More on, nothing to see here.
posted by runkelfinker at 4:37 PM on December 2, 2004

Obviously, this is part of the vast conspiracy to encourage people to move to the moon, where DVDs will be kept on the porch with the milk.

I sense Karl Rove's hand/cloven hoof in all of this.
posted by mecran01 at 5:08 PM on December 2, 2004

Self-destructing DVDs? Aha, the Marxists 'll have a field day. Essentially they're slightly more expensive to produce than a standard DVD, but they're deliberately designed to break after a set period. (the EZ-Ds, not Marxists)

I guess this could conceivably be useful on, for example, review copies of highly-anticipated movies or other commercially-sensitive media that needs to be viewed by someone not directly within a company (say a beta version of a game going out to a localisation company who has to put together a script). But even then, it's hardly cast-iron security.
posted by RokkitNite at 5:25 PM on December 2, 2004

Do you have other solutions for content creators and rights owners? Those benefits you speak of also come with a set of costs on both a personal and societal level.

As if the designers of this device had the interests of content creators in mind? That's more myopic than you seem to believe my "academic" argument to be. This has everything to do with exploiting the rental model, attaching its name to something else, to increase profits while hoping nobody notices they're buying the same DVD they'd get at Best Buy in a boxed set, only slathered with chemical dye.

I want to make sure everyone's clear about my DVD burner comment. It was not an appeal to piracy in the true sense, that is, renting a movie, copying it, and then returning the rental. That's not what I'm advocating at all. What I am advocating is taking advantage of what you rightfully purchase, regardless of what some faceless person says you ought to do with it. That's why it's crucial to see this for what it really is - buying a faulty product.

As for truly supporting content creators - this is not what DVDs from major movie houses are for. If you're looking to support content creators, the best bet in the current system is to buy from smaller labels that have more civil arrangements with their authors. I'm not a big movie buff myself, so for me, this applies mostly to music labels, of which magnatune is an excellent option for a distribution model that fits my taste.

Whenever possible, buy directly from the artists/content producers. Easier said than done, I know, but you asked.
posted by odinsdream at 7:01 PM on December 2, 2004

they're buying the same DVD they'd get at Best Buy in a boxed set, only slathered with chemical dye

For significantly less than they would pay at Best Buy. That's the point here. People are willing to pay $5 to watch a movie at home for a few days. It's not as sinister as you're trying to make it sound.

(I agree with all your comments about motivations and distributor/creator relations, but that has nothing to do with the technology itself.)
posted by rustcellar at 7:55 PM on December 2, 2004

The only negatives I see with the destruction model is that I don't have the opportunity to rent longer with a fine. But I think this is balanced by the risk that I may accidently rent longer and have to pay a fine. Besides that the destruction model is much more convenient and I couldn't care less about the psychological aspects of my purchase. I just want to watch a movie dammit!
posted by drscroogemcduck at 8:11 PM on December 2, 2004

This could either be great or absolutely awful for me. My wife has a habit of renting a whole stack of weekly movies ("But Sweetie, it was a special deal!") and then not watching all of them before they're due back.

On one hand, if she didn't open the cover then she'd get to see everything that she rented. On the other hand, there's a very real possibility that either she, or our baby boy, would open the packaging and spoil the DVD before it was watched, leading my wife to rent it again.....

I'm so conflicted........
posted by bangalla at 2:50 AM on December 3, 2004

So, it's just like a normal DVD, but it has an extra, technologically advanced ingredient - and yet, it will retail at a fraction of the price of the normal one?

And no one is screaming about why the normal one has to cost so much in the first place then?
posted by The Ultimate Olympian at 3:22 AM on December 3, 2004

What I am advocating is taking advantage of what you rightfully purchase, regardless of what some faceless person says you ought to do with it. That's why it's crucial to see this for what it really is - buying a faulty product.

You seem to suggest that these DVDs will not be clearly labeled as having a limited shelf-life. I find that very hard to believe. Many goods are conditioned by contract/license (either traditional or click/shrink-wrap license or even by statute.

As for truly supporting content creators - this is not what DVDs from major movie houses are for.

It's not as cut-and-dry as that. Film makers do get paid by studios and/or investors. Yes, the studios want to make a profit, but there are many ways the creators recieve remuneration.

If you're looking to support content creators, the best bet in the current system is to buy from smaller labels that have more civil arrangements with their authors.

I know the horror stories in both the film and music business. But nobody makes someone sign a contract.

I'm not a big movie buff myself, so for me, this applies mostly to music labels, of which magnatune is an excellent option for a distribution model that fits my taste.

Magnatune, along with many other distro models is great. Some bands though are still looking for that big advance and to see their records in every single retail outlet in the universe.
posted by anathema at 3:50 AM on December 3, 2004

You seem to suggest that these DVDs will not be clearly labeled as having a limited shelf-life. I find that very hard to believe. Many goods are conditioned by contract/license (either traditional or click/shrink-wrap license or even by statute.

Not at all. I'm suggesting something much more controversial: Doing as you please with what you buy.

Look, if they want to discount the price of these things, that's fine. Attaching some kind of mental stigma to them is not. It might be a bad business idea, but that's not my fault. What will prove it wrong to them is not an argument, but profit loss, and that is definitely what they will suffer as a result of this. I'll glady buy these over their identical Best Buy sisters, copy them to a non-faulty disc, and enjoy what I bought.

I violate the law constantly when I watch DVDs I purchase on Linux. I am fully aware of this, but I strongly believe in my right to do as I wish with stuff I buy. I am not willing to accept the notion that everything I buy is only a license to use, under a restrictive set of terms, that object.
posted by odinsdream at 8:05 AM on December 3, 2004

I am fully aware of this, but I strongly believe in my right to do as I wish with stuff I buy.

You seem to not be able to recognize the difference between the physical container and the intellectual property within that container. Or maybe you do and just don't care about those separate property rights.
posted by anathema at 8:34 AM on December 3, 2004

odinsdream wrote: I am fully aware of this, but I strongly believe in my right to do as I wish with stuff I buy.

anathema wrote: You seem to not be able to recognize the difference between the physical container and the intellectual property within that container. Or maybe you do and just don't care about those separate property rights.

this reminds me of my one terrible year working for a digital music distribution company.

midway through my brief (and totally unrewarding) tenure there--as the "players in the space" [shudder] started rolling out robber baron-inspired licensing agreements meant to ape ownership rights--i decided that buying digital-only copies of music just didn't cut it. i want ownership, and a physical archive of my entertainment, damn it!

so count me in odinsdream's column in that respect. having said that, i don't have a problem with products aimed at a rental market self-destructing. apples and oranges, to trot out a weary old workhorse.
posted by retronic at 10:12 AM on December 3, 2004

You seem to not be able to recognize the difference between the physical container and the intellectual property within that container. Or maybe you do and just don't care about those separate property rights.

I won't be the first to suggest that the term Intellectual Property has no legal basis. There is no such thing. There is Property, which is physical, and there is Idea, which is not. Depending on which it is, you have different rights. There are no "property" rights for intangible objects. There are other rights, which are entirely different.

Some ideas are copyrightable, in which case, you reference copyright law to understand your rights. Then, there's this other thing that some companies would like you to believe exists... Intellectual Property, which, conveniently enough for them, gives them all of the benefits of physical property ownership, while at the same time giving them all the benefits of intangible ideas. And yet, this stuff really doesn't exist. It's either a copyrightable idea, physical property, or a non-copyrightable idea (methods, operations, etc.).

Physical property has always been distinct from copyrightable ideas for a reason - chiefly because physical property cannot be identically copied N times - this specific fact has far-reaching implications when you try to apply it to intangible ideas. i.e., "You're trespassing on my IP! / Give my IP back!!", which make no sense when applied to intangible ideas, though they of course make perfect sense in the physical world. Blurring this distinction does not benefit a culture that values ideas and property in distinct ways.
posted by odinsdream at 10:52 AM on December 3, 2004

Please see Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8 of the Constitution and the statutes and vast amount of case law to the contrary. Setting aside the semantics of the term "intellectual property" it's quite clear these intangibles are in fact treated as property both legally and practically. I would love to discuss this further, but probably not as a continued derailment to the original post. Email is in profile.
posted by anathema at 11:21 AM on December 3, 2004

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Alright, reality check. We're discussing DVD movies that self destruct after a certain time, rendering them useless to all. Progress? Promotion of Arts and Sciences?
posted by odinsdream at 3:45 PM on December 3, 2004

Actually we are discussing one physical embodiment of a movie. Art. I sec.8 is talking about the intangible property, not the container for that property.
posted by anathema at 5:27 PM on December 3, 2004

Reading this the first thing that struck me was "So why am I paying $20 for a less technologically advanced disc then? They're ripping me off!! I'm never buying a DVD again, until they are all $2."

Which is probably not the reaction they were hoping for.
posted by fshgrl at 4:21 PM on December 4, 2004